Buffalo Soldiers

Plot synopsis:
Specialist Ray Elwood (Joaquin Phoenix) is a U.S. Army soldier stationed in Stuttgart, West Germany, in 1989. Bored with the lack of a war, he instead devotes his attention to black market deals, as well as cooking heroin for a gang of drug-dealing Military Police led by Sergeant Saad. As a supply specialist, Elwood poses as a model soldier and friendly confidant to his incompetent commanding officer, Colonel Berman (Ed Harris), who gives Elwood the opportunity to turn Army protocol to his advantage. Berman has no idea what supplies his subordinate is requisitioning or that Elwood is sleeping with his wife (Elizabeth McGovern).
Elwood's company then gets a new First Sergeant, Robert E. Lee (Scott Glenn). This new Top is both menacing and savvy, quickly assessing that soldiers like Elwood are engaged in graft. Meanwhile a tank crew, under the influence of Elwood's heroin, unintentionally kill two soldiers in charge of a weapons convoy by crashing through a gas station. Elwood happens upon the cache and steals it, hiding the trucks in a missile base.
Lee confronts Elwood about his abuses, and when Elwood tries to bribe him, Lee revokes all of Elwood's privileges, destroys much of his property, and makes him share his room with a new, naive and deeply honest soldier, Pfc. Knoll (Gabriel Mann), who doesn't fit well with Elwood's lifestyle.
To get back at Lee, Elwood pursues the first sergeant's daughter, Robyn (Anna Paquin), taking her out for the night and then deliberately having sex with her in his car outside her house, which Lee sees from his window. Though thinking he has won, the next morning Elwood finds his squad are doing weapons training, with Elwood's car used as target practice. Lee then leaves a hand grenade trap in a locker some soldiers have been using to hide heroin. The grenade explodes and kills Stoney, one of Elwood's friends.
Elwood sells his hidden cache of weapons to a Turkish dealer nicknamed "The Turk" (Haluk Bilginer) who will only exchange them for a massive amount of opium. Elwood reluctantly accepts and plans to cook it into heroin. However, a fight between Saad and Knoll occurs, and Elwood is forced to save Knoll and recruit the pair as assistants into his plan to cook the opium. In order to have time to trade the weapons from the missile base and collect the drugs, Elwood sells out Col. Berman, who is on an army exercise against another regiment. His unit's failure as part of the test ultimately leads to the colonel's dismissal. Berman, unaware that he has been betrayed, reflects ironically on this turn of events with Elwood.
On the night of the Fall of The Berlin Wall, Elwood sneaks to the base swimming pool to meet Robyn while the opium is being cooked. Knoll then appears with 1st Sgt. Lee. Here it is revealed Knoll is actually a 2nd Lieutenant from the Inspector General's Office disguised as a junior soldier in order to investigate Elwood. Knoll puts Robyn in a car while Lee beats up Elwood. However, Robyn tells Knoll that her dad is going to kill Elwood, something Knoll –  as an honest officer –  cannot allow. Meanwhile commandos reporting to Knoll attempt to arrest Elwood's partners, but Saad, intoxicated by opium fumes, provokes a bloody gunfight that kills many of the fighters. Lee attempts to kill Elwood by throwing him out of a window but Knoll holds him at gunpoint. The building explodes from a gas explosion in the basement, caused by burning morphine and the firefight. Elwood wraps his handcuffs around Lee's neck and draws him out the window as Knoll is engulfed in flames. Elwood survives by landing on Lee.
The film concludes with heavy irony. The US Army decorates Elwood with medals (Lee receives a posthumous Silver Star) and transfers him to Hawaii, where his new CO is just as naive as Col. Berman. Elwood states that Robyn remains his sweetheart and that she will be visiting soon. The film ends with Elwood requesting excessive supplies, implying that he plans to sell them on the black market again.

Tags: violence, murder

Review:
Pleased...not disappointed.
Picking this movie up from the library shelf, I didn't read anything on the box about it being historically accurate or factual so I didn't expect to get a history lesson by watching it.
For a one hundred minute made for TV movie I wasn't at all disappointed, and felt entertained for the time I invested in it.
Besides being filmed on location, it appeared a good effort was made in the uniform and prop department and it did not have a Hollywood look or feel to it.
I would recommend this movie to those who like westerns; and don't have an eye and ear for knowing it all, or watch movies for their political or social messages.
I did notice that their 1873 Colt's had the wrong frame for the time period, and the cylinders weren't beveled as they should have been, but I guess we all have to find fault somewhere, even us simple mined folk.
Watch it, and enjoy it for what it is..
"Buffalo Soldiers" is a major disappointment..
