User reviews

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.

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.

First my review. I'm not exactly sure who this movie will appeal to. It is slow, boring, and historically inaccurate. As one review or put it, it is like a Hallmark movie. I got a real laugh out of the fact that they had integrated military units which did not occur in this country until 1948. Also some of the weapons and uniforms were off for the time period.

And now unrelated. I'm not sure if you noticed this but as of last week all IMDb reviews have to be 600 characters. So I guess this will be my last review since I do have a life outside of reviewing movies. If I want to read 600 character reviews, I will start reading the New York Times.

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.

Ok this is definitely the dumbest movie that's ever been made, ridiculous plot, historically way out in left field, the movie is way out of sequence, random characters, this movie has it all. The last 10mins are basically a random montage that doesn't make sense. The only cool scene is when dude tomahawks the Indian in the back of the head, and even that is unbelievable. The old steel bridge is a low point in the movie considering it's 1865 in Indian territory, or the black dude that is in every scene but speaks four words the entire movie, how everyone meets up at the end of the movie for no reason. Watch this movie for the sheer enjoyment of seeing the stupidest movie ever made. Also this movie was probably made for under $100 grand.

I don't know what people expected when going in to this movie, but a present rating of 4.3 is nothing but insulting.

The cinematography and the music is 10/10, nothing more, nothing less. The acting was really good from some of the actors, not as good from others. What do people expect from a low budget movie like this?

I read someone saying that the movie was slow. I on the other hand felt that it passed by too fast. It could literally had been at least an hour longer because it felt to me as if they tried to add too much into the movie which made it feel as if it was a bit rushed.

With a larger budget and another hour added it could've been great.

I must admit that the action scenes wasn't really Good, but i mean it's good enough. It's the message and the cinematography that got to me in this one.

It's a well deserved 6.5 or a 7. I chose to give it a 7. It's well worth a watch if you don't expect 24/7 action.

Don't be fooled folks, badly acted and with a budget of about $12.... However, if you like wasting time feel free to indulge.

The high reviews are clearly from the casts parents.

Wow. Now this 2022 Western drama turned out to be a really nice surprise of a movie.

I must admit that I wasn't really expecting a whole lot from writer and director Brian Presley with this 2022 movie. Why not? Well, I had never heard about the movie, and I wasn't familiar with the almost the entire cast ensemble here. Plus, I've only had the misfortune of sitting through mostly dubious Westerns of a newer production date. So yeah, I wasn't really harboring much of any expectations here.

The storyline told in "Hostile Territory" turned out to be very entertaining and enjoyable. It was a well-written storyline that definitely encompassed a lot of different elements and aspects, and it is that which made it stand out from many other more singular-minded Western movies. I will say that I was genuinely entertained by the storyline from start to end, so writer and director Brian Presley definitely churned out a very watchable and entertaining movie here with "Hostile Territory".

It should be said that the cast ensemble definitely put on good performances and carried the movie quite well, and that applies to both adult and child actors and actresses alike. Lots of great performances throughout the course of the movie, and they definitely made the movie come to life in a very fulfilling manner.

"Hostile Territory" looks and feels like a Western movie, well more of a frontier Western movie, as there isn't a whole lot of city living and dueling going on. And that was nice to me. I definitely enjoyed watching a movie that explored this aspect of the post-Civil War era.

And the wardrobe and props departments definitely added a great layer of Western atmosphere to the movie. It was eye-candy to look at, and it helped make the movie pop out from the screen. Lots of nice scenery and landscapes as well.

If you enjoy Westerns, then you definitely have to sit down and watch "Hostile Territory" if you get the chance. This movie surprised me profoundly, and it is a movie that I can and will warmly recommend.

My rating of "Hostile Territory" lands on a seven out of ten stars.

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.

A treat to see a great story line . No endless swearing and only moderate violence. A movie for the masses. Actors are mostly unknown to me but they do an exceptional job.

Lovely scenery and not overly long as to have that annoying 30 mid minutes of nothingness.

Enjoy it as it comes.

A bit slow & drawn out (1 h 34 min seems like 2 hrs) but not too bad, overall just OK.

Can add that the scenery & photograpy was good, lots of drones shots in filming the snowy landscape.

Wanted to give 5.5 out of 10.

