The Ballad of Davy Crockett

I love a western, I can enjoy just about any one of them but this one was tough to watch. I don't care about the historical inaccuracy of it, what was so difficult to watch was the terrible acting and the meaningless and absurd scenes. Davey tames a wild horse by feeding it grass that's everywhere anyway, hops on it and rides away... oh boy.

There were so many other unrealistic scenes but the terrible acting just makes it hard to watch. Jesse Hutch was the only actor that you could say was an actor.

Someone said that all the acting was "very good", I respectfully, completely disagree.

I did like that there was no profanity or nudity which is never needed in a good western but there needs to be a good story to make it watchable.

There's no real plot or point to the movie, there are B movies, then there is this.

Like a lot of the reviews have stated, this is historically inaccurate. This disappointed me because Davy Crockett is one of my favorite historical figures. To make things worse, the script writing is incredibly bad, and the acting does nothing to make it better. In a strange way, I feel like the producers used AI to create this mashup of bad action and dialogue. Even my wife, who never criticizes poor acting, couldn't help but voice her annoyance with this movie. The only good thing about this movie is it is decent enough to watch with the whole family... the action sequences are so boring and unbelievably bad, but mostly benign, and language is very mild. It is also a good depiction of a strong father figure who sacrifices all he can to protect his family. So that's nice. Overall, just could have been better writing and more believable acting.

I could not continue watching this movie because it has no regard for actual history. Crockett's wife did die in 1815 but then it showed Davy in a meeting with Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren when he got the news that she was ill. Davy didn't even enter state politics until 1821 and was no where near Washington DC until 1827. Jackson and Van Buren didn't win the White House and push the Indian Removal Act until 1831. That is when Davy became and Anti-Jacksonian.

Anyway, others have said how un-interesting the movie was and I agree. But when you can't even get the storyline to match the facts, you have to create it all and that is why the story lacked entertainment. I became suspicious when they showed his boys to be early teens and Crockett was only 29 years old when his wife died. I'll go watch the 1955 version or the 1960 "The Alamo" and at least get somewhat accuracy.

Crockett is an interesting figure, the second American celebrity in our history (after Franklin) and there's been no extensive serious film portrayal. A good movie on Davy is needed but this isn't the one.

The only thing this film has going for it is good production values. The plot is saccharine to the point of silliness (think Perils of Pauline,1914). Colm Meany is a solid actor but is annoying in some of the jejune scripts he has taken on (e.g., this one and Alleged, 2010).

Unless this film was targeting evangelicals I can't see why any thinking producer would have approved the script. Nothing here for any adult audience. Maybe we need another film rating category: N for niche audience.

If you like sappy, uninteresting, goofy frontier movies with bad dialogue and mediocre acting, this movie is for you. I almost turned it off, but I thought I would give it a chance. I wanted to like it, but it really was that bad. And don't get me started about how historically inaccurate it was.

It's too bad, since there is plenty of historically accurate research out there about Dave's Crockett. They could have made this a much better movie. While the Disney series was pretty fluffy (made for children, so I guess it had to be), Fess Parker and Buddy Ensen made it enjoyable to watch.

(I guess certain kids might like this movie)