Hostile Territory

The movie at first intrigued my girlfriend and I do to us liking westerns and violence but this movie was so historically and accurate that it honestly became laughable a little past the halfway mark not only was it historically inaccurate but it was also a culturally inaccurate and play too much on emotions when most western movies are supposed to faze away from emotion horrible development horrible director all around a horrible movie, where was this movie supposed to be filmed? I never knew they were mountains that look like the Southwest in Missouri. Savior Life 2 hours and skip out on this movie We turned it off and couldn't even finish the last 10 minutes because we were laughing too much I wouldn't be surprised if I saw some somebody wearing Air Force ones in the movie.

Good subject and story concept about historical events that are not covered in film much. However...none of the actors were believable or convincing. Subpar / underdeveloped acting and actors doomed this film from start to finish. Excellent cinematography made up for acting shortcomings.

Poor execution. The acting is pretty rough, the script isn't much better. I didn't hate the movie, it was just a tough watch for a movie that had a great plot and couldn't deliver.

The is seriously flawed. The plot is ridiculous. The direction/Director is very poor. The acting varies in quality from below average to above average.

The history is basically fictional and never happened.

1. There were no Apaches north of New Mexico Territory or east of it. That's totally screwed up and by doing that an insult to the Apache tribe and those living in the actual geographical area where the fiction is placed. That area of Montana belonged to multiple tribes like Souix, Shoshone, Crow, Blackfoot and Comanche. These tribes more often and in habit didn't murder children but adopted them into their tribes.

2. As far as I'm aware no such orphanage ever existed in Montana at this time immediately after the Civil War. Consider that at the film's fictious time line Gen. Custer was still alive and the area very dangerous as history easily tells.

3. Why do Directors and writers hate real history? Was it so boring and bland and lacking good and great deeds that you cannot tell a real story that's true, exciting and worth watching or listening using real people and events? If I was a movie maker I could think of a thousand movie plots based on real events worth telling. Hollywood and their low ilk seem helpless and pathetic, including this movie's director.

4. There are thousands of authentic guns available for any movie for any time era, or can be accurately and authentically faked. This Director has screwed up props, places, clothing, language, transportation, cultures and more so badly that it lowers the value of watching this movie acutely. The movie is basically an all encompassing lie containing many small multiple lies.

It could easily and cheaply been much better with a very little effort, research and better ethics.

It started out well, but then you just wait and wait and wait while the story dragged on and on with boring dialogs.

Then you realize much of the film did no research and is based on cliches. For example, Apaches are from desert like New Mexico, they're not found in Missouri, not even close.

These cliches and inaccuracies just takes you out of the suspension of disbelief. A black woman walking on the road and out of nowhere a bunch of confederates decides to rape her with 2 union soldiers, armed union soldiers, only a few feet away? And the whole thing is just down right cliche, Confederates are evil, Union are good. I mean, do you know how many women were raped in Atlanta by Union soldiers? How many homes burned, children killed?

It's ironic b/c the final message of the movie is violence is bad and people should learn to live in peace, despite their cultural and ethnic differences. Yet in the so called diversity utopia ending, they never reconcile the main division between the Confederate and the Union at the beginning of the film. That's just either political bias or just very cliche work that did no research.

Then there is the ludicrous scenes, such as when the black woman all of the sudden end up riding a horse with them and armed with a pistol. Forget the fact, horses are quite expensive, but she was riding the horse in a dress? And she had lessons on how to ride horses? When the Apache showed up, they had to make quick turns and rode on high, she was trained to do that? Then she just pulled out a pistol and started firing at the Apache. Was she trained to use a gun?

I get this is a low budget movie, but the filming is actually quite good. The only time I thought it was cheezey was the Indian's costumes, a bit too colorful and Walmart. Which is ironic b/c Indian's outfit should be the easiest to make in comparison to the other clothings such as the soldiers uniforms, which require much more attention to detail. But a lot of these inconsistencies and ridiculous elements can easily be avoided with a little bit of research on the internet.