Huron Propeganda?

Yeah, I just spent 10 bucks to buy "The last of the Mohicans"

I hadn't seen this movie in a very very long time.

It just occured to me though, after watching the ambush of the company of the 60th Regiment of Foot, and the ambush of the Fort William-Henry Garrison, that this film is a piece of Huron propeganda.

In BOTH battle scenes, not a single Huron is killed by a British Regular, Grenedier, or Colonial Militiaman. The Mohicans and two British Officers are the only ones to record any kills.

Also, what the hell is up with the british? A Huron jumps on a guy standing next to 6 or 7 other guys, and they just watch the huron kill the guy with a hatchet....this happens time and time again. They don't even use their bayonets in this movie....

what the hell....

It's simple, the movie's crap. The British were far better than whatever "Huron's" are.

They are an indian tribe that fought on Frances side during the French and Indian war.

First of, I love this movie but I agree that the battle scenes are lacking.
But when you think about it, this is the way in most movies.
Just look at LOTR, only ones actually killing anything is pretty much the heroes of the story while the rest die like flies. Don't know why they do this in movies.

Originally Posted by TB666

First of, I love this movie but I agree that the battle scenes are lacking.
But when you think about it, this is the way in most movies.
Just look at LOTR, only ones actually killing anything is pretty much the heroes of the story while the rest die like flies. Don't know why they do this in movies.

In War Club, everyone dies likes flies! Including the heroes!

Isn't this the movie where Daniel Day-Leiws plays the last Mohican ? Reminds me of "The Last Samurai", where Tom Cruise is the last samurai...

Actually his adoptive father is the last of the mohicans, not the white guy. I thought of it some time ago and remembered that at the end of the flick the old guy says that he is the last of his people.

@ Corporal Hicks
If you want to see a movie where savages are killed in drones and whities go unscathed, try watching everything else. If one movie where the order is reversed makes you squirm there may be some deeper issues at work. You closet racist! Yeah, I said it!

Originally Posted by JANOSIK007

Actually his adoptive father is the last of the mohicans, not the white guy. I thought of it some time ago and remembered that at the end of the flick the old guy says that he is the last of his people.

Oh that's right, I haven't seen that movie for a long time. By the way, I am the last of the mohicans(or at least that's what I tell women , chicks dig it when your the last of something).

Originally Posted by Tecumseh

Oh that's right, I haven't seen that movie for a long time. By the way, I am the last of the mohicans(or at least that's what I tell women , chicks dig it when your the last of something).

I am the last of Rusyns. For real. OK, there is like a million of us left. And only few thousand who think of themselves Rusyn. But by the time I'll be old, I may be the last self-conscoius Rusyn.

Originally Posted by JANOSIK007

If you want to see a movie where savages are killed in drones and whities go unscathed, try watching everything else. If one movie where the order is reversed makes you squirm there may be some deeper issues at work. You closet racist! Yeah, I said it!

Actually I don't think that was the point of his post.
I think it was more on why the soldiers didn't do anything when the guy in front is getting hacked to death. This happens many times in the movie. And why the heroes are the only ones that can kill in the movie and not proffesional troops.
Don't think it was a problem with them getting slaughtered, just their lack of action.
As I said in my previous post, this is common in movies.

Originally Posted by TB666

Actually I don't think that was the point of his post.
I think it was more on why the soldiers didn't do anything when the guy in front is getting hacked to death. This happens many times in the movie. And why the heroes are the only ones that can kill in the movie and not proffesional troops.
Don't think it was a problem with them getting slaughtered, just their lack of action.
As I said in my previous post, this is common in movies.

I am all for more realistic battle scenes and I understand that filmakers have to sometimes (always) manipulate that to get their heroes to a certain climax 'alive.' My comment was just a commical remark about the whole issue, however serious it was to begin with.

I have seen the movie (and it is one of my most favorite) and thought the exact same thing. I din't like the scene where the main Huron guy just stops chopin down brits and they just look on. Plus, I remember that few Hurons were killed in their charge. I remember that the Brittish organized a line and fired at them and managed to chop few of 'em down. BUT, I didn't disrciminate between Hurons or the valiant whitie. I just thought that the director was overdoing it in the department of villification of the villain. Also, I knew this wasn't the first movie to go this route and that there were far worse examples of this (i.e., ANY ACTION MOVIE- where heroes walk on water and their **** smells like rosemarry).

I really liked the last of the mohicans but I do agree, what's up battles? Dude with hachet owns dude with musket? Yea right...

In real life the column was unarmed and far from being a battle the attack was more of a continuous skirmish over a three hour period, with the natives mostly attacking the rear of the column where the wounded and women and childeren were, of course it would be hard for the movie to portray this accurately, i think they did a reasonable job, remember by the time the column is attacked the british troops are half starved and probably psychologically and physically devestated at thier defeat by the french. from what i've read there are conflicting reports on the number of dead. anyway its all in here.

http://www.mohicanpress.com/mo08009.html

Oh and the dad, the last mohican, he was Baddass at the end with that big weapon thingy,oo yeh.

