User reviews

Without question, in its unedited form, SOLDIER BLUE is one of the most upsetting and violent films of all times, perhaps even THE most violent. This remains so, even though the film was released way back in 1970. And up until late 2006, you could only see an uncut version of this film via imports. Lionsgate Video, however, has rectified this.

Basically a fictional re-enactment of the infamous 1864 Sand Creek massacre in Colorado by the U.S. Cavalry on a Cheyenne Indian village and the events that lead up to it, but actually based on Theodore V. Olsen's novel "Arrow In The Sun", SOLDIER BLUE, directed by Ralph Nelson (of CHARLY and LILIES OF THE FIELD fame), stars Candice Bergen and Peter Strauss as, respectively, a Cheyenne-raised white woman and a disenfranchised U.S. Cavalry officer who have survived a savage attack by Cheyenne Indians on an Army payroll wagon train and are forced to be together to survive, even as they disagree starkly on who is right in the white man-versus-Indian conflict. Eventually, of course, they start to fall in love. This gives a story that otherwise might be interpreted as an arguably pretentious attempt to link the Cavalry's atrocities of the past to the modern Army's behavior in Vietnam a certain amount of emotional validity. But it also leaves the viewer heavily unprepared for the incredibly horrific massacre that climaxes the film.

Even today, this massacre, a sequence of unbelievably extreme violence that involves hacked body parts, rape, and infinite bloodshed, makes SOLDIER BLUE very difficult for viewers to watch. In fact, when the film was re-released in 1974, much of that bloodshed was chopped off so the film could somehow get a 'PG' rating; it is that version that American viewers have had to put up with on video until late 2006. Apart from the brutal nature of that final sequence, the film's depiction of the Army as a bunch of bloodthirsty savages does not make SOLDIER BLUE an easy film to agree with--and contrary to what a previous reviewer said, I don't think it even comes close to being a politically correct movie. It may not be a masterpiece, the way THE WILD BUNCH or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN were (and they too were incredibly ferocious in terms of violence). But it's good that SOLDIER BLUE has finally made it to DVD in its original uncut form so that people can now judge its validity in whole, regardless of its politics or, even more, its enormously graphic finale. It is a film that HAS to be seen today.

What starts as a rather funny journey of Peter Strauss and Candice Bergen teasing and fighting each other, ends in a massacre of an Indian village shown in - for that time - very graphical and violent pictures, even a little gore. I like the movie because of the chemistry between both actors and find the mix of comedy and cruel war scenes not out of order - Little Big Man, starring Dustin Hoffman, coincidentally also published in 1970, got a similar mix. I guess the absurdity of war, the Vietnam War still raging, was one of the main impulses to make such a blend - how should one survive such mad times and still safe his soul without humor? Soldier Blue: funny and sad at the same time.

The movie talks a soldier (Peter Strauss) and a woman (Candice Bergen) abducted by Indians and now freed . Later on , they are attacked and will have to face off deal of dangers and taking on a cutthroat weapons smuggler (Donald Plesence) until a final massacre .

In this Vietnam-era Western there are noisy action , shootouts , fights , a love story , extraordinary landscapes and a big deal of gratuitous violence . The film is based on real deeds regarding ¨Sand Creek massacre¨ and there are some remembrance about Vietnam killings and hardship on racial themes by that time . The highlight of the movie , of course , is the Cheyenne massacre with lots of blood and guts , it results to be an authentic butchery and was censured , prohibited , cut , and severely trimmed in some countries . The motion picture is classified ¨R¨ for the cruel murders and isn't apt for little boys, neither squeamish . The violence of its Indian slaughters , in which seemingly every part of the bodies were slice off and blood fountained all over the screen , brought worldwide queues and much criticism in the newspapers . The picture achieved too much success , in spite of violence and crude theme and excessive final brutality . The ending confrontation amongst the cavalry and the hapless Cheyennes is breathtaking and overwhelming.

Peter Strauss interpretation as a naive and innocent ¨Soldier Blue¨ is top notch and Candice Bergen as a reckless and impulsive girl is magnificent . Robert Hauser's cinematography is excellent , the landscapes are glittering and spectacular . Roy Budd's musical score is atmospheric and imaginative . The motion picture is well directed by Ralph Nelson though he develops an extreme ¨exploitation violence¨ in the final episode . Nelson traveled around the world to defend the film , his biggest box-office hit , insisting that the violence was utterly necessary and it was sincerely meant . Rating : Good , though very criticized for gory scenes . Well Catching , 'a must see' for action-starved Indian Western buffs who will enjoy the action and strong themes .