Plot so predictable, acting is earnest and wooden. They should have spent more on the script and talent and less...elsewhere. Found myself cringing a lot. Missed opportunity. It isn't that all the actors were particularly bad, they were simply given a poorly crafted script- almost seemed like a church version of a gritty western. All the grit was removed and replaced with a preachiness that became too much to ignore. The situations that were given and not explained at all were unlikely and a stretch to believe given the US history with the civil war and the west in general. Director/writer should have explored and developed the character arches much more.

Possibly the worst written, and worst acted movie I have ever seen. Nothing about this "movie" is anywhere near good, or even semi accurate. The geographical locations are crazy bad. Dad's supposedly is traveling from Virginia to Missouri, yet the background shots are obviously the plains with the Rockies behind them. I really don't know why this thing is this jacked up. It was supposed to be based on a true story, but adapted from what? A poorly written account scrawled on a napkin in crayon? The only good thing I can say is it's in focus. Poorly directed, poorly performed, poorly researched. The only reason I didn't give it a 1, is because of the cinematic camera work.

Stupid story line, idiotic historical accuracy,

his own siblings still had dirty faces deep into the plot line,

then their dad on the mission to find them gray clad soldiers deep into the north well after the WAR of the Northern invasion assaulting a woman of color, gray coasts would have been shot well before an assault could have happened......seriously gray and blue uniforms years after the war total and utter BS the dad in his blue was attack by Apaches AS the UNION SHOULD HAVE BEEN .... but a different story ....

As a historian, I try to give these period pieces an impartial look.... but this was stupid from the get go... an examaple showing one of the daughters looking back on her story from 1861, which she may have been 3, so in 1902 had to been in her mid 40s, yet the woman appeared to be young 30s, no they didn't have beauty skin cream in the day to make a 45 year old appear to be 25-30.

Low budget. Average to poor acting. One exception there. Predictable. At least it was short and that was good. Good drone stuff of Montana but Yellowstone does that. And I don't think they needed lipstick on the little girl at the end. Enjoy.

Simple low budget movie based on a true story. I was skeptical because of the low ratings but I actually enjoyed this movie. It even had me tearing up in a few places. Made me want to learn more about the Orphan Trains too.

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.

I found this confusing as hell. Where did the family originally live? That was never established. Where was the father a POW? Never established. He is traveling from somewhere (never established) to Missouri. I did not realize that Missouri after the Civil War was still considered hostile Indian territory. It was civilized and a heavily battled over during the Civil War itself so from where have the sudden hostile tribes originated? It was all filmed in Colorado. This is why it didn't look like Missouri. I couldn't figure out where the mountains were coming from or what an earth was happening. This movie had so much potential. It was like it picked up halfway into the story but never explained what happened in the previous part. There have been a lot of orphan train books and movies and most are far better than this. I found this to be a great disappointment.

I have read the reviews and this movie i thought was excellent not to long very thoughtfully made the end off movie was excellent my opinion very very GOOD and worth the time watching xx.

This was a surprisingly good Western. The acting was solid for the most part. On what looked to be a modest budget, the movie delivered a good storyline, solid action sequences and great cinematography. Don't understand some of the negative reviews. Not everything can be a CGI extravaganza interlaced with one-liners.

I'll watch any Western movie. I absolutely love them. This has the feel of a poorly written and executed Spaghetti Western with the modern touch added. A little bit of research into the lexicon and dress of the period would have made it loads better. Using the wrong Native American tribes for the location and period is a big issue, which is easily corrected with a simple search. It just has the feel of trying to make a modern Clint Eastwood or John Wayne plot, but with half the effort, which says a lot, considering how low budget those typically were. However, it was refreshing to see a new aspect added, with the Orphan Train getting some needed recognition. The cinematography and musical score were great, contrasting the shoddy script and acting at times. The ending was pretty weak as well, making the movie feel rushed to conclude. In all, for a Western lover, it's your run of the mill, low budget fix. It could be loads better, but it could also be much, much worse.

While it's a typical made for TV movie - the acting was pretty fair - the scenery is beautiful and the storyline kept moving. It piqued my curiosity to research more on the orphan train movement as I was not previously familiar with it. I see other reviews that are pretty harsh - I've watched way worse movies with bigger budgets and poor acting - as long as you keep your expectations in check of being loosely based on true stories, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. The orphan trains ran for almost 100 years in this country - yet it's not widely talked about. For being a low budget film - I feel it was well acted, storyline moved, and beautifully shot with whatever locations they had. I would recommend.