The Last of the Mohicans (1936) User Reviews

Enjoyable older version of Cooper's classic.

[Hermit C-2 · 8/10 · 15 August 1999]

Those who enjoyed the 1992 Michael Mann/Daniel Day-Lewis version of this American classic might also like to take a look at this older Hollywood production and contrast the two. Randolph Scott plays Hawkeye as a much more affable, almost happy-go-lucky character than does the famously intense Mr. Day-Lewis. The Indian roles are played by palefaces here, but at least they're not egregiously insulting to native Americans.

It still surprises me from time to time when I see how well movies were made so long ago, when the art form didn't have that long of a tradition behind it. Techniques and temperaments change over the years, but the world is big enough for more than one good version of 'The Last of the Mohicans.'

Forgotten 1930s Gem and Randolph Scott's best film

[brendan-36-949960 · 8/10 · 22 February 2017]

Although I am a committed movie buff of many decades experience now, I had somehow never seen this famous old adventure flick until I acquired the excellent Hen's Tooth DVD of it for Christmas.

It proved to be a delightful surprise and far better than I was expecting. As an independent production, it may have lacked the big budget production values of a Warner or MGM film, but it still managed to look impressive, with some clever use of glass shots, hanging miniatures and other film tricks.

It is only 92 minutes long yet packs an astonishing amount of incident for its length, all helped along by a throbbing music score that relies heavily on judicious borrowings from Max Steiner's famous score for KING KONG, which surprisingly fits the action rather well.

An excellent cast of 1930s favourites is led by a young Randolph Scott who makes a terrific Hawkeye and clearly enjoys himself in the role.

1936 was an interesting year for him. Not yet typecast in "oaters", he made, in rapid succession, a big musical (Follow the Fleet with Astaire and Rogers) a sexy comedy (Go West Young Man with Mae West)and this, which was a logical follow-up to the previous year's SHE. He was a much better actor and more versatile than he is usually given credit for and in this role, he may well have found his career best.

The DVD offers what is probably the best surviving print of this old movie and it is rather variable in quality, though it does get better after the 3rd reel. I would love to have seen a restored print but I am guessing this would be impossible now unless an original nitrate can be found.

George B. Seitz directs the whole show with flair and keeps things moving at a considerable pace. The film easily bears comparison to better known films in the genre, such as BEAU GESTE, GUNGA DIN and THE FOUR FEATHERS.

In short, it's a grand old fashioned adventure film, the kind Hollywood turned out with ease and great skill and long before the inflated budgets, running times and CGi of today.

The kids back in 1936 must have been on the edge of their seats....I know I was, in 2017!

No More Mohicans

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 18 June 2007]

James Fenimore Cooper's Last of the Mohicans has been an American classic for several years. It's still considered to have set the standard for writing about the French and Indian war period. More people get their knowledge from that novel as opposed to a serious historical study like Francis Parkman's.

Major Duncan Heyward played by Henry Wilcoxon is charged with escorting the two daughters of his commanding officer to their father at Fort William Henry. The daughters are a pair of beauties, Binnie Barnes and Heather Angel. Along to blaze the trail are white scout Hawkeye and a father and son team of Mohican Indians, Robert Barrat and Phillip Reed as Chingachgook and Uncas.

The trip might better never been made because when they get there the fort is under siege from the French army under General Montcalm and from the Huron Indians as well.

The reason why The Last of the Mohicans holds up so well even today is that Cooper invests his Indian characters with dignity and strength. Even the villainous Magua played by Bruce Cabot makes it plain he's an equal ally of the French not a retainer. Of course he shows his independence of them in a most savage way.

Randolph Scott has one of his best early roles as Hawkeye as does Henry Wilcoxon in one of his few non-DeMille screen appearances of note.

Also the theme of interracial love was daring in its time to be written. Phillip Reed and Heather Angel are a pair of frontier Romeo and Juliet types, we really feel for their tragedy.

