The Last of the Mohicans
The Last of the Mohicans
NR | 02 July 1936 (USA)
The Last of the Mohicans Trailers

The story is set in the British province of New York during the French and Indian War, and concerns—in part—a Huron massacre (with passive French acquiescence) of between 500 to 1,500 Anglo-American troops, who had honorably surrendered at Fort William Henry, plus some women and servants; the kidnapping of two sisters, daughters of the British commander; and their rescue by the last Mohicans.

Reviews
sekander

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.

... View More
Stormy_Autumn

"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.

... View More
dinky-4

Two movies about early-frontier America were released in the autumn of 1936: "The Last of the Mohicans" with Randolph Scott and "Daniel Boone" with George O'Brien. Both were set in the years just prior to the American Revolution, both had Heather Angel in the cast, and both featured a romantic triangle involving a coonskin-capped frontiersman and a powdered-wigged dandy in love with the same woman. Though well over 65 years old, both movies still play well today for any audience that doesn't instantly recoil at the sight of, ugh!, black-and-white cinematography.Curiously, both movies have a scene in which the leading man is tied to a stake in an Indian village so that he can be burned alive. There are several similarities in these scenes -- both men appear bare-chested, for example -- but it's the differences in the scenes which are intriguing.Basically, the burning-at-the-stake scene in "Daniel Boone" is a masculine scene whereas that in "Mohicans" is a feminine scene. In "Daniel Boone," George O'Brien has a tough, virile look with scrappy hair and a tanned, sweaty torso. He wears his pants low enough to show off his navel. He doesn't go to the stake willingly and when the fire is lit, he struggles and kicks and squirms to avoid the flames.Randolph Scott, on the other hand, has a pale look to his skin and he never seems to sweat. He wears his pants high enough to cover his navel and his hair has been styled with marcel waves. He goes to the stake as a willing sacrifice and he never struggles against his bonds. Close-up shots of his face show him with the resigned, masochistic expression of a martyr in a medieval icon.Which scene is better? Probably that in "Daniel Boone" but it's largely a matter of taste. In both scenes, by the way, the leading man displays his manly torso but is allowed to keep his pants on. Apparently those Indians were big on agonizing tortures so long as they were conducted with proper modesty.Finally, note the rawhide straps which cross Randolph Scott's chest in "Mohicans." When first seen, they're positioned below his nipples but during the course of his ordeal they somehow manage to creep up his torso.(For the record, this scene of "Hawkeye" being tortured does not occur in James Fenimore's Cooper novel.)

... View More
telegonus

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.

... View More