I saw "Soldier Blue" quite recently on British Television. About 2 hours before it was aired, the BBC did a program on George Armstrong Custer, which dispelled the story of a 'Last Stand' using archaeological evidence: The Seventh cavalry made a cowardly dash for it when the Indians attacked. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on your point of view) the cavalry troopers and Custer were swarmed by Indians as they attempted to escape. Complete disorder swelled through the ranks of troopers. The last stand was more of a chaotic melee than a heroic action. Moreover the Indians were better armed, using repeating rifles whereas the Cavalry were using single shot Springfield carbines. My boyhood notion of Little Big Horn was shattered within a matter of minutes. I lost so much respect for Errol Flynn!!! But nothing, absolutely nothing could prepare me for what was to come later on that night. My watching Soldier Blue coincided with the climax of the tragedy in Soham, England. Therefore I was already upset.

The haunting opening song is a portent of a terrible tragedy. I got the feeling that something truly horrific was going to happen. It's a song that I won't forget for a long time. The film's two protaganists(Candice Bergen and Peter Strauss, a US cavalry trooper), escape from Indians who have attacked an Army wagon train(carrying amongst other things The soldiers wages). The subsequent storyline lulled me into a false sense of security. Bergen and Strauss begin to fall in love whilst deliberating about the plight of the Indians (Bergen feels they have been mistreated. She knows this. She had lived with Cheyenne Indians for 2 years. Strauss feels differently. His naivety does show...Great acting!!Well done Peter!). Actually I got very bored with this, thinking that the movie was turning into one of those slushy 'opposites attract' stories. But the introduction of Donald Pleasance as the sadistic gunrunner changed that. Strauss and Bergen are abducted by him. This point in the movie is important. I feel the tone begins to change. Those haunting lyrics returned to my head as I watched Bergen and Strauss attempting to escape from their abductor(respite is given by the sight of Candices' wonderful rear end). Strauss, being a soldier is obliged to burn the gunrunners wagon. The gunrunner has a large number of guns which he is going to sell to the Cheyenne indians. Bergen tries to stop him, but fails. The two escape and hide out in a cave. Bergen then leaves Strauss, possibly feeling that their relationship can come to nothing as she's due to marry another Soldier. She's found by cavalry scouts and brought back to their camp. Here she learns that the Cavalry troop are about to attack a Cheyenne village a few miles away. Coincidentally the village is the one she lived in for 2 years. She leaves the cavalry troop and heads straight for the village, hoping to warn them of the pending attack. This leads us to the finale. I won't describe it as I think it is beyond me. I don't think I can describe the effect it had on me either. Before this I had some idea of how the American Indians had been treated by the Europeans. The documentary on the ill fated Custer and his troop had only hinted at this type of treatment, and of course increased my capacity for cynicism.

The finale of Soldier Blue confirmed what that haunting song had hinted at. It's like nothing I've ever seen before. I was shocked beyond belief, and as an avid movie fan I have seen some shocking movies. Even the finale in "Don't Look now" comes nowhere near this. The director should be credited. He rams his point home (although some people may feel a little exploited). Forget all that nonsense about this movie referring to the My Lai atrocities in Vietnam. It's a poignant testament to human innocence(The Indians) and a disturbing testament to a successful act of genocide. Namely the systematic destruction of the native Americans.

I recommend this movie. Although it's not for everyone. The plot line rambles a bit at times. The photography is beautiful. Although some might think it typically 1960's. The acting is top notch. But it's NOT for the squeamish or faint hearted. Keep well away from this movie regardless of the fact that you bore the brunt of the opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

After a paymaster cavalry unit is slaughtered by the Cheyenne in 1877, a surviving soldier and Indian sympathizer team-up to get back to the nearest fort (Peter Strauss and Candice Bergen). The young man struggles with contempt for what he considers a treasonous attitude along with his growing affection for the brash woman. Then he sees the awful truth firsthand.

"Soldier Blue" (1970) is an entertaining, but odd Western. At heart, it's a fun romance between a patriotic military man and a profane "free-spirit" who is able to survive the challenges of the American wilderness precisely because she has shed Victorian inanities. This is bookended by a Cheyenne-led massacre on a non-threatening cavalry group and the military massacre of a peaceful Cheyenne camp, filled with women and children. The latter is obviously based on the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864.