Though a big budget version with Daniel Day-Lewis is out there and more people are familiar with it, this version of The Last of the Mohicans still holds up well today.

Plenty Action.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 21 December 2011]

This is kind of enjoyable in an old-fashioned way. I've never read the novel so I don't know how closely the film follows it, but the film gets by in its own right.

The story is a complicated one involving conflicts of various sorts during what we called The French and Indian Wars and what Europe called The Seven Years War. The principal oppositions are between the colonials, led by Scott, and the British leaders, led by Henry Wilcoxin. The two men are also at odds over a young lady, Binnie Barnes. Then there is the battle between the British soldiers and the French under Montcalm, with both sides oozing honor and virtue from every pore. There are the Huron Indians, who side with the French but are basically against the palefaces. And there are definite vibes between Uncas, the next-to-last of the Mohicans, and Heather Angel, as a British general's daughter. This affinity cannot stand in 1936 -- whether or not it stood in 1826, when James Fenimore Cooper published the book. Both Uncas and his blond cutie die proudly, his hand over hers.

The movie is almost as rough-hewn as the story and it doesn't spare the killing of horses, the bloody scalpings, or the altruistic suicides. That's not to say that the Indians are all stereotyped, although there are some scenes that are exceptions. The iconography is all Eastern Woodlands and looks correct as far as elementary stuff goes. The round-topped communal housing is traditional for the area that is now New York state. The torture was real enough. Uncas wears a puka-shell bracelet from Hawaii but, okay.

Some of the location shooting was done around Crescent City on California's northwest coast and some extras from the Hupa and Yurok tribes were hired. They were an interesting group in themselves. The Yurok had the equivalent of a Protestant Ethic, as Max Weber described it. They used the shells of razor clams for currency, called "tsik", and went around THINKING of tsik, believing that would bring them more of it. Well, I don't want to get into it.

Randy Scott, as Hawkeye, wears a coonskin hat and a tailored buckskin outfit. He comes across as a likable guy and gets the job done. The British are portrayed as mostly proud, if not arrogant, but dumb about how to manage the colonies. Hawkeye and the Indians know how to creep around in the woods, and they do a lot of it in the near absence of horses. The British troops march in easily targeted columns wearing red coats that stand out like bulls eyes in the forest.

Historically, the French and Indian Wars cost the British an awesome amount of money and lives but it saved the colonies for the settlers and for the British who governed them. In an attempt to get the colonials to pay back some of that expense, the British imposed a stamp tax, which turned out to be a bad idea.

There's nothing particularly special about the film. Nice action sequences but not a whole lot of gun play and no galloping steeds. It's not a Western. The stern British army manages to come to terms with Scott's woodsman and vice versa, but there's no message to speak of, except maybe that codes of honor, while necessary for the smooth functioning of societies, should sometimes be bent to allow for unusual circumstances. Nothing wrong with that. As a novelist, to the extent that I understand it, Cooper was popular but not a literary giant. If he'd been French, he might have written "The Three Musketeers."

Surprisingly Good

[Easygoer10 · 6/10 · 4 November 2018]

I saw Michael Mann's 1992 version of this film first, and I have also seen the silent version as well. Mann's is superior. This is a very "Hollywood" film (made in 1936). For example, the characters are overplayed, with the "indians" basically taken from seeing too many plains westerns. That noted, there are an abundance of exact quotes that Mann used in his film which are straight from this version. The reason why is both give credit to Philip Dunne's screenplay. Although Michael Mann had the last word in his film (of course), he gave credit where it was due to Pholip Dunne. The worst part of this film is Randolph Scott's demeanor and look. He could have walked straight off the set of "Daniel Boone", with his "coonskin cap" and leather coat. That noted, the disagreements, and many other scenes are identical to Mann's film. This film was overlooked, award wise, as was Michael Mann's; especially Daniel Day-Lewis' outstanding performance. He is the only male actor to win 3 Best Actor Oscars (Kathrun Hepburn won 4, and was nominated 14 times for "Best Actress". This is a must see if you liked the 1992 film. I caught it on TCM one evening.

