American Confederate

Well, given the very low rating that this 2019 Western have been getting on IMDb, I must admit that I wasn't particularly thrilled about watching it. But still, it was a movie that I hadn't already seen before, plus it was centered around the American Civil War, so of course I had to watch it.

And believe you me, this movie was bad from an entertainment perspective. There was no red thread throughout the course of the entire movie, and everything felt like it was just a compilation of randomly shot scenes that were put together to make a movie. And it beats me what writer and director Christopher Forbes was thinking here with that approach to the movie. Surely, someone must have stopped at a point along the way and asked "Sir, why is there no coherency to what we are doing?"

The storyline was just utter rubbish. As I just mentioned above, there is not coherency to the storyline. It felt like I was watching a selection of endlessly random scenes.

As for the acting in the movie, well let's just say that the acting performances were dubious at best. So you should not expect to see any grand performances to match those seen in the 1993 "Gettysburg" or the 1989 "Glory".

The cutting and editing of the movie was just atrocious, and it felt like something performed on a high school amateur level. Yup, it was that bad.

What worked for the movie, however, was the costumes and the props. That was definitely something worth watching. But sadly, that was essentially all that "American Confederate" had going for it. That and the movie's cover, which was the reason why I picked up the movie.

If you enjoy movies that are set in the American Civil War, then you might want to skip on this movie, because it is a mess and a waste of time. I am rating "American Confederate" a generous two out of ten stars. I managed to sit through it, but this was an ordeal to get through, and I wasn't entertained nor enjoying what director Christopher Forbes served.

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.

I have rarely seen such poor acting, with dense text from a third-rate play. I still can't believe Parker Stevenson wanted to work on this film. Wast of Money and Time.

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.