I respect that the movie shows how massacres happened on both sides, but it stacks the deck against the Caucasian militants by showing them butchering women & children and not vice versa.

The opening Indian attack ensures that the viewer's sympathies are with Honus (Strauss, the eponymous 'Soldier Blue'), so you travel the same journey as him: At first, regarding the Indians as bloodthirsty savages who have no qualms about committing mass murder and abusing corpses if it'll help them acquire firearms but, ultimately, ending up with the revelation that Honus' 'tribe' can be just as barbaric when fitting, and even more so.

Barbaric attacks applied to both uncivilized First Americans and more civilized New Americans, but more so with the former, which is documented. Since the 1960s-70s there has been an overemphasis on the injustices committed by the US military or militants/settlers and we get a handful of examples: Wounded Knee, Bear River and Sand Creek (the latter being what this is loosely based on). Yet we never hear the other side of what provoked these events, including the atrocities that First Americans committed against New Americans. We never hear of the Dakota "War" of 1862 where Santee Sioux went on the warpath murdering between 600-800 settlers, which constituted the largest death toll inflicted upon American civilians by an enemy force until 9/11 (civilians, not soldiers); The Ward Massacre; The Nez Perce uprising, which killed dozens of settlers in Idaho and Wyoming; and the Massacre at Fort Mims. We never hear of the countless innocent settlers (not soldiers) who were murdered by bands of young "warriors": While a chief was signing a peace treaty on the tribe's behalf, they were out robbing, raping and murdering.

In short, it's easy to be pro-AmerIndian sitting on the comfort of your sofa, but not so much when you & your loved ones are threatened with gross torture, rape and slaughter in the wilderness.

The Euro-settlers wanted the land and resources while the AmerIndians craved the valuable technology of the New Americans. Both sides used treaties for peaceable relations while still trying to get what they desired when war was too costly. Both opted for combat when deemed necessary.

I should add that the real military leader who ordered the attack on the Sand Creek camp in southeast colorado, John Chivington, wasn't even an Army officer, but rather a self-appointed head of militia in the Colorado Territory during the Civil War when most capable men were away fighting for the Union in the East (remember, the real Sand Creek Massacre happened during the Civil War, not in 1877). The atrocity Chivington & his men committed at Sand Creek was separate from the US Army and not typical of government policy. In the immediate aftermath, Captain Silas Soule, an officer of the First Colorado Cavalry, condemned it as an unjust and savage massacre executed on a peaceful camp.

I'm part Abenaki and love American Indian culture, but the Leftist whitewashing of Indian atrocities and the corresponding revisionist history is deceitful and unbalanced. "Soldier Blue" is guilty of this to a degree, but features enough balance to make it worthwhile (as opposed to the grossly dishonest "Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here" from 9-10 months earlier). It's entertaining and offers equilibrium concerning the Indian Wars even though its sympathies tend to be with the First Americans.

The film runs 1 hour, 52 minutes, and was shot in Chihuahua and Sonora in northwest Mexico.

GRADE: B.

I still remember seeing this in the cinema at barely legal age. It profoundly affected me. From what starts as an ordinary western, ends in scenes so shocking it left me dumbfounded. But this really was how the west was won - in blood and slaughter. For me this was an awakening to the power of cinema in general and its power to both shock, educate, entertain and bewilder. This is not a film you will forget easily. Fifty years later it still resonates.

Soldier Blue (1970)

Make no mistake, this is no masterpiece. But it reveals a lot about movies of the period, and about attitudes toward Native Americans and the Wild West. It's not terrible, and in some ways it's so disturbing by the end it makes a rare point. If you like these themes, and can tolerate some awkward and awful social politics you'll get something from it.

The whole movie begins with the acting of television (and the director, Ralph Nelson, is mainly a television guy) but it's completely widescreen, bright color, cinema stuff, and it grows into that over time. The star is a surprise, in a way, Candice Bergen, still alive and well and acting fifty years after her debut a few years before this movie. She's known for a range of roles, from a secondary role in "Carnal Knowledge" to the defining "Murphy Brown" for t.v. She plays a tough woman, smarter and stronger than the man she is forced to go through the wilderness with after surviving an Indian attack. And she's way more contemporary than you might expect from other sources and movies of the same period.