Whatever happened to Randolph Scott...

[shawware · 27 October 2011]

I will admit that I knew James Fenimore Cooper wrote the classic book, but I never read it. And I knew and loved the excitement of the 1992 film version starring Daniel-Day Lewis, but didn't know that it did not follow the book. And I knew about the Statler Bros song "Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?", but I had never seen one of his movies.

So I decided to watch this version starring Randolph Scott in B/W and of course not as much special effects as today's movies. The acting is really quite well, except for the fake dying when actors are shot.

This version is equally exciting and keeps you on the edge of your seat. And if you, like me, liked the 1992 version, you will like this knowing an idea of the story, but with a different ending.

Last of the British!

[AAdaSC · 6/10 · 20 September 2010]

Colonel Munro's (Hugh Buckler) 2 daughters, Alice (Binnie Barnes) and Cora (Heather Angel) are led to the fort where their father is fighting for the British against the French. During the journey, a Huron Indian scout, Magua (Bruce Cabot) leads Alice, Cora and Major Heyward (Henry Wilcoxon) through a short cut but it is a trap. An American frontiersman, Hawkeye (Randolph Scott) and two Mohican Indians, Chingachgook (Robert Barrat) and Uncas (Phillip Reed) rescue the party and deliver them safely to Colonel Munro. However, the girls are then captured and taken to the Huron tribe and it is up to Hawkeye, the Major and the two Mohicans to rescue them from their fates as determined by the Huron leader.

I have seen the recent re-make of this film and I wanted to like this film better. Unfortunately, I didn't. It's still a good film - it's just not as engrossing. The relationships between the characters are not as deeply portrayed and poignant moments are not dwelt upon to give the film as much depth as occurs in the re-make, eg, the love between Uncas and Cora. The character of Magua is also far more scary in the re-make although I prefer Randolph Scott's "Hawkeye" to the extremely wooden Daniel Day Lewis. Speaking of wooden, the two Mohicans are exactly that. Their "me Tarzan, you Jane" style of dialogue is laughably bad and reminiscent of Daniel Day Lewis's attempts in the re-make.

A couple of other moments weren't as good as the re-make. In that film, the story ends with the line "......Last of the Mohicans" - a far more poignant ending to the film.

There are good moments, eg, the canoe chase and the sparring between the Major and Hawkeye, and it's still an engaging film. But the re-make is better on many levels, including, scenery, music, and romantic development

Mohican starter kit

[jjnxn-1 · 6/10 · 5 February 2015]

For fans of the Daniel Day Lewis version of this story this will seem like a rough draft of that film.

It's obvious that the makers of the later version relied on this as a springboard and to be fair to this one it's limited by both budgetary and film making techniques of the time. The addition of color, location filming and advanced techniques lend a kinetic edge to the newer version that this one can't match.

On it's own it's got some pleasures but many of the performances are stiff, especially Randolph Scott who seems flat particularly when held up against Day Lewis's work. That may be an unfair comparison since few are as skillful as he and Scott was hardly the most naturalistic actor.

It's not a bad blueprint but the Michael Mann remake is superior in every way.

Great Film

[artzau · 9/10 · 18 July 2001]

