Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

ianlouisiana ....but that has no more relevance to its merit than the fact that human beings share 30% of their DNA with the humble earthworm. Released 6 months before John Ford's magnum opus,"Comanche" also features the same actor as the renegade Indian - Mr H.Brandon - and several scenes that are strangely similar.Whether this was happenstance,coincidence or enemy action is a matter known only to God now presumably. Standing on its own it is a passable post - bellum Western with a bored - looking Mr D.Andrews as a Scout (kissing - cousin of a Comanche chief who is trying to wind in the more independently minded young men of his tribe led by the aforesaid Mr Brandon)and make a treaty with the U.S.Government. Made in the days when it never occurred to most people that the Indians had every right to defend their lands against the White Eyes,the film makes a creditable attempt to present Native Americans with some dignity and humanity rather than portray them merely as howling savages as had been Hollywood's wont for the previous 40 years. Having said that,it is packed with clichéd characters and situations that director Mr G.Sherman lacks the will or the imagination to invest with a fresh eye. Mr Andrews and his comic sidekick ("Puffer" by name,poltroon by nature) with the help of the Cavalry eventually win through against the renegades and a Pax Americana is imposed on the Indians who will meekly buckle under to the forces of democracy thus proving once again to 1950s movie audiences that Might is Right. Mr M.Mazurki is particularly embarrassing as an Indian brave. Watching this in the cinema then going home to watch "The Lone Ranger" on TV made me wonder if the Trusty Indian Companion of the Mysterious Masked Stranger didn't need a kick up the backside.

madisonwisconsinite There's nothing like seeing close-ups of actors portraying Native Americas / American Indians, who have blue eyes. The huge "buck" who throws a man off a cliff (when he's actually at the top of a sloping hill) is somewhat familiar Austro-Hungarian actor Mike Mazurki. The movie is really lame, just another celebration of the story of European subjugation of a continent through complete lack of respect for other cultures. And we wonder why Muslims don't love us? Might be worth watching by film students who want to learn how NOT to make a movie. If you don't grasp my meaning by my summary, maybe you would like this film. Granted, the production values are high, but the overwhelming white-bias that the film typifies should not be lost on viewers. Quanah Parker in a headdress with bison horns is typical Hollywood fluff. The most ethnic of actors portraying characters of any significance in this film is Nestor Paiva, whose role include such distinguished native portrayals as a Po-Ho chief and a Native Guide, on the animated series, Jonny Quest. Comanche is worth watching if you are bored and have nothing else to do, but don't pay money to rent it! I will grant, for the sake of full disclosure, the following: (1) I am NOT an American Indian, and (2) I DO have a degree in American Indian Studies from the University of Wisconsin.

krdement There are so many aspects of this film that are bad, it is difficult to decide where to begin. Filmed in Technicolor, this was NOT a B-grade movie. Yet I have seen many B-grade westerns that are superior to this utterly pedestrian effort at film-making. In fact, the color film is the only thing about this movie that is decent. The cinematography, itself, is unremarkable. The scenery, shown once would have been unremarkable, too. The same location shown repeatedly, however, is laughable.Worst of all is the soundtrack. The Lancers' upbeat, ersatz-folk sound is hopelessly out of sync with the story, giving the film a kind of schizophrenic quality. The songs, with a change of lyrics, would be better suited to a Frankie and Annette film of the same era - or an upbeat Disney movie.Then there's the acting - or better stated as a question - where's the acting? In particular, I have never been able to understand how Dana Andrews ever had a career in film. He is absolutely the most wooden actor ever seen in Hollywood. His delivery is the same whether he is portraying a film noir tough guy or an Indian scout. His face always has the exact same expression - utterly impassive. Whether his character is experiencing joy or sorrow, his face looks exactly the same. Who told this guy he could act? He must have had the dope on a lot of Hollywood big-wigs to have been cast in films - even as an extra! The rest of the cast is apparently mimicking other actors - the Gabby Hayes wannabe, the Stewart Granger wannabe, the Dolores Del Rio wannabe. They are all pretty much on autopilot - delivering caricatures rather than portraying characters.The question I have whenever I subject myself to an abomination such as this is: Who is most to blame - the actors or the director? Did the director actually want these actors to act as they did, or was he simply incapable of getting anything else out of them? What would Ed Wood have accomplished with a budget such as this director had at his disposal?

westerner357 Dana Andrews is called in to negotiate a peace treaty with the Comanches raiding across the border into Mexico. There are elements on both sides who don't want peace including the Indian-hating scalphunters on the one hand, and the breakaway Comanches (led by Black Cloud) on the other.I hate to say it but Kent Smith isn't convincing as Quanah Parker. If they were going to have this kind of robotic dialog, then they should have at least gotten Charles Bronson or Steven McNally to do it since they look more Indian-like than the blue-eyed, fair-haired Smith does. Yeah, I know Parker was half-white and all that, but still...Plus you have Dana Andrews and the rest of the cast looking like they are sleepwalking through the whole thing. It's as if everyone is just going through the motions with little or no effort. Were they bored with it, or was it only what the script demanded?The only character who was remotely interesting was Andrews' sidekick Puffer, played by Nestor Paiva. He looked sufficiently grizzled for the part without resorting to too much of the silliness that say, Gabby Hayes would have done if he had played the role. It's too bad his part wasn't bigger.The battle scenes look lame even by 50s standards with the whole thing having a rushed look to it, despite the widescreen technicolor cinematography by George Stahl. This use of color was a rarity on United Artists part since they mostly shot their westerns in b/w.And with the title music sung by The Lancers sounding all hokey and Disney-like, all it does is bring it down a couple of more notches for me. 3 out of 10