Rock Hudson, Jeff Chandler, Rex Reason, Ian MacDonald, Barbara Rush...all not exactly American-Indian sounding names! Yet, all these folks are all painted up in "Taza, Son of Cochise" to play just such roles--which represents the single biggest problem with this movie. Not only aren't they Indians, they hardly look like them and give the film a certain silliness you can't get past. And, even if the actors had done great jobs in their parts (which they hadn't), this isn't enough to overcome this problem. However, for me this is EXACTLY why I watched the film--because it was so unbelievably cast! Yes folks, I AM a glutton for punishment. And, is there something worth watching here? The film begins with Chief Cochise's death. His son, Taza (Hudson), vows to keep the peace--whereas his hot-headed son, Naiche (Reason), is determined to destroy the white folks. However, after their big showdown in which Taza kicks the snot out of him, some other renegades sneak in and set Naiche free. So, it's up to our hero, Taza, to find his wicked brother and maintain the peace. But even when he does, it might be too late for him and his people--especially when Geronimo is sent to live on Taza's reservation.As for the rest of the film, it's a real mixed bag. On one hand, the film is gorgeous--with a fantastic location shoot in Utah as well as terrific music. So the film clearly had a nice budget and it's obvious the studio gave director Douglas Sirk the go ahead to make a quality film. However, the film also suffers from some downright awful dialog--dialog that often makes the 'Indians' sound like idiots. The worst of this often occurred with love scenes--which were among the least romantic in film history. Overall, the film is watchable but silly--and certainly not among the best or worst of the genre.By the way, I wonder if this film was originally planned as a 3-D movie. This is because often punches, spears, giant rocks and whips are tossed directly AT the camera--like you'd see in a 3-D picture. Considering it came out in 1954, this is awfully likely. Also, historically speaking the movie is a mish-mash of facts and pure bunk.

Don't get me wrong.I've always been a big fan of Deltlef Sierck (Douglas Sirk in America)and most of his melodramas are among my all time favorites : "A time to live and a time to die ","All that Heaven allows" "Magnificent obsession" " Tarnished angels" "Written on the wind" plus those with Zarah Leander in Germany not to forget his final effort ,the remake of "imitation of life".THis remake was drastically different from Stahl's version:the black servant Delilah became Annie and the only thing she could expect in life was a beautiful funeral.In Stahl's version (and in Fannie Hurst's novel) she was a businesswoman's associate ,in Sirk's screenplay she stayed the good servant -not very far away from GWTW's Mamma-who knew her place.Still with me?I do think that,in spite of Sirk's storyteller qualities and good scenes (the discovery of the bruises on Barbara Rush's back),"Taza" is also a reactionary work .Taza (who in real life died of pneumonia two years after his dad)predates Annie in "Imitation" :he is the good Indian,who knows his place ,who (this is amazing) dresses like them ,who rebels against his people's customs and even fights them;on the other hand ,Geronimo (and his allies) plays the role of the villain : "we were hunters, warriors,we won't be breeders ".After all ,the white men are taking their land and sending them to reservations:his rebellion makes sense.Rock Hudson,who was Sirk's favorite actor (his best parts were certainly "All that Heaven allows" and "Magnificent Obsession" -another remake of a Stahl's work-) ,is not well cast as an Indian.And what about Barbara Rush as a squaw?Debra Paget was acceptable ("Broken Arrow"),she is not.

Taza was originally in 3-d. 3-d was a novelty that was to bring back the TV viewers, an there are shots that fit the specialized view, to surprise the movie goer. Seen it once it's a surprise after that it's a distraction. Have to wait for holograms to surround you ala "real life". Rock takes on responsibility after the brief time of Jeff Chandler on screen. The apaches seem to actually be in typical apache "wickiups", an in the Arizona desert. He knows that the whites must be Accomodated and his people must accept the changes coming whether they want them or not. there is a lot of action, including a terrific apache vs. cavalry massacre, led by taza, so he's no wimp, an just as much a warrior as his father. An investment for a long non-stock footage fight, showed that heyday of the western included plenty of shooting and a massacre not hinted at but shown. The bad apaches kill some settlers, an here is a typical 3-d arrow coming out of the screen effect. eventually taza becomes a respected and accepted Indian chief , an foils the bad Indians who won't bend with the winds of change. It was very sympathetic to the Indians but had a large scale Indians vs. cavalry scene for the action and danger of the west,showing Indians were a power to be reckoned with. I am part Shawnee and have to set this as one of several 50's films that was sympathetic to the Indians and the their situations plus lotsa shooting an whooping, cause the Indians fought, as well as negotiated. not quite in the "john ford" category or near the movie experience of "the Searchers", but well worth the price of admission in the 50's and will entertain today. Rock was learning his craft an carried the movie well as a non-Indian acting in a good part.

Universal joined the parade of film studios that wanted to cash in on the popularity of Indian chiefs during the 1950s. This western followed the familiar formula of war and peace, reservation vs. warpath story lines, trigger happy soldiers and renegade Indians. Rock Hudson stars as the obedient, peace-loving son of Cochise in this Arizona saga but his brother opposes the chief's death-bed wish and schemes with other Indians to break free to raid and plunder. That is essentially the plot here, with nothing new to offer fans of this genre. The movie has enough action and scenic vistas to maintain interest but also looks like it was filmed on a shoestring budget. Hudson and Barbara Rush make a fetching couple and the supporting cast is good but the film lacks the polish of other Universal westerns of this period.