As a kid, I read all of the JF Cooper's Leatherstocking series, as well as dang near anything else I could get my hands on about Red Indians. I saw this film, which was made and released the year before I was born, while in grammar school. It was revived from time to time as it was already on its way to being a classic. It is just a great film. Randolph Scott whose presentations tended to be a bit wooden seemed to fit the character of Natty Bummpo, AKA Hawkeye quite well. The delightful Bruce Cabot is a villainous Magua and Philip Reed is a romantic Uncus and Robert Barrat, a studio character actor plays the revenging Chingachgook. Henry Wilcoxson who plays the British officer rival is also well known to us buffs as a frequent anti-hero, villain or rival. Binnie Barnes and Heather Angel were studio starlets who were likewise convincing. While this version largely remains truer to the original than the '95 version with Daniel Day-Lewis, it is a very different film. After seeing the later version, I rented this one and saw it again. I plan to watch it again and again. The final scene where Philip Reed crawls to grasp the hand of Heather Angel to die together, gets to me as much today as it did when I was a kid. Randolph Scott's Hawkeye is closer than Day-Lewis's to the original but that shouldn't detract. Both films are wonderful. Anyway, comparisons are not always fruitful. But this film made and released during the final years of the great depression has it all: action, romance and hope.

Tepid storytelling based on Cooper's novel

[sekander · 6/10 · 9 December 2012]

The best part of this movie was how much Randolph Scott looked like Errol Flynn. The rest? Well, let's cut them some slack. After all, it was only 1936, the beginning of time as far as film making is concerned. The book is only a rough guideline for the movie. I won't get into spoilers, but if you've read the book, the plot line here will have you scratching your head saying, "What gives?!" This is typical Hollywood sentiment. The main thrust here is romance, not the strength of character of the novel's protagonists. Little, if any attention is paid to the ways of the Indian. While Cooper went to great lengths to describe their customs and living conditions, the movie just ignores that in favor of a couple of dreamed up romances. Typical of the times, there are no real Indians, either. While the same prejudice was shown in Charlie Chan movies, at least Warner Oland and Sidney Toler were enjoyable to watch. The ersatz Indians here just bring the proceedings down. I'm gonna watch the 1992 version next and I sure hope its a more authentic account of the time of the French & Indian War.

New IMDb Format Stinks

[gps642 · 1/10 · 5 February 2021]

Your new format is cluttered and user unfriendly. You "fixed" someone that wasn't broken. Suggest you return to prior format.

By a Waterfall

[telegonus · 8/10 · 11 May 2002]

For those of us immune to the charms of James Fenimore Cooper's novels this movie is a godsend. I've never understood Cooper's plots, his characters, his appeal, his (apparent) greatness. He strikes me as nearly unreadable. The 1936 movie of Last Of the Mohicans, however, is quite good, though none of it makes much sense. It is set on the American frontier of the 18th century, which then meant upper New York state. Two sisters are involved; as are several British officers; a tribe or so of Indians, some virtuous, others not; and a chap named Hawkeye, who is exceedingly brave and an excellent shot with a long rifle. There are magnificently photographed scenes featuring forests, lakes, rivers and waterfalls. The birch-bark canoes, the costumes, the way the Indians look and act, the fort, the feeling of excitement, alternating with fear, and with it the sense that the Native Americans are quite as proficient at killing one another as the white man is of killing the whole lot of them, and maybe even better, are all conveyed with admirable realism. There is also an air of tragedy in the film, for white and red alike, though this is not dwelt on for long. The entire movie feels like a product of the period in which it is set, not the twentieth century. Many of the Indians are played by white actors, all of whom do an excellent job. Bruce Cabot's performance as Magua is the stuff of nightmares, and one's image of him lingers in the mind long after the film is over.

A Reasonable Portrayal of Cooper's Book

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 19 February 2017]

I have to say that being an English major and having taught for many years, I always found these James Fenimore Cooper books incredibly dull. They were so talky an descriptive. I would imagine creating a screenplay for one wasn't so hard because most of the setup was there. So what gets pulled out is a sort of generic pioneer guy (Daniel Boone like) and the adventures he had. At his side was his Indian buddy and his adversaries were usually other tribal characters. He had the long rifle which had to reloaded time after time. He was feared by his enemies because he managed to be pretty much alone. Women were there but they were silly (some say Cooper never met one) and pretty much to be rescued. This is probably the most entertaining book and the one movies seem to latch on to. Randolph Scott does an adequate job as Hawkeye (for some reason the same guy had different name in the books). The non Native American actors are also adequate.

pretty slow adaptation

[phantopp · 4/10 · 20 August 2009]

Based upon the one of the most popular novels of all time, written by James Fenimore Cooper, this story follows the battle between the colonists, the French, who have teamed with the Indians through the eyes of a white man raised by Indians (Randolf Scott) who now consider him one of their own.

