Hostile Territory

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.

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.

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.

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.