To be sure, this is a comedy overall. This relieves it of a lot of criticism about its unrealistic tone and pace. But this comic element is layered with a brutality and frankly honest depiction of the time that is valuable. And the way it is filmed, with lots of long lens shots from a far distance zooming in on the main characters, is interesting, too. In all, it's a better film in the details than in the overall effect.

If Bergen is kind of wonderful (even if her role is anachronistic), the male lead played by Peter Strauss is strained. He tries to be charming and yet comes off goofy. Yes, this is a comedy, but he lacks some kind of depth that we need to go along with his silliness. Ultimately this is a lighthearted movie, but it also has a surprisingly serious edge which takes two angles. One is the way we see Native Americans. Bergen's open sympathy is clearly where we are meant to side, and it is pitted against the brutality and narrow-mindedness of the calvary.

The other is the military aspects, which seem to be a reflection on the U.S. military of the time, 1970—which means Vietnam. The senselessness of the killing and the blind military attitudes seem, at least on the surface, to parallel popular attitudes against American involvement in the Vietnam War. It was common at the time (as now) to use movies to speak to contemporary themes this way. Near the end, the flag is thrown to the ground in disgust and there is a long, truly brutal, and frankly disturbing battle scene.

This is not, perhaps, a deeply thought out movie, but there's more going on here than its slim reputation lets on. In a way, the light silliness of the first hour and a half makes the ending all the more horrifying and memorable. Highly disturbing to the point of almost seeming abusive. This is where the freedoms of New Hollywood are trying to still find their footing.

See this and be prepared for the last scenes, including the oddly cheerful minute or two before the epilog. Figure it out, maybe, but at least experience it openly.

As released in the UK, this movie pushed the limits of movie violence to the virtually unwatchable. People literally were sick in the theatres. I saw the movie several times in the theatres and on video. It lost none of its impact on repeated viewing. My research indicates that since the movie depicted the massacre of an Indian village, it was thought not politically correct for viewing in unedited form in the US. It does show the horror of war in a most graphic way. I have not seen anything since that is even remotely close. The highly edited US version shows the power and degree of censorship that existed in the US. To my knowledge, the movie is still not available in the US in unedited form.

Don't want to write to much. I cant give this movie lower than 7 because it shows how the west was really won and it accuses the patriarchal Americans of today. But it had 0 entertaining potential. I tried to sympathize with the protagonist but i really couldn't. Also the plot was really slow at times and sometimes i was close to fall asleep. But like i said the ending was great and i don't have any point of criticism concerning the acting. After all it was a pretty good movie, that sometimes annoyed the **** out of me. I still recommend it for people that want to see some sad true stuff about American history. ( sorry for my bad English )

I cannot describe the impact that this film had on me. The warmth of the relationship that slowly develops between Honus and Cresta leaves you totally unprepared for the violence of the attack on the Cheyenne village and the scene hits you like a ton of bricks. I saw this film (in Europe) with my ex-wife and none of us could speak a word until we arrived back home, some 30 minutes after the film ended. An interesting variation to "How the West was Won" that I will never forget,

This Western film has two storylines in it. The first concerns a romance between a volunteer cavalry soldier (the blue soldier of the title) and a blonde woman played by Candice Bergen who had lived with a tribe of Cheyenne Indians. It is interesting because the character played by Bergen is strong and independent although the filmmaking is quite exploitative.

The second storyline concerns the November 1864 massacre of Cheyenne Indians at Sand Creek, and is quite graphic and horrific, although the special effects haven't stood the test of time. It is not said that the massacre caused a public outcry, that the responsible perpetrators were tried but ultimately got away due to a Civil War amnesty. The film got me reading the Wikipedia page on the massacre, and for this alone it was worth it.

The two storylines are linked, of course. The overall result is interesting and historically minded but dated, in terms of storytelling and sometimes forced acting. A recommended watch as an influential revisionist Western film.

Don't miss the beginning at any cost.Or else you would not hear Buffy Sainte-Marie's eponymous anthemic song (Yes this is my country,young and growing free and flowing from sea to sea...).The version of the song as performed here features a string arrangement not present in the original version (which is to be found on BSM's "she used to wanna be a ballerina",vanguard).This song is as moving today as it was 30 years ago,and when the singer implores "can't you see there's another way to love her?" it gains an universal meaning(not only American natives or Vietnamese as it was mooted at the time for the movie)

The movie is famous for the slaughter which ends it.Terribly realistic ,it remains impressive today and may repel some viewers.There's a very strong use of the score during these scenes.But most of the movie deals with the initiatory journey of a young naive soldier,"educated " by a woman who was captured by the Indians and had to live with them for a while.Candice Bergen's performance came aside as a shock at the time because she used to play frail young maids (Robert Wise's "the sand pebbles";Claude Lelouch's "vivre pour vivre" ) before.But there's a problem:her character is not really believable;just compare her with the heroines with a similar fate in Ford's movies :"the searchers" ,1956;"two rode together",1961..They are far from Crista 's outspoken and politically aware character.Actually ,it seems that this woman is a contemporary woman,with Joan Baez's, Buffy Sainte-Marie's or Jane Fonda's mind (in the late sixties)..