The story line offered with the movie, "Buffalo Soldiers," starring Danny Glover, describes the film as fact based.
With the apparent noble intention of illustrating and informing their audience of the important contributions made by African American soldiers in the invasion, occupation and settlement of the southwestern United States, writers Jonathan Klein and Frank Military weave a tale of Company H, Tenth Cavalry and its attempt to capture an "Apache warrior named Vittorio" who slaughters settlers in New Mexico.
Directed by Charles Haid, the film further promises to reveal "the truth about the Indian invaders." "Buffalo Soldiers" is a major disappointment.
The great cinematography delivers misinformation at best and definitely sets back the education of the public with its false narrative.In 1997, I saw this movie and shook my head.
Because a number of people have mentioned it to me this year (2012) with praise, I saw it again last week.
This time, I was appalled.Black cavalrymen and infantrymen of Buffalo Soldier fame were well respected by their Indian adversaries.
They earned grudging recognition from fellow white soldiers and genuine praise from their white officers.
And, they certainly did not commit the repugnant crime purported near the end of the movie.
Civil War hero Colonel Grierson was not the wimp portrayed in the movie, nor was he wounded by Indians during his twenty plus years as the commander of the Tenth Cavalry.Chihenne Chief Victorio (not "Vittorio") is known to scholars as well as buffs.
Between 1970 and 1991, authors Eve Ball and Dan Thrapp wrote scholarly and complete volumes about Chief Victorio and why he led his Mimbres Apaches (sometimes called Warm Springs Apaches or Eastern Chiricahua Apaches) in a fourteen month war against the United States.
Called America's greatest guerrilla fighter, Victorio was certainly not a Mescalero Apache as he was called in the movie, though a few Mescalero warriors joined his band.At Rattlesnake Springs in West Texas, the movie makers missed a chance to depict the actual dramatic showdown.
It was Grierson versus Victorio.
The two generals deployed their troops expertly and with aplomb.
That day, Grierson used his Companies A, B, C, G, and H – each a company of Buffalo Soldiers.
Find the factual and exciting outcome in readable story form here along with a recommended bibliography for your reading pleasure.
https://bobrogers.biz/Page_per_Book/First_Dark.html "Buffalo Soldiers," in addition to being an instrument of misinformation, is a teaching opportunity squandered..
This film may be a tribute to the African American soldiers but at times it is almost racist.
All white men are portrayed as evil while all buffalo soldiers are noble.
Even the scout is a black Seminole which is not historically accurate as most scouts at this time were recruited from reservation apaches.
the movie also has African American soul music playing over some of the scenes.
the movie itself is exciting and a good way to spend a Saturday afternoon but it gets bogged down in the trumpeting of the black soldiers as 'nobler' than their white counterparts.if you want a realistic portrayal of the Apache wars watch 'Ulzana's Raid' with Burt Lancaster or 'The Missing' with Tommy Lee JonesOverall i found this movie enjoyable but irritating at times.
it is full of 1990's political correctness but could do with this being played down a bit..
Realistic Message About Our Shared Humanity.
Anyone who says this is 'revisionist history' is in denial.
The movie is about Victorio's War, which was part of the Apache Wars.
To see how the Apache Wars ended, see the movie Geronimo (1993).
The dialogue is less Victorian and more like Western movies, but it has a lot of jokes that serve to show the characters' personalities outside of their jobs as soldiers, so it works.
My only disappointment is that the opening credits run during the best part of the movie - the religious ritual that the Apache are performing before they flee from their poverty-stricken reservation.
It strikes me as disrespectful to run credits during any religious content.
However, the Native Americans are played by Native American actors and the Mescalero-Chiricahua language is spoken, so Native Americans are portrayed in a positive way, not a stereotypical one.
In the movie, the buffalo soldiers variously respect and mistreat the Apache, because if they fail to arrest the Natives, black people in general will look like unfit soldiers.
Title implies more than delivered; the subject deserves better..
From the title, I expected a good overview of the Buffalo Soldiers.
Instead, we get a drawn out, soap-opera-ish tale of hunting down a single Indian villain.
Since I missed the first minute or two of opening credits, this script may have been pure fiction for all I know.
As one complaint, there is no mention of John Pershing's (of World War I fame) association with these troops.As could be expected, the wrongs and conflicts from racism are well set forth.
Nonetheless, the Buffalo Soldiers, many ex-slaves, proudly risk their lives and stay in the cavalry by choice.The acting is commendable, particularly that of Danny Glover as the central character.
Some '90s idioms (the 1990s, that is) find their way into the dialog.Given the title and the general ignorance (myself included) about the Buffalo Soldiers, this tv movie was very disappointing.
Surely, these men did a lot more on the frontier than they are credited with here..
little told American history.
