This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
In the movie, a sergeant who has survived an attack barely escapes from the Indians by swimming a lake. He emerges and attempts to catch a train. The train, however, is ambushed by the Indians. It stops. The conductor uncouples the cars which rush back downhill. In the meantime, the Indians have set fire to a wooden trestle. When the cars roar over it, they fall into the abyss and the passengers are apparently killed. The narrator refers to the relief of Custer? Sheridan? as "Governor" as a result of the "massacre." This appears to be a fictional scene, however. Can anybody confirm or deny?
In another scene, Custer darkly listens to a Washington skit apparently mocking him. The concluding song is "Join the army with General Custer." Quite tuneful. Again fictional? Student7 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to recommend the section labeled "Reception" be removed or re-titled since it has nothing to do whatsoever with how the film was received upon it's release date in 1967. Times change and with it peoples views, likes, tastes and so forth. To attempt to apply how more modern critics are receiving an older film should probably be clearly titled as such. To do otherwise gives favor to inaccuracy and the sense of a lack of neutrality concerning view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kowboy Kaziglu Bey (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
