ROTTEN TOMATOES: Battle of Little Bighorn: The Movie

Battle of Little Bighorn: The Movie

by Scott Weinberg | August 31, 2006

You learned about it in history class (if you were paying attention), and now you can see the movie. Producers Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy have acquired the rights to a spec script by newcomer Matthew Sand, which was based on the book "American By Blood," by Andrew Huebner.

From IGN FilmForce: " Andrew Huebner's novel "American By Blood," which chronicles the tale of three U.S. Army scouts first to arrive at the staggering aftermath of the battle of Little Bighorn, has been acquired by uber-producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall.

The novel follows the soldiers' journey as they are assigned to track down and capture Sioux leader, Crazy Horse."

Click here for the full report.

Related Items

Celeb:	Frank Marshall
	Kathleen Kennedy
Movie:	Little Big Man

(1-17 of 17 posts) | Reply

Mikeal420 writes:
on Aug 31 2006 05:32 AM

Looking forward to it, but please don't have Ron Howard direct it. For some reason I have this feeling he is tailor-made for this (and that is not a good thing)

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on Aug 31 2006 06:38 AM

Little Big Man already did a great job telling of Little Bighorn and Custer, although it was a bit light and it had a satirical feel. This could be deathly serious and graphic to be a counter to what has already been established. It should use the same style as Deadwood, and I would be there in a heartbeat. RIP Deadwood.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Aug 31 2006 08:10 AM

I think American Blood is perfect for Kevin Costner. He proved with Dances with Wolves and Open Range that he has the understanding and vision of that era to give such a movie just the right look and feel without sugar coating it.

(Reply to this)

chazbow writes:
on Aug 31 2006 08:41 AM

[b]Walter Hill[/b]
Walter Hill would be a great choice to direct this.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Aug 31 2006 10:19 AM

I was wondering when they would make a Bighorn movie. I live about 20 miles from it. It sounds like it could be pretty sweet, just make it R, and get a good director(like Walter Hill).

(Reply to this)

JaredLightstorm writes:
on Aug 31 2006 12:25 PM

In reply to this comment (#843524)
I have been fascinated by Custer's Last Stand since early childhood and i am now 38. I actually have some Custer memorabilia here in my computer room...lol Over the years i have seen every film that has ever been made that had anything to do with this battle and or Custer himself not only that but i own them as well as a lot of books on the subject. I even just finished watching the Custer tv series from 1967 so i am a fan to say the least....lol Little Big Man is an enjoyable film however it did not even attempt to tell the true story of Little Big Horn and it did it's best to make Custer look bad so it is not a very accurate gauge of history. If you want accuracy just watch or read Evan S. Connell's book or the movie Son of the Morning Star. I worry about any newer films based on this battle because it seems in this politically correct world in which we live these days it is proper to make Custer look bad whether it be truthful or not. I don't like revisionist history such as what the history channel special Little Big Horn The Untold Story would have us believe which is that Custer knew he was facing 4000 Indians that day and he went in anyway which is complete and utter rubbish as this goes against his m.o. in every conceivable way. Custer was a winner and he would never ride into a fight knowing full well that he would be decimated along with his entire command. Custer was a soldier and he would never want to go out that way because he had plans of becoming a Washington bigwig and possibly president one day. These movies and specials that come out these days always seem to want to portray Custer in a bad light or as some sort of a joke and it really sort of pisses me off. However the people that know the most about it know to take these things with a grain of salt but i still don't like what the general public's perception of Custer is these days. I hated Dances With Wolves and Costner although he does generally make good westerns needs to stay his revisionist ass as far away from a movie dealing with Custer as humanly possible. If they get a good director who can avoid the pitfalls of a film like Dances With Wolves it should be a rather interesting somewhat informative film and i can't wait to see it. Sorry about the little rant there but i do get nervous when people start talking about a new film dealing with this subject matter...lol

(Reply to this)

chazbow writes:
on Aug 31 2006 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#843527)
Absolutely. It must be rated R and have a strong director who knows Westerns. If they can't get Walter Hill, John Milius would be another very good choice. The worst thing they can do is hire some inexperienced younger guy and have another "Alamo" remake on their hands. I know that "Alamo" film from a few years ago would have turned out much better had somebody like Hill or Milius directed it.

(Reply to this)

raidersfan writes:
on Aug 31 2006 03:48 PM

[b]THE DIRECTOR THEY NEED IS.......[/b]
Clint Easwood of course,he knows his westerns, he knows his history(flags/fathers) and he's simply a phenomanlly talented director. If he made it i could see a hug box office hit and potential oscar contender for sure.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on Aug 31 2006 04:42 PM

Depends where they want to go, tone-wise. Since it's Marshall & Kennedy, heck, Spielberg might climb on board.