In the post-Civil War world, Texas Rangers track Apache war chief Victorio across the border to the federal New Mexico Territories.
Sgt. Washington Wyatt (Danny Glover) leads the all negro US Cavalry H Troop.
He arrests the Rangers for trespassing and murder.
Commander Gen. Pike looks down on the colored troops and their command abilities.
He puts southerner Maj. Robert Carr (Timothy Busfield) in charge despite his unwillingness to lead them.
Col. Benjamin Grierson is a more supportive officer.
John Horse (Carl Lumbly) is the native guide.
Victorio is on the loose and on the attack.This is an interesting and little told American history.
There are compelling stories to be told.
It would have been more interesting to have more diverse personalities in the colored troops.
I would also love to see the other side of the story from Victorio's point of view.
This is still a very compelling TV movie..
One of the worst films I have seen - Pure Propaganda!.
Why are the revisionists in Hollywood content to produce worthless drivel that no one cares about?
Fiction that professes to produce some sort of truth is nauseating to watch.
Boring work like this is only worthy of a gullible TV audience, victims of TV and Hollywood propaganda that does nothing to disseminate the truth.
Danny Glover should be ashamed of himself and his performance, to be taken in by such trite, politically correct dialogue.
Poorly acted, because there is no script or story or truth, this movie is, simply put, just a complete waste of time.
This movie is not worth reviewing.I think historical research by people who can glean truth out of historical records would have benefited this project immensely.
Why can't Hollywood producers do that anymore?.
The way of freedom.
"Buffalo Soldiers' is an average western/adventure entry that tell a story about a troop in the U.S. Army after the Civil War exclusively for black soldiers.
Based on this historical point, the movie is concerned with some crucial aspects of these arrangements: the bad treatment that was given to the black soldiers by some of the white officials, the evident absurdity of serve in the U.S Army, die for the country and not receive an equal treatment and some other minor stuffs.
'Buffalo Soldiers' tries to do that without lose the sense of adventure and action along the way.
Sometimes, you feel that the dialogs are a bit too dialectical, too political, to be really natural.
And the ending is a bit too unreal, maybe, especially when one considers the shape of conscience of the sergeant-major, played by Danny Golver.
All considered, that is not a bad movie.
But its commitment to discuss aspects like freedom, self-conscience, compassion and respect for the Apache culture, weighed the movie a bit too heavy.
Good performances all around, especially Carl Lumbly as the scout named Horse..
Fine production ...
I did notice that a same scene was used twice in vert two different time & space scenes ...
when an "apache" is hidden behind giant rocks shooting/firing (0:36:07) and then again when in distant place from that scene : another "apache" shooted from the very same rocks (1:08:13) ...
is akward due to the many places that the film was supposed to be filmed .....
Three points of view: from white people-native Indians-Buffalo Soldies...you choice!!.
This dramatization states to shown how bad were those years when the US Army had to kill almost a whole native people whom were the real landowners and were slaughtered and aftermatch deported to some dry reservation,a shame that never the american people will forget....of course a new generation of clean brains shall fix it at least recognition and get back the black hills which the high court given a final descision,and put 6 millions dollars to pay the lands,but no one take the money....they wants their lands back and another sacred places to them ,in another point about Buffalo soldiers who deserves more respect from the american people...fine piece of art to shown such atrocities!!Resume:First watch: 1998 / How many: 3 / Source: Cable TV-DVD / Rating: 7.
Not Soundtrack Listing/Cedits - Contains Kothbiro.
This entry contains no soundtrack listing and neither are there any acknowledgments in the end titles/credits.
About halfway or so in the film I heard the song "Kothbiro" - the exact same track that is played and listed in "The Constant Gardner".
I had thought this 1993 song first appeared in that 2005 film.
Apparently it was used in this film first..
Danny Glover leads good cast in Western film!.
The film "Buffalo Soldiers is very good and is a fictional account of some of the historical campaigns in the Western territories involving black US Cavalry troops, who were often pitted against American-Indian factions during this tumultuous time in U.S. history.
It originally aired on TNT but is now available on DVD, recommended for those interested in modern Westerns, also American history, especially for students & young people.
Danny Glover was involved as a producer.
Timothy Busfield, Glynn Turman, Carl Lumbly all have good roles here.
Michael Warren, Mykelti Williamson, and Tom Bower round out the cast.
This is a little talked about part of American history, but it should be more widely known..
Nice way to spend an hour and a bit.
An interesting tale of the Indian Wars.
Glover carries the movie as the taciturn n.c.o. still on the receiving end of racism from so called fellow officers .An Indian renegade is on the loose and the US cavalry need to hunt him down and capture or kill him to make the west a safer place The film is a pleasant way to spend an evening not too challenging or provocative, but compelling and compassionate.
