Montford: The Chickasaw Rancher

Story was excellent. This was not a Marvel Universe level budget so with that in mind it was about the story and the acting. I enjoyed the story very much and appreciated the work of all the actors. Very much a feel-good story that accurately depicts some of the obstacles Native Americans dealt with during those times.

I read the history page for Montford T. Johnson, so that is all I know of the real character. However, the film was educational and enjoyable on a few levels, including as a history lesson and a better depiction of how black and red people interacted during those times, which is rarely seen accurately. Jim Crow changed a lot of relationships, but that was much later after reconstruction. The relationships between black, white and red people were often intertwined, and this film showed that well.

Because it was low budget, and possibly because they owed the actors the right to participate, some of the casting was really off and amateurish, like the hateful soldier, but I could look past that to understand the man better. The script could use a rewrite, but again, low budget.

One thing that was not shown, and that as in the history page for OK, was that Montford was sickly most of his life, which makes his accomplishments even more amazing! I'm grateful this was made so we can have a better view of our country and how it actually operated.

In the first half, this bad screenplay (instantly discernable by its overuse of narration) would have made a fair Radio play had it been written 80 years ago. Unable to convey information and emotion through dialog and imagery, they reduced an inspiring story to a poorly executed TV drama.

You can create great films with low budgets, poor writing, bad direction or editing but seldom do you find a video play lacking in all of these.

The last half is like a different production. The awful narration ends, the actors find their rhythm, as the pace picks up, and the story is allowed to blossom, capturing one's imagination.

So, maybe it was just a lack of time and money after all.

"Raised by my mother's people, my sister and I struggled to survive in two worlds. That of the Chickasaw who understood the richness and beauty of this new land, and that of the white man, whose greed brought nothing but death and destruction" How accurate, I give it a 10/10 just for this quote alone!

When European settlers arrived in the Americas there were close to 11 million Native Americans living here. By 1900, almost every tribe was wiped out. Their population was reduced to under 300,000. Native Americans were subjected to many different forms of violence, all with the intention of destroying them and stealing their land! This violence was based on white supremacy. I'm glad they finally were able to kill that arrogant pos Custer who was responsible for killing many women, children and elderly Natives. He got what he deserved!

The basic story about Montford: The Chickasaw Rancher is an exciting tale from the time when the West still was so called wild and there was a frontier to conquer. Typically and necessarily there are rustlers and indians involved, but this is based on true historical events about Montford Johnson, an influential half indigenous pioneer, his family, neighbours, friends and their struggles. The setting should be right for a thrilling and epic drama, but due to several factors the creators fail to realise its intensions. First of all it's hard to fully believe in the characters, like with Martin Senmeiser in the main role. Compared to the real Montford he's just too Hollywood handsome, and together with several of the cast, he neither looks like a poor starving and extremely hard working rancher in the 1870's. Many simply appear as modern people dressed up in oldstyle gear. Moreover, even though the villains got better and more dirty makeup, their wickedness is clearly exagerrated and there's an obvious overacting. Generally the performances aren't very impressive. However, there is an important sidestory, and letting the conflict between the indigenous peoples, settlers and the US Army have a more indirect role, where historical events and characters merely pass by as news, or certain people are coincidentally included as the storyline moves on. This may have a good intention, but even a crucial setting fundamental for the final is barely given any focus. Also, like with some peculiar timeholes in the basic plot, basic connections are't worked through well enough, and we never get to know the characters. Maybe this would be better off as a mini series, or at least a film longer than 95 minutes. A more creative building of characters, where the historical context got a more direct and intensional interplay, together with a more thorough screenplay and editing plan, this could have been a good historical western.