For all that,"soldier blue " is worth watching and superbly uses wide screen :the landscapes match Sainte-Marie's song.Primarily an intimate movie,for most of the time there are only two people on the screen.Hence the contrast with the violent finale.

Soldier Blue 1970. 99% of all westerns that followed Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch in the early 70s followed the same path of realism with its gore and violence. That said the parallels with the Americans in Vietnam is very real and powerful.

It's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, it looks so dated in its Technicolor blood fest and clumsy special effects.

Despite knowing of the film from my early teen years this was often spoken about for its depravity, how screwed up we kids were, despite probably none of us having never seen the film.

The two leads Peter Straus and a stunning Candice Bergen (I hadn't realised women shaved their arm pits in the 1800s) are both great, but the star of the show is Donald Pleasence playing a gun seller, wearing a pair of false teeth which mirrors Ken Dodd's gnashers for their over bite. Marvellous stuff.

6/10.

Semi-based on a real incident where American Natives got white-washed, this is basically an "exploitation" flick with pretentious acting from Peter Strauss, maniacal over-acting from Donald Pleasance (which he could be very good at), terrible acting from Ms. Bergen (who got better), and a Ralph Nelson as the director...what else can I say? One of the all-time hacks (even in his popular films the directing was the worst), but it does have an appeal that lingers. The plight of the Indians has never really been shown in that time period and having a beautiful WASP like Candice Bergen is perfect casting, but where's the script?

A 5 out of 10 (which is higher than the public and the critics gave it back in '70 (a good year for films - CATCH-22, HUSBANDS, FIVE EASY PIECES, M.A.S.H., JOE, WUSA, THE LANDLORD and many others), but if you get a chance it may touch you.

The western, out of all the film genres, is probably the lease prone to becoming dated. Films like Peyton Place and Saturday Night Fever quickly become relics from a different era but the western has remained comparatively unchanged. The violence is more explicit, the set design grubbier and (presumably) truer to life, but westerns from the sixties and earlier never really appear as dated as most other genres. So it's surprising how badly this controversial Ralph Nelson oater has fared since its release in 1970.

The soundtrack – Buffy Saint Marie's track aside – doesn't help; it places the film squarely in the late sixties, as does the strident attitude of Candice Bergen's hippy chick character, a white woman back with her people after being abducted by Indians. She looks as if she would be more at home on the rooftop of some university campus than roaming the plains of the wild west. She would probably be toned down if the film were to be remade today - at times you could believe Bergen is reaching for laughs that don't really belong here. Strauss, who with this and Rich Man, Poor Man had two (unsuccessful) bites at the apple, is largely unmemorable, although his character, the naïve and prudish Honus Gent, does grow as the film progresses.

The parallels with the US involvement in the Vietnamese war are blindingly obvious, and work better when they're not being shoved in your face. All the white folk are ignorant trash, whatever their social standing might be, while the Indians – despite a savage massacre of a cavalry unit early in the film, are largely portrayed as noble savages occupying a lofty moral plain unattainable to the whites.

No review of Soldier Blue would be complete without some mention of the violence that created such a fuss back in the 70s. Some of it still packs a punch nearly 40 years later, although more for its shock value than its goriness or explicitness. An Indian boy gets a bullet through the head, a squaw is beheaded, another squaw is raped and mutilated by marauding cavalry. Some of it – the beheading particularly – look almost amateurish compared to what can be achieved today, but it must have been gut-wrenchingly shocking to an audience back then.