If you want to see a movie where savages are killed in drones and whities go unscathed, try watching everything else.

That's funny, the opposite is true of "Windtalkers".

It's also the opposite in "Buffalo Soldiers", although the troopers were black with White officers.
It's also the opposite in any movie made after 1960....
but at least in these movies the kill ratios are portrayed acuratley with casualties on BOTH sides.

If one movie where the order is reversed makes you squirm there may be some deeper issues at work. You closet racist! Yeah, I said it!

It's not that they are slaughtered, as they were in real life, it's that they didn't even defend themselves. If you had seen the movie, I'm not sure you have, you'd know that it's rather odd to see a single Native American hack a guy in the face with a hatchet....shoot another....and nothing happens to him....even though there are about 20 other FRESH British Regulars. (this is the first ambush of the 60th Foot). They are then all killled, except for a few guys who get off with horrible wounds and scalpings. 18 dead. Luckily enough the Mohicans show up and kill all but one of the Huron war party.

During the Second battle, Natives just stream out of the woods around the column charging at 200-400 British Regulars, Grenediers, Colonials, and Mohawk allies. They seriously just jump on the british and hack them up while the other soldiers look on and do nothing.
Hardly accurate.
But hell, I'm a racist.

I love that movie. But you have to realize it's just that: a movie

I love that movie. But you have to realize it's just that: a movie

It's just crap though. I like the movie too.

If Sterling Bridge in Braveheart had been a swift victory with no Scottish casualties you'd think it was a bit crappy too.

decent film, from mise en scene.

Wow, I do declare rapax, I've been totaly exposed. I was just trying to be clever allright. In fact, I was only trying to improve my standing in your eyes as well. Well, I must say good man, that's some delectible detective work. I'm putting you up for a member award right away!

I'm sure I can do without membership in your club, thank you.

Are....are you serious? You....you got to be joking right? I just....I just....I just posted several pics from the movie taken from my DVD player......and eh, explained my displeasure with the movie....
I'll take it that your joking, even though no one is laughing.

Interesting. So you apparently you have the movie on DVD, yet you don't seem to know what is actually happening in it.

Wow, uh, that's sort of what happens when someone shoots a guy in front of you, you stop and look at him.

Your point being?

Okay, getting your rifle off your shoulder and actualy trying to kill your attacker are two seperate things.

Note to self: Hicks would not use his musket to kill attacker but....well do something else, unclear what exactly.

They are given 7 seconds after magua's SECOND kill...which is a pretty long time to just stand there if two of your mates get cut down right in front of you and the attacker is mere feet away. Surely you can swing your rifle or even fire at him.
Let's gauge the time shall we. ONE.....TWO....THREE.....FOUR.....FIVE.....SIX.... .SEVEN....
yup, anyone, even an untrianed goof could try and aprehend magua or kill him in that time.

We don't see what is happening in these 7 seconds. End of story. As said before, any further comment by you is pure fantasizing.

they're looking at him....."you're point"?

You said they don't do anything. They do something, which is turning towards the attacker and getting their muskets ready. Once again I point to my question: "what are they supposed to do in the space of 5 seconds?"
According to you some kind of super human ninja move should have been pulled by the british, I however doubt that that would have been realistic.

yet, the firing doesn't begin till 7 seconds later....no british fire on magua. And, since Magua survives this battle, it is safe to say no british soldiers attacked him in that time with their rifle butts either.

Fantasizing. Magua could have jumped into the bushes right next to him. Can I prove it? No. Can you prove your theory? No. You outrage yourself at something you can't see and what takes 7 seconds.

Who are you even talking to?

Yeah I wonder.

Oh boy indeed. Hurons may duck....but when they avoid the rifle butt every single time....then it gets a little outrageous.

Oh...a "little" outrageous. You wanna provide for us the many other ducking instances? There must be an awful lot to outrage you "a little". Should I post some pics from Gladiator or Troy, showing how scots or trojans slice into their enemies time and again and be outraged by it? You're showing us a choreograhed fighting scene, nothing else and there is no rule that says that one can't duck a musket blow.

Like I said, no shots from the british. Magua isn't killed, he survives without a wound. This means no british succesfully nabbed him. Which means either no one tried, or Magua succesfully outfought about 15 guys.........

Like I said, fantasizing. And yes, I am repeating myself because you are replying the same thing over and over again to several of my points. So you can continue to guess what happened, but you have no leg to stand on other than a mere theory.

Yet, 12 plus magua, plus lets say 4 (if any) others get away....your claims of the british being outnumbered are still rediculous.

Before the hurons actually close in there's maybe 10 or less of them left, after musket fire from the woods. Hence, being outnumbered. That the british were more in number (by maybe an amazing 2-3 men...) doesn't matter as the hurons picked off enough to ensure a superiority of numbers in close combat which is exactly what happened.

there are still a good number of closely packed surviving recoats in formation, that should be able to repel the hurons if they work as any british regular unit does...as a functioning unit.