This movie is certainly not an epic classic. However, it's a fairly good time-waster.

First of all, due to 1936 technology, it is sometimes hard to hear the actors when they are not near the microphone, or when they are facing away from the position of the microphone. Another problem was that it was painfully obvious that the majority of the outdoor scenes were obviously done on a soundstage.

I was also not impressed with the majority of the cast. First of all, I felt little, if any, chemistry between all the major players. I also found many supporting cast members, as well as a few of the main cast, were just reciting their lines to each other. I just couldn't find most of the cast believable in their roles.

There is very mild violence, with absolutely no blood. You get people shot on-screen, or struck with a tomahawk, but there was no amount of blood at all. However, this is because of the censors at the time. There is also no strong language. Parents should be aware that there is absolutely nothing in this film that is inappropriate for children. The closest thing they come to anything pretty violent is one fist fight, where they speed the film up for a second.

The wardrobe is one of the few things that I liked in this movie. The costumes appeared to be authentic, from the period military uniforms to even the Indian clothing.

As for the soundtrack, there really isn't one. You get music during the opening and closing credits, music during a party scene and an American classic sung by extras. However, I have seen other movies from this era, and they are similar with music.

Even editing is poor in this film. Close-ups are poorly placed in scenes, and they are obvious.

I really couldn't get into this movie, and I doubt you could too. Check it out on television only if there is absolutely nothing else on.

"The Last of the Mohicans" ...1st Adventure Novel About the Colonies, Good Movie

[Stormy_Autumn · 18 June 2007]

"The Last of the Mohicans" with a young Randolph Scott and no shirt. (Be still my heart!)

Hawkeye (Scott) is a handsome, laid back scout for the Colonists. He is very knowledgeable in the ways of the Native Americans. Alice Munro (Binnie Barnes) and her sister, Cora (Heather Angel), are the daughters of the fort commandant. During a murderous raid (after their father surrenders the fort under a flag of truce) they are captured by Magua (Bruce Cabot). This is after he murders their father.

With the help of best buddies Chingachgook (Robert Barrat) and his son Uncas (Phillip Reed), Hawkeye must try to rescue the women from the Hurons and death. Of course they end up with a British 'leader' (?) in the persona of Major Duncan Heyward (Henry Wilcoxon). He's in love with Alice.

At first the Major causes trouble for everyone. Hawkeye refuses to obey a couple of orders. Being a British officer that doesn't set well. The Major doesn't realize that pride and a lack of knowledge is a dangerous combination in this New World. But he begins to understand and respect Hawkeye and his friends. Then there's the differences in the land his army occupies. Thus begins the building of a strong mutual respect for each other.

These men are from very different backgrounds but they must work together. All this will help build to an outcome that will bring both anguish and happiness.

A Rouser with Randolph - The Last of the Mohicans

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 24 March 2022]

Although I prefer the Daniel Day Lewis version of this film (as does my daughter, Elise), the one with Randolph Scott is no slouch. My father's favorite actor, Scott, plays this role to perfection. He is the equal of Lewis in almost every scene. However, the Magua in the modern version is untouchable as the best ever. The music in the modern version is better as well. But do not let that deter you from seeing this version, which easily beats most of the other competition from the era.

I'm Hawkeye, no I'm Hawkeye!

[tonypeacock-1 · 6/10 · 6 May 2023]

Delightful 1930's film about a period of history (The French and Indian War) in North America which I don't really have much knowledge of. Hell, I've at the time of watching this version not watched the 1992 version starring Daniel Day-Lewis.

