UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Wizard-8 I should admit that I have no idea how accurate this biopic is of the legendary Native American called Geronimo. It's probably just loosely based on the real events surrounding him, so I probably should judge the movie on its entertainment level. I thought for the most part it was an okay western. While I would have preferred a real Native American to play the title role, I have to admit Chuck Connors did well, giving his character an intensity and charisma that keeps you watching and interested despite the script problems. The script problems include the movie not really going deep in his character, and ending at a point that will make you wonder what happened in real life to Geronimo afterwards. But despite these and other script problems, I have to admit that I was never bored, so I'll give this movie a pass.

Chase_Witherspoon Chuck Connors is an unlikely "Geronimo", depicted here as a deeply principled traditionalist whose cunning and apparent reckless fearlessness leads his people to the brink of oblivion. This version (there are several films on the subject) concentrates on his time both on and at times off the imposed reservation following his surrender, with arrogant cavalry captain Pat Conway goading him into retaliation after repeated mistreatment and degradation of his people.More temperate types (pre-Batman Adam West as a uniformed pacifier) attempt to cajole Geronimo back to the safety of the reservation, culminating in a tense climax. Larry Dobkin, John Anderson, Ross Martin and Denver Pyle (20 years pre "Dukes of Hazzard", but still recognisable) have supporting roles, but Connors chews the scenery as hero, with Conway firmly painted as the antagonist (a charismatic actor, it's a great shame his career never reached its full potential before his untimely death).Not especially gripping, the atmosphere is typical clichéd Hollywood gloss and aside from some impressive horse-riding and wrangling stunt-work, there's little else to recommend.

moonspinner55 On the border of Arizona and Mexico in 1883, Apache warrior Geronimo surrenders himself and his tribe to the American Calvary in exchange for food and shelter on government land; naturally, the villainous, despicable whites sell the ground out from underneath the Indians after a greedy land baron sees they have turned the hard dirt into fertile soil for farming, leading to an unwinnable war between the fading Apaches and the U.S. Rather shameful script by Pat Fielder reduces history to textbook eye-for-an-eye business, not helped by a TV-movie cast and budget. Chuck Connors' Geronimo wages war on the Calvary men, though from what we can see it's really just Pat Conway's smirking Captain who's against him. Conway, decked out with an ostentatious neckerchief, unmercifully struts his way through this like a smug peacock...but at least he wasn't forced to wear a ratty black wig like most of his co-stars. Some good scenes, such as an impromptu chicken dinner at the house of a strict widow, almost makes up for the general lack of story and character development. ** from ****

Brandt Sponseller The film begins with Geronimo (Chuck Connors) "surrendering" by agreeing on a treaty that gives his Apaches land on a reservation in Arizona. However, things quickly go wrong while on the reservation. Geronimo leaves with a band of warriors and declares war on the United States. The majority of the film is the story of this war, told from Geronimo's perspective.While the script and direction are fairly pedestrian here (with the exception of a few fantastic shots of sunsets and landscapes), Geronimo works because of a number of excellent performances, including Connors, Ross Martin (as Mangus), Kamala Devi (as Teela), Pat Conway (as Captain William Maynard), and Adam West (as Delahay).The film is also surprisingly complex in terms of sociological subtexts. With one clear exception (having to do with a subversive sale of land), there are no clear "bad guys" and "good guys" here. Rather, the conflicts of the film are portrayed as resulting from cultural dispositions, duty and necessity. Each character or group of characters is responsible for some behavior that is a fairly serious crime (legal or moral) in the eyes of other characters, and each is seeking an improvement of their lot, mostly with a desire that the other parties understand their position better.However, there's no need to expect heavy-handed intellectualism from the film. On the surface, this is a quality western with a great deal of suspense, although perhaps too lacking in big battle scenes for some western fans. There are a number of smaller battles, but the focus is always on the strategy behind them rather than the battle itself, and in my eyes, that makes them interesting and suspenseful in a way that more clichéd action scenes wouldn't achieve. Geronimo is much more about a clash of cultures, and successfully spends a lot of time on Geronimo's relationships with Mangus and Teela. An 8 out of 10 for me.