"Finally got around to watching "Hostiles" (Netflix Movie)" Topic

Spoilers (duh)

A lot of it was pretty good: Acting, scenery, plot, etc.
But I just can't get over how idiotic some of the tactics were. For example:

1) In the very beginning a renegade group of about a half dozen Comanche raid an isolated farmstead, consisting of farmer, his wife, 2 daughters and a baby.
It starts with the raiders. They don't spread out, they don't attack from multiple sides or anything. As my old drill sergeant used to say, it was "hey diddle-diddle, straight up the middle."
The rancher was even more idiotic. His plan of defense was to send his wife and daughters out the back door and sprint to the cover of a treeline hundreds of yards away, as if they could out run the enemy horse. Only the wife escaped, because plot.
For his part, his plan was to leave the protection of the house (even though he had a Henry rifle) and run straight at the bad guys thus ensuring he died in the first five seconds.
Why didn't he hole up in the house like they did in Josey Wales?

2) Late, 3 "fur-trappers" manage to kidnap the women folk right under the very nose of our hero.
Umm. You're in hostile territory. Are you really going to let the women folk walk to the creek – apparently out of sight/sound for several hours (based on lighting) without a guard?
Then when they mount the rescue, we have at least 5 good guys (our hero, 2 extremely capable Cheyenne 2-3 veteran soldiers) find the camp of the three bad guys. They wait until all of the bad guys are in their tents to advance. They are able to sneak up all the way to the enemy tents undiscovered. Their is a big fight in the tents (they don't show it exactly) and one of the good guys – a cavalry sergeant described as "the best we have" gets killed – even though they have 2:1 odds and surprise ?!

I get that for dramatic reasons they give the bad guys suicidal courage (most bad guys that I know are more likely to flee at the first sign of trouble and leave anyone who can't keep up behind – then fight to the death) – bud at least show some decent tactics.

Why? To satisfy wargamers?

No. Of course not.
But at least make it look like they have half a brain.

Oh I'll have to watch this. I had forgotten about it. Yhanks for the reminder.

Why didn't they just take the train?

Why didn't they just take the train?

Because it looks cooler to have them hike over the Alps. OOOPS, wrong movie!

Get back to me when you wish to praise tactical brilliance on The Walking Dead.

Loved it. Was a great film.

My wife and I watched it a few weeks ago and found it pretty dreadful.

I liked it. Because plot, exactly right.

Did I mis-hear a line of two, or was Wounded Knee described as a battle, and a pretty close-run thing from the US point-of-view?

Agree on some of the tactics portrayed but overall an entertaining and well acted movie.

Wounded Knee was the second highest casualty count for the 7th Cavalry up to that time.

4DJones – It seems likely that many of the 7th Cavalry casualties were from "friendly fire" given the fact that the Sioux were largely disarmed at the start of the shooting, and the disposition of the troops around them.
Still, they were awarded lots of medals, so I may be wrong.

The Sioux were not largely disarmed when the firing started. They had turned in a half dozen or so firearms, mostly old muzzle loaders and a few Springfield carbines, those having been taken at the Little Bighorn 14 years earlier. The Winchesters that the young men had been carrying the day before and had been seen by Maj. Samuel Whitesides' troops the previous day were still hidden under the blankets of the young men. The troops and the young Sioux braves fired simultaneously, and while the troops still had the same single shoot Springfield trapdoor carbines that Custer's troops had at LBH, the Sioux, although outnumbered, had the advantage of 6 and 7-shot Winchesters. Most of the Army's 60 or so casualties were suffered durning the first 3 or 4 minutes as the warriors emptied the magazines of those Winchesters.

I watched this movie based on this thread. I have to agree with the OP, the start of the movie was so stupid. You would think that a family, building a cabin in the middle of Indian country, would have some plan in case those Indians attacked.

Maybe even a second rifle for the wife to shoot out another window.

The other thing, where the women get captured wasn't so bad, but the fight didn't make much sense either.

Still it was enjoyable despite that.

Also I'm not sure what the motivation of the fur trappers was to capture the women. None of the women looked like they had much fur on them. It seems like it would have been better for them to capture that Tommy guy. He seemed pretty furry.

Totally agree with Korvessa. The fight in the tents was a total cop out. Like the director had no more ideas on how to film an action scene. It reminded me of a silent film comedy scene or something out of Benny Hill.

When I watched the "rancher" scene, I was HUGELY disappointed and thought that it was really REALLY poorly done. The "tent" scene reminded me of the Josey Wales "trapper" scene except that in this version, you would have seen Josey go into the cabin and close the door behind him while your POV remained outside. You'd hear a couple of gunshots and then he would come out… Truly a cop out. That being said, I truly enjoyed the tragedy in the film and felt that the film was much better than just the sum of its parts. I'll eventually add it to the collection.