No what attracted me to this film was its being a Randolph Scott vehicle, Scott playing the character of Hawkeye, a colonial scout. As the film progresses we learn a bit about Hawkeye's motives, his history and by the end he enlists in the British army where as at the beginning of the film he is pretty anti-British.

The film cast mainly English speaking white actors in the Indian roles of which their are quite a few.

It's a film that doesn't take a great deal seriously in my opinion. Perhaps it was the period it was filmed (1936) or its low budget.

My review title refers to a scene in the film which reminded me of the I'm Spartacus scene in Spartacus (1960). This film has nothing to do with Spartacus but that one scene!

Pretty good

[mchristi-156-169140 · 7/10 · 4 November 2021]

I thought this was decent storytelling. I haven't read the book and I don't know how accurate the portrayal of Native Americans is. The main character is fictional but the general history and people are fairly accurate, from what I read.

Wikipedia said the producers dumbed down the original script to make it more like a generic Western, which is tragic.

I love the newer Daniel Day Lewis version. This 1936 version is merely "good" compared to that. This will appeal mostly to classic movie fans, or people who like a simple straightforward story.

Conflicts of Cultures and Countries

[LeonLouisRicci · 8/10 · 19 July 2012]

Made right after the Full Implementation of the Hays Code that Limited the Portraying of Certain types of Violence and Behavior, this Film shows Signs of Capitulation and Adherence but not Complete Surrender.

There is Interracial Love making, Scalping, Torture, and other Displays of Nastiness that give this Movie a Real Feel for the Frontier Days and the Conflicts of Cultures and Countries.

Quite Impressive, the Film Holds Up really well and Modern Audiences will be Surprised that this Early Hollywood effort is a Testament at how Good they could be at their Craft when everything was Clicking. It has very Little that is Dated or Embarrassing Today. Especially the Reverence and Tolerance given All Points of View from All Points of View.

A good companion piece to the Michael Mann remake, this is a film that could be offered as one of the best of the early "period" films of the slowly evolving studio movie machine that would peak just a few years later.

Read the book instead!

[JohnHowardReid · 5/10 · 16 November 2017]

Randolph Scott (Hawkeye), Binnie Barnes (Alice Munro), Henry Wilcoxon (Major Duncan Heyward), Heather Angel (Cora Munro), Phillip Reed (Uncas), Hugh Buckler (Colonel Munro), Bruce Cabot (Magua), Robert Barrat (Chingachgook), Lumsden Hare Willard Robertson (Captain Winthrop), Frank McGlynn, senior (David Gamut), Will Stanton (Jenkins), William V. Mong (Sacham), Olaf Hytten (King George II), Reginald Barlow (Duke of Newcastle), Lionel Belmore (patrone), Harry Cording (trapper), Art Dupuis (De Levis), Claude King (Duke of Marlborough), John Sutton (British officer), Ian Maclaren (William Pitt), William Stack (General Montcalm).

Director: GEORGE B. SEITZ. Associate director: Wallace Fox. Screenplay: Phillip Dunne. Adapted by John Balderston, Paul Perez and Daniel Moore from the 1826 novel by James Fenimore Cooper. Photography: Robert Planck. Film editors: Jack Dennis, Harry Marker. Music: Roy Webb. Music director: Nathaniel Shilkret. Music orchestrated by: Hugo Friedhofer and Bernhard Kaun. Art director: John DuCasse Schulz. Costumes designed by Franc Smith. Research: Edward P. Lambert. Continuity "girl": Carl Roup. Production supervisor: Harry M. Goetz. Assistant director: John L. Cass. Producer: Edward Small. An Edward Small Production.

Copyright 18 August 1936 by Reliance Productions of California. Released through United Artists: 4 September 1936. New York opening at the Rivoli: 2 September 1936. Australian release: 21 October 1936. 91 minutes.

SYNOPSIS: It's an odd adaptation indeed when a novel's title character is reduced to little more than a bit part and the narrative's other principal figure, the misanthropic Hawkeye, is not only handed a love interest but actually succumbs to this failing.