The rapport between the troops is perhaps too nineties but in essence it  is amusing.An interesting counterpoint to the movie Geronimo where the Indians were less one dimensional.
quite fictional depiction of Buffalo Soldiers in 1887 Southwest.
The authors know nothing of the history of the Buffalo Soldiers nor how a dedicated soldier would behave.
The authors completely rewrote the history of the particular character of Nana (who was a real person).
It's pretty disappointing that the authors chose to give an explanation of the Apaches killing spree as a group who didn't want to live on a reservation.
The Apaches historically had raided and murdered many other peaceful tribes as well as settlers; there is plenty of historical documentation.
The authors chose to depict them as victims in this film.
It's clear that the authors also know nothing about the military and show little regard for them in this film.
The Buffalo Soldier would have done his duty with honor as any soldier would, they were not men of cowardice or considered themselves victims.
I'm quite ashamed of writers like this who change stories to make a personal statement, they have an agenda.
I thought there might be something more accurately portrayed when I rented this movie but it turned out to be quite disappointing..
Politically Correct Crap.
This film held my interest for quite a while.
All the ingredients were present to make a fine film.
First, the topic of the Buffalo Soldiers is highly interesting.
In real history, these men were a tribute to the uniform they fought for.
In the movie.
well things kind of fall apart.The good guys are just too darned good.
And the bad guys are really bad.
Indeed, almost if not completely psychotic.
And geez, it turns out the bad guys are the white officers under which the valiant Buffalo Soldiers serve.On the other hand, the Indians are really good as are the black soldiers.
These two oppressed peoples are so good in fact, that  when the Buffalo Soldiers are about to kill an entire tribe of Indians that they've been looking for the whole time, the karma in the air kind of magically makes them change their minds.
Like any enlightened person of the 1990's they let the Indians go.
Something tells me it wouldn't have gone down that way in the 1870's.The makers should have called this film, "Politically Correct Buffolo Soldiers from the 1990's Go Back to the Future.".
A good movie gone bad....
For TV standards this was a good, well made film.Basically, the makers of this motion picture lost an excellent opportunity to make a great film, which would not have required too much more, The camera was very good, the sound also (allbeit the soundtrack is a little overly melodramatic).
The acting was also very good, especially for television standards, and overall the film gives a very realistic impression.
Unfortunately it could have been much better.
Just the ending alone destroys most of the good impressions made during the movie.
Why on earth did they want to depart from the historical facts in order to engage in creating a situation so absurd that not even a 5 year old kid would believe it.
All for the sake of political correctness?
How stupid do they think the viewers are?
If you only do as much as look up the Indian wars in Wikipedia, you will find that "Encounters with the Indians usually resulted in skirmishes; however the 10th engaged in major confrontations at Tinaja de las Palmas (a water hole south of Sierra Blanca) and at Rattlesnake Springs (north of Van Horn).
These two engagements halted Victorio and forced him to retreat to Mexico.
Although Victorio and his band were not captured, the campaign conducted by the 10th successfully prevented them from reaching New Mexico", not that they sat down with the Indians, had coffee, talked about it and then let them go!
It just doesn't make sense.
Why destroy a perfectly good movie with nonsense like this?In other, the character development is far too simple, too one-sided for this to be an "important" movie.
All in all, good made for TV fare, but unfortunately nothing more..
good movie ...remember it's entertainment.
I enjoyed the movie, it's good entertainment.
I have to compare the movie to older westerns rather than newer movies that try to be super realistic.
If you compare this with movies made up through the 1970's then it's good.
Somewhere along the line people started demanding more accurate historical movies, and I do appreciate authenticity and accuracy.
This movie at least gets me asking questions to find out the real story...
isn't that what movies do well in the first place?
Those reviewers who criticize the movie as "propaganda" are looking for realism.
They are also looking for "propaganda" so they can get upset about "left-wing Hollywood", and forget that movies are first entertainment.
This movie is dark and brooding at times and takes you along with it.
The only complaint I have is definitely the ending where they have "Victoria" surrounded and he surrendered, his soldiers were kneeling with the rifles above their heads in surrender.
All the buffalo soldiers had to do was disarm them and the climactic scene following at the end would never had happened.
It made no sense, not because it was "propaganda", it just was a silly ending.
But Hollywood is full of silly endings that have no political bent...sorry, I just don't get that twist.
Sure the movie makes you think and tries to put you in the shoes and times of the Buffalo soldier and it can go over board, but so do most movies especially military movies where they try to make "heroes" and "villains" out of regular people...just to drive the story.
That's what happens here.