But if they wanna go light they hire Lawrence Kasdan or Ron Howard.

If they wanna go serious they get Walter Hill or (if they're lucky) Clint Eastwood.

Costner I'd put right in the middle, but I wouldn't complain if they hired him. ("Open Range" is good stuff.)

I say give it to someone younger who's still got something to prove. That Zack Snyder maybe.

Just keep Malick away from the thing. ;)

(Reply to this)

monkeyonaspring writes:
on Aug 31 2006 06:17 PM

All I can say is that Custer is a distant relative of mine and all I'd like to see is for him to be portrayed correctly and not ass some dumb asshole who got all his men killed for no reason. He was a bit naive but he was regarded as one of the bravest generals in the Civil War and the Indian Wars thereafter, not to mention being the youngest general in the war. I know he's not well respected but I prefer accuracy to opinion. Oh and please god make this an "R' rated film or else it'll just be a dud and not tell it how it is...

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Aug 31 2006 07:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#843528)
I agree. People think being politicall correct means you have to lie about the truth when discussing an opressed people, when politically correct really means ALWAYS being truthful.

Although everyone seemed to hate it, (I thought it was brilliant), Terrence Malik's the "New World", portrayed the whites and Natives very accuratly (although many of the historical details were complete Hollywood).

If you are interested in a movie that is so historically accurate on Native-American and European relations it would make any history buff cry, see "Black Robe" from Canada

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Aug 31 2006 07:48 PM

In reply to this comment (#843531)
[b]why put down Terrance Malik??[/b]
"The New World" was definetly not for the mainstream, but that didn't stop it's brilliance. God forbid a director would use scenery, thoughts, and music to tell a story rather than just conventional dialogue. Don't ever see a Stanly Kubrick movie, that's for sure. Film is supposed to be an artform apart from usual book and story narrative. It has the potential to tell stories through multiple techniques. Directors like Stanly Kubrick, Fellini, and yes, Terrance Malik are some of the few who understand this

(Reply to this)

kalabus writes:
on Aug 31 2006 10:15 PM

[b]I just hope those injuns are depicted as the blood[/b]
Injuns make me blood boil. They drink that fire water and shoot out my windows with arrows.

(Reply to this)

bakunawa writes:
on Aug 31 2006 10:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#843526)
[b]walter hill definitely[/b]
i agree with you. walter hill, no matter what movie he's making, employs the Western as his template for his storytelling. i think this will serve him in good stead for this
project. under no circumstances should ron howard (doesn't have the culture and/or mind set to do period films -- check out Far And Away), Eastwood (totally overrated and grimly simplistic) or Costner (sentimental and cinema-lite) come near the project. it would be a pleasure to see a movie about this military megalomaniac who bit off more than he could chew.

(Reply to this)

Scott Weinberg writes:
on Sep 01 2006 04:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#843534)
Thanks for the lesson in film appreciation. Doesn't really change my opinion that Malick is a supremely overrated filmmaker.

And if there's a Stanley Kubrick movie I haven't seen, please point me in its direction.

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Sep 02 2006 03:56 AM

they should get the screenwriters from "Deadwood" It's hard for me to watch a western now unless they talk in a very formal tongue laced with harsh obcenities. Whenever I see a classic Western and they speak like modern folk, I yell at the screen. The same thing happens when I see a film about Jesus now that is not in Arameic ( that film destroyed my appreciation for "The Last Temptation")

(Reply to this)

JaredLightstorm writes:
on Sep 02 2006 11:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#843538)
As much as i love Deadwood and i do think it is one of the best written, finest shows ever on tv(as a matter of fact i cancelled hbo after the series finale) with the lack of respect that Milch has shown for Custer throughout the show as well as on the Deadwood website where he refers to Custer as a "megalomaniac" i don't believe his team of writers could show the proper respect for a project of this magnitude. I realize that Deadwood is right on with the way people talked there and then but i don't like or dislike a western based on whether they curse a lot or not but on how good the story as well as the acting is so if i were you i wouldn't be looking for Deadwood in Little Bighorn. I also wonder just how big a part Custer and the Last Stand are actually going to take in this story. If it is basically about the discovery of the bodies and the subsequent search for Crazy Horse then we may not even see Custer or the battle at all which would be ashame. I would rather see the first part of the movie focus a bit on Custer then show the battle then move forward with the search. I guess i need to pick that book up....lol I believe Walter Hill would be an excellent choice for this because he could handle it with a sure, accurate hand and has a wonderful track record with his films in general. Clint Eastwood is an interesting choice as well but i wonder if he might perhaps be a bit to revisionist. I'd say Walter Hill was the best pick so far...lol oh and yes i do know that Walter Hill directed the first episode of Deadwood...lol

(Reply to this)

RottenTomatoes.com