While riding through the Cheyenne territory transporting a safe to Fort Reunion and protecting the white woman Cresta Marybelle Lee (Candice Bergen), who had lived in a Cheyenne village for two years and sympathize with them, the twenty-two men of the cavalry are attacked by the Indians. Only Cresta and the naive, idealistic and clumsy private Honus Gent (Peter Strauss) survive, and together they walk to Fort Reunion, where Cresta is supposed to meet her fiancé Lieutenant McNair (Bob Carraway). Along their journey, Honus protects Cresta against Kiowa Indians, destroys the shipment of a trader of weapons and falls in love for Cresta, but he does not believe in Cresta words that the Cheyenne village is peaceful. When the cavalry attacks, he witnesses the hideous massacre of five hundred peaceful Cheyenne, more than half composed of women and children, and realizes that Cresta was telling the truth.

In 1970, I was in my first year of high-school, and my classmates and I went at least three times to the movie theater to see this fictional story based on one of the most hideous crimes of North America history, the Sand Creek Massacre on 24 November 1864, in this awesome and controversial motion picture. This movie rewrote the Western genre, in a period of Vietnam War, "peace and love" and "Billy Jack", and for the first time the Indians were disclosed as human beings and owners of a land invaded by the "white men". Further, the director Ralph Nelson does not spare the savage action of the cavalry, depicting the rapes, scalps, decapitations, mutilations and shots with gore in very graphic and impressive images. In that occasion, I felt in love for gorgeous Candice Bergen and her natural beauty in the best role of her brilliant career. At least in Brazil, this movie has never been released on DVD; I own a very rare VHS in my collection, released by Globo Video distributor. Unfortunately the edition is cut (it seems that somebody has censored the movie), reducing the impact of the violent scenes, and has terrible mistakes in the subtitles written by Maria Tereza Nocera, who translate for example "private" by "sargento" (sergeant in Portuguese) among other "atrocities" like the Brazilian title. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Quando é Preciso Ser Homem" ("When It Is Necessary to be Man")

As far as I know Colonel Iverson's attack and massacre on a Cheyenne village was a true fact in American history and this is what "Soldier Blue" is about. But with that as a final target director Ralph Nelson builds a most entertaining and enjoyable western as a rookie soldier escapes through Indian territory with a white woman rescued from the Cheyennes.

Candice Bergen and Peter Strauss play convincingly the main couple and Donald Pleasence is excellent as a colorful and truly nasty gun trader. On the other hand, I don't think Jorge Rivero was a good choice for the Indian chief simply because his all-gymnasium-built-physic doesn't fit here at all, but this doesn't really hurt the picture.

The final sequences with the soldiers attacking the Indian camp is really surprising for its incredible violence and sadism, beheading included (there's a pretty similar scene in John Ford's "The Searchers" but it is not as disturbing and shocking as this one).

A very good product in the genre.

I was just back from Vietnam and had my first date, it was the opening of Soldier Blue, in a theater on Hollywood Blvd. and it was uncut!, the last thing I needed after being a navy corpsman (medic) with the 1st Marines was a movie about war and graphic gore. It was brutal, bloody and way over the top. Candice was one of the loveliest creatures on the planet and lured me into a false sense of security and then was hit over the head with horror! After taking a shaken girl back home I was mugged by a gang of Mexicans and found 2 blocks away wandering in the street and brought to the emergency ward for treatment and stiches. Even after that( and having my lung ripped out in Nam) Soldier Blue was the nightmare that continued in my dreams.

Soldier Blue chronicles the adventures of Honus (Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen), the only survivors of a Cheyenne Indian attack, as they journey across the wilderness of the old west in search of refuge. Donald Pleasance has a memorable but all too brief role as an eerily sleazy gun runner who encounters the pair,( witness his enormous teeth!) 'Soldier Blue' encompasses A life changing journey that reaches a tragic climax as they bare witness to the cold-blooded slaughter of the Cheyenne tribe. Reflecting the political climate of the time, Soldier Blue is uncompromising in its anti-war stance and its extremely graphic and savage depiction of the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864. It is dated albeit slightly witness the all too bright red paint like blood! but remains an incredible allegory.

The first politically correct western-movie ever. Made with a political propagandistic view that destroys what could have been a pure 10. In my view socialist, political correct propaganda stinks - and is used far to much by the movie-industry, which is a non-honest way of evangelization.

This film seemed to bridge the epic cinematics of the 60's with the grit of the 70's. It was a portrayal of a stupid love interest wrapped in historical context... However, this film's dialogue is incorrect.

In the beginning scenes with Cresta and Honus (after the "socks" scene), Honus mentions that his father was killed at Little Bighorn. Cresta's reply mentions Custer. The Little Bighorn massacre happened in 1876. This film is based on events in 1864.

No one caught this?