COMMENT: I know this adaptation has its supporters, and it's true both that Randolph Scott makes a very capable Hawkeye (despite his unwarranted interest in a passing pretty face) and that the movie has its fair share of action.

All the same, to my mind, some familiar players look distinctly uncomfortable as Indians or rough colonials, and, what's worse, neither the direction nor the photography look sufficiently distinguished to do even this drastically pruned and considerably modified version of the novel anything like justice.

An Excellent Adventure Film!

[azcowboysingr · 10/10 · 24 June 2007]

There have been many films/TV shows made from the Cooper novel, but only 2 really stand out as movies I never tire of watching. This 1936 version, starring Randolph Scott, is one of them. While lacking the majestic beauty of panoramic cinematography that the 1992 version has, it tells the story straight out, with great acting from Randy Scott & his supporting cast. Scott, always the stalwart hero, was never better than as Hawkeye. The director cut no corners, giving the actors whatever they required to make their characters living, breathing, people rather than just cardboard stereotypes as many Hollywood productions did in those early days of sound film. The B/W photography, rather than detracting, actually gives the film a certain historical aspect, as if we are watching a real event through the binoculars of time. I whole-heartedly encourage anyone who hasn't suffered terminal "brain-rot" from the modern crop of "hack-em & slash-em", drugs, sex & rock music, movies, to add this one to their collection of really excellent films!

Horrible HORRIBLE book to movie adaptation

[bikejump · 1/10 · 8 June 2002]

Even if it weren't based on a book, this movie would have been horrible, and its worse because it is nothing like the classic book it was based on. I would recommend you read the book, but if all possible, pass by this sad excuse for a movie.

1/10

Last of the Mohicans, exciting and enjoyable

[railyard · 9/10 · 29 September 2005]

Although I have never read the book, I have seen several movies about "The Last of the Mohicans" including those that starred Harry Carey, Michael O'Shea (Buster Crabbe as Magua), Steve Forest, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Randolph Scott as Hawkeye (Nathaniel). Also the TV program starring ex-Lone Ranger, John Hart. For me the number one is Randolph Scott. I'm not saying that the others aren't good, but he is my idea of a clean cut, all American hero whom I'd like to have as a friend especially in time of danger. Actor for actor, the 1936 version has the best cast. Nobody is better than Bruce Cabot as Magua and Robert Barrat is the greatest Chingachgook of all, even though neither one is a real Indian. The final fight to the death between the two of them is far superior than that of any other version and Barrat's homage to his dead son Uncas (Phillip Reed) brings me to tears. There is room for all of these versions, and if you can, watch all of them and pick your own favorite.

Randolph Scott As Hawkeye

[Dan1863Sickles · 4/10 · 15 May 2023]

I always pictured Randolph Scott as a really rustic type, like Gabby Hayes or Chill Wills. He's actually very good looking and sophisticated with the ladies, more like Errol Flynn than John Wayne!

There are a lot of good things about this version of the classic story. Alice and Cora are more playful and more talkative than they are in the 1992 version. They're more like Carole Lombard in MY MAN GODFREY! The only problem is, in this scavenger hunt the prize is their scalps.

Bruce Cabot is great as Magua, but he's still not as good as Wes Studi in the 1992 version. Magua is better played by an older actor who can depict the rage that is building up over a period of years. Bruce Cabot just comes across as full of energy and ambition, without any real personal sense of injury.

But the main problem with this old fashioned version is way everything is shot in daylight, and the woods never seem menacing, and the music sounds downright silly. The 1992 version actually feels "older," if not timeless, because so much of the story is told by music and by images, and by looks rather than words.

The 'Leather Stocking Tale' come to life

[bux · 8/10 · 6 November 1998]

Arguably the best version of the Cooper Classic. Great production values, a fine cast and fast paced direction move this tale of Colonial America along to a breath-taking climax. This one's been done many times, but never done better than this.