Very Cool!!!

Perfect cast and a good story

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

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.

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."

During most of the twentieth century, white actors usually played leading ethnic roles in Hollywood's films. Chinese, American-Indian and many other groups were played by various actors who often looked and sounded nothing like the people they were intended to portray. It was wrong, but that was the way it was. So, when you watch "Last of the Mohicans" (1936), just accept the goofy casting of Robert Barrat as 'Chingochgook' and Bruce Cabot as 'Magua'. Sure, they were supposed to be American-Indians but were popular white supporting actors. And although you may disagree, Cabot and Barrat did reasonably good jobs in these odd roles--particularly Cabot. And, if you think this is goofy, remember in two earlier versions, Bela Lugosi (in a German-made version) and Boris Karloff BOTH played American-Indian roles!! So, it could be worse! As for the story, it's a very good retelling of the James Fenimore Cooper story. Randolph Scott has always been an underrated actor--probably because his acting seemed so natural and unadorned. He played the role simply and effectively. The rest of the cast were also very good. While some might disagree, this might just be the best of the various versions of the story. I've seen about a half dozen others (including the Daniel Day-Lewis version) and liked the 1936 film best. And, while you might think it crazy, the made for TV version with Steve Forrest is awfully good as well.Nice sets, excellent acting and costumes, this one does justice to this timeless American classic.

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