American Confederate

Oh my goodness some of the worst acting I have seen in a long time...Oh Lordy the dialog was just awful...This truly the worst movie ever...terrible..just terrible..

If you are looking for a main-stream movie based around the Civil War, and don't check the reviews first, you can expect to be seriously disappointed.

"How far can I throw this disk" disappointed.. It has the feel of a home movie produced by Civil War re-enactors. Costumes are generally pretty good, and the period equipment, at least to my eye, seems authentic and researched.

But it's in the actual 'Movie Making' that this production falls flat on it's face.

You kind of get the feeling that the entire crew would get a buzz every time they hear that someone actually bought a copy.

Apart from one or two exceptions, the bulk of the cast appear to have no acting experience whatso-ever, and those one or two exceptions manage to make the 'Bulk' seem even less skilled by comparison.

The film quality is as under-whelming as the performances and there is a clear absence of resource when it comes to just about every 'Behind the Camera' aspect required to make a movie.

That said, we need to keep things in perspective.

This isn't a Hollywood blockbuster.

I imagine the invoice for one day's supply of coffee for such a movie would dwarf the entire production budget of this endeavour.

It gives the impression of being made by a bunch of guys with a passion for the history, but absolutely no movie-making experience, and a budget equal to what they collectively found down the back of the sofa.

But at least they went out there and made one.

What did I do today?

Not much by comparison.

It's like watching a community play filmed by someone's nephew with a video camera. Terrible edits, flubbed lines and flat deliveries. Parker Stevenson as General Sherman? And one totally unexpected graphic, violent death. Don't bother.

When I saw the reviews at that time (2.x) I assumed the film had to have some redeeming quality. People were put-off by history, or some group was slighted. No, those review numbers were really accurate. There was no review then, so people needed some warning.

The production is in color sort of, and it's generally in focus. So much for the good parts. The budget was obviously low or non-existent. It is quickly obvious that locations were chosen and used so that no set preparation would be necessary. The a... behavior of the people, was unconvincing in the extreme. When one of them is "shot in the leg", even that is not convincing, nor is his escape.

In the next scene, he has walked to a makeshift hospital tent. The doctor and nurse/helper have ended an exhausting shift, but there is one person outside the five-man tent needing attention. Just about the time you're wondering where the pile of bodies is, the man with the .57 caliber slug in his leg shows up, and soon, we're told he's lost a lot of blood, but none of the blood wound up on his pant leg. The production LITERALLY did not afford fake blood. Later on, they discover the formula, but none of it ever gets on the surgeon.

There are "cavalry" men of various names, and they say things, but no character is developed to anywhere near the point where you caring about anyone in the slightest. The movie does not attempt to fill in the "backstory" of any battle or tell a story with an arc or vector of any kind.

I've seen elementary school plays that contain better acting. At several points in the movie, actors flub their lines. It's blatantly obvious, and no attempt was made to edit them out.