Yes...a good number of 9 or 10, and so incredibely close packed. Their formation is broken by close range fire and while the british have to reload, the hurons close in. Hence I find your statement that this "functioning unit" of 10 men with large gaps between them and no bayonets are supposed to repel the hurons easily just because they're british regulars (which seems to be the main point of your argument) somewhat unrealistic.
Maybe you find it hard to believe, but not everywhere can the british be shown like in "Zulu" which I'm sure you love for all the display of amazing professional british soldiers working as a functioning unit.

not my point. My point being, they manage to just overpower profesional troops with such ease. Once again ducking under another rifle but.

I think you're overstating the professional bit just a tiny bit too much. You throw around the words "professional, regular, best trained" and what not, but it is of absolutely no concern. The british army was professional, not superhuman or unbeatable as you seem to believe. Their strength was battle drill and close formations, winning field battles, not ambushes and guerilla warfare in the middle of the woods.

Fine, show me some pictures of the british actualy killing some Huron's. At least i can find some supporting my argument of "It's rediculous to have no hurons die at the hands of anyone but the mohicans and the 2 officers".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So, the hurons are superior in close combat to the best trained army in the world at the time? No way do the british actualy train for hand to hand combat!!!! Not to mention, again, that they are in a defensive formation....

Best trained army in fire drill. And fire drill is amazingly important when ambushed in thick brush. Nevermind that having a bayonet mounted would be helpful for close combat. Did you know that the scots regularly managed to cut down british redcoats due their superior close combat weaponry and intimidating behaviour? Until Culloden of course, but that's not the point. So you should maybe distance yourself from that strange idea of undefeatable british soldiers. They've been defeated, numerous times, even in close combat and in situations where they actually had time to prepare. You however expect a small troop without bayonets to repel an enemy that's armed with close combat weapons and who's been using these weapons all his life. Maybe you're diluded by this idea of the awesome british redcoat and now that you actually see a movie that shows them not so gloriously, you just can't believe it and think it just must be a damn mistake and the movies fault, because, after all, british redcoats can never be defeated by anyone in anything.

Someone just suddenly became an expert on the North American Indian wars. Also, tell that to the 4 other members who've agreed with me so far.

I don't actually rely on bystanders applauding to one's ability to sway opinions. I've seen the movie and I liked it and I don't have to be an expert on north american indian wars to judge the portrayal of a battle.

Actualy...we do. We see again the back of the column as it marches on still, the only difference is the Grenediers break off and get into a firing formation, yet do nothing.

You see any hurons in these "back shots" ? Nope, thought so. Also, grenadiers can't fire at something that they don't see, hence...doing nothing.

Your point.....it also shows the british firing in the direction of a single Huron who manages to not get hit by any of the bullets.....

My point is, they fire, what happens due to the fire is not being shown, hence again you're fantasizing on assuming that no one is being hit. It's great that you count all the instances of hurons not getting hit, but again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Just beating you at your own game

Right... :hmmm:
Putting up a lot of random stills is not my game though.

I don't mind that they don't mow them down in their droves. I'm just a little annoyed that I couldn't find a single huron getting killed. I watched all the background fighters too, as the main characters run thru the battle field. I kept seeing the same thing over and over. A huron fighting a brit or colonial. The soldier taking a swing, or blocking with his musket, yet always getting hit and knocked down....

this is a good movie, but some of the most one sided combat scenes i've ever seen in my life.

The combat is supposed to be onesided, this is not a british glory movie as the likes of "Zulu", it is a movie that actually shows and backgrounds native americans and their part in this conflict and the battle sequences are some of the best choreographed scenes in any movie of this kind. The instances shown are simply situations that favor the indians and close combat is pure and simple something they are better at than a ragtag column of tired european soldiers. The superiority of european soldiers lay in their firepower and discipline, hence they were keen not to let native warriors close in with them to overwhelm them with superior close combat abilities.

BTW Rapax, weren't you the guy whining about how unrealistic Saving Private Ryan was...because the Americans managed to hold off all those Germans? Well, at least in that movie, most of the americans....all but 2 in fact....ended up dying in that battle.
Hypocrasy? I think so.

I was waiting for you to bring that up. I can actually make a better case for Saving Private Ryan being unrealistic and in fact have done so already several times. Nevermind that contrary to Steven Spielberg, Michael Mann has no agenda to demonize the british or somehow lift native americans on a pedestal. In his movie there's actually good and bad on both sides and people with motives and backgrounds, not so in Saving Private Ryan and the battle scenes illustrate that perfectly. So you can call that hypocrisy for all I care, if you believe that 18th century british/hurons and WW2 americans/germans have any connection whatsoever. I am capable of judging movies independently you know, hence I fail to see why it makes me hypocritical when I judge two completely different movies in a different way.

Aren't the extras doing the thing that extras are supposed to do during a film? Staying still. The eye is drawn to movement. Everyone stays 'still' apart from the main character or point of the scene. We all watch what we're supposed to watch and the direction of the film can concentrate on story telling.

Rapax taking a lead and closing in on the finnish line.