Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    OscarsBest Of 2025Holiday Watch GuideGotham AwardsCelebrity PhotosSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
Back
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
  • FAQ
IMDbPro
Alone Yet Not Alone (2013)

User reviews

Alone Yet Not Alone

8 reviews
2/10

Misconception of Native People/Woodland Native People

Let me start out by saying, I am a Native Re en actor and have been in a few movies and several documentary's relating to the French and Indian War. And I am a Native American Little River Band Of Odawa Indians Tribal Member. The Person who put the native casting together to play the parts in the movie certainly did not do any research at all in regards to what did the woodland native people woman/men(period correct) look like as far appearance,their clothing, there hair, their beliefs, there traditions. The whole native outlook in this movie is so far fetched. It is in comparison to a Hollywood John Wayne shoot um up cowboys and Indians type native scenes. Here are a few things what I saw with the movie in regards to the native characters are so wrong. Woodland Natives Warriors east of the Mississippi for the most part only had a scalp lock in the back of the head which means the rest of the head was plucked of hair. Glasko is wearing a long porky pine roach which is western plains peoples tradition, not woodland. Squaw in the French language back then and today means Whore. Warrior men would never miss use there women, children and more so white captives or children. Remember they would replace there fallen warriors with captives, which meant males would become warriors and there hair plucked with only a scalp lock remaining. Women would become providers, not squaws for sure. There English clothes would be discarded and all would be dressed as natives. We never dyed the hair black of white captives. Food was always distributed throughout the tribe, so we never had to eat grubs believe me. Burning captives at the stake is very far fetched to say the least. Native people are far from being sadistic barbarians. And the Great Spirit is the person you call God or Jesus. We are spiritual people, God gave us our language and one of the words in our language is Gitchi Manido(Great Spirit) So one last comment in this review is, I was one of the Native Re enactors in the movie in which at the time of the filming of this movie myself and other Native Re enactors tried to tell the casting, movie director and ward robe personal that period correct clothing was not being used, and scene were just out of character for a French and Indian Type True Story Movie. Myself, Ron Pinson, Tony Wade, Dancing Elk were the only Natives who were dressed in period correct French and Indian War type clothing. At the end of the movie, they showed the casting in which I did not see one Native American name in the casting. And with that, I Have Nothing more to say.
  • jdramsey-166-943450
  • Jun 16, 2014
  • Permalink
2/10

Terrible acting and the lack of research into the background of the natives makes it a poor film

  • linayota
  • Nov 29, 2017
  • Permalink
2/10

Poorly cast, poor acting, poorly edited.

The first 30 minutes of this film is the only part worth watching. Once Kelly Grayson hits the screen, all believability is out the window. I could barely sit and watch the rest. The only tolerable actors were the extras. Miss Grayson's character somehow managed to maintain clean clothes and perfect teeth despite living in the woods with her native captors. The British General was so poorly acted as to be comical. The only redeeming quality of this film is the beautiful cinematography, and much of this is marred by poor color correction and editing. All in all, an extremely poor treatment of a very touching historical event. Don't waste your time.
  • Fostoria
  • Jan 29, 2014
  • Permalink
2/10

Slightly Racist, Confusing and Overall a Terrible Film.

I watched this film solely for the reason that it was nominated for an academy award and I had never heard of it. What this movie turned out to be was a racist ultra conservative fever dream of this time period only the acting was on par with a middle school play with about one day of preparation. I later learned that the reason that it was nominated was due to corruption in the voting process but I only hope to warn people that started with the same idea that I had, do not watch this movie it's not even laughably bad it's just painful. Also the original song isn't even that good compared to what it beat out, it's just a hymn
  • cottemann
  • Jan 28, 2014
  • Permalink
2/10

Stereotypes ruin a potentially good story

This is painful to watch. Overladen with stereotyped characters that play on some kind of fanciful popular idea of how life was back on the colonial frontier. The Scandinavian settlers, all blithely optimistic and talking like the Swedish chef out of the Muppets: "sho happie to be here in thees vunderful land of opportunity!" The British administrators and senior army officers portrayed as snobbish, incompetent, uncaring and arrogant. The Native Americans all dressed like extras out 'Last of the Mohicans', speaking in totemic pidgin English with lots of exclamations like we've suddenly been transported back to a 1950s B movie western. Then the historical inaccuracies, the schmaltzy music, the perpetual sunshine and ultra-clean sets. What's to like? In this world of revised and realistic perceptions of life on the American frontier, with such excellent examples as 'Dances with Wolves', 'The Revenant' and 'Hostiles', how on earth are films like this still being made?
  • Reephaman
  • Nov 24, 2020
  • Permalink
2/10

Very Disapointing

As a bit of an American history buff,f I was looking forward to watching this movie, especially when it was supposed to be based on a true story. How disappointing !! The acting was very amateurish especially the native Americans. Furthermore, as another user has commented on, the producers must've did much research on the authenticity, they ( native Americans), all looked like something out of a school play, not one of them looked remotely like them. they looked all like white men dressed up, and the hair!! the wigs were terrible. Also the girls, all white teeth and plucked eyelashes. I was expecting so much and it was complete let-down. These flaws overshadowed a good story.
  • lennydixie
  • Dec 1, 2018
  • Permalink
2/10

Bad

Bad casting, abysmal acting, and even worse writing. If you can't get people with native ancestry or at least apparent native ancestry, don't make a movie involving Native Americans. I would rather eat ghost peppers while dehydrated than have to watch green-eyed natives with spray tan run around grunting for an hour again. In addition, don't make a movie with German immigrants if you can't get actors that can do a decent German accent.

The production quality wasn't all that bad, they stretched their resources a long way and by the looks of it had help from historical groups that enabled them to get their hands on certain props. However the plot was incoherent and pointless, and my previous comments remain true.

At times when watching it I couldn't help but be shocked at how bad it was, did they intentionally find the worst actors possible? Were the writers drunk or possibly mentally handicapped? So many questions that will probably never be answered, what a waste of time and money on their part.
  • chrisbwolfert
  • Jul 24, 2019
  • Permalink
2/10

So unreal

Hard to watch...an historical story with a plastic women main character that obviously has breast implants. Make up, gloss, modern cut eyebrows..REALLY? Got nothing against those, but NOT in an historical reconstruction please👎

Bad acting...obvious wigs...was disturbing to watch really!

Its sad cause the story is interesting...should have been a good one...music is nice!

Authenticity is so important in historical movies, credibility is not there AT ALL.

Please do not compare it with the last of the mohicans.. Was much better despite technology of that time. Acting was 1000% time better!!!!!!
  • bolerofarm
  • Mar 26, 2023
  • Permalink

More from this title

More to explore

Recently viewed

Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
Get the IMDb App
Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
Follow IMDb on social
Get the IMDb App
For Android and iOS
Get the IMDb App
  • Help
  • Site Index
  • IMDbPro
  • Box Office Mojo
  • License IMDb Data
  • Press Room
  • Advertising
  • Jobs
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Your Ads Privacy Choices
IMDb, an Amazon company

© 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.