Strike the Tent

A noble cause in wanting to make this film by the family of John Adams, but uh boy, there are serious script flaws, lack of believability in some of the characters due to sub-par acting (by Julian Adams, mainly), continuity problems, and a wardrobe that at times looks like it came out of a cracker-jacks box. This film is billed as being filled with passion and being "explosive", according to one IMDb reviewer. I think dead people are more passionate and explosive! I don't know why this film is getting so many positive reviews, it's really not good at all. I'm only giving it 3 stars myself out of consideration for the family's desire to tell the story of their heritage (assuming it is all true, but I've found nothing on the history of Robert Adams anywhere else but in this film, so who knows how much of the movie is historically accurate).

Even if you're a civil war history buff, this film will likely barely hold your interest (if at all).

Sorry, Adams family. Nothing personal, I'm just calling it like I see it.

Very well done, especially considering the budget. I liked the independent, realistic feel to it, vs manufactured or contrived Hollywoodism.

I read somewhere a reviewer saying that this was "revisionist history" wrt this movie's depiction of how the slave owners treated their slaves so nicely. Absolutely untrue... there really wasn't that much depiction of slave owners with slaves to begin with, and to see one white gentleman actually talk nicely to a few slaves was totally believable.

That same reviewer also said this movie was about "nostalgia" for the pre-war south. But I think it was more about southerners protecting their tradition, and then finally knowing when to surrender (hence the title "Strike the Tent"). Otoh, the extra featurette on the DVD about how the film was conceived did show that Julian's intention was to proudly depict his much beloved, land-owning family history.

The film depicts pre-war southern life favorably, yet doesn't demonize the north (much), even after it's clear that the south had lost the war and had to free their slaves. It was a good depiction of one side "protecting their own", but pretty much intentionally blind to the issue of slavery itself. An interesting "real life" depiction of real history--at least from a southern, white-man's point of view.

Being a native of South Carolina, I just truly "lived" in this movie. The actors 'became' the characters and I could feel what it was like during that turbulent time.

This is not a "slick" film one way or the other. Gwendolyn Edwards makes you want to bow and offer her your hand for a promenade; Julian Adams makes you realize what true Southern men went through during that time: it was not easy, nor pat, nor automatic. It was a time that was hard on all Southerners.

This film made it natural that you identify with the characters: they were not heroes, supermen, or plastic celebrities. They were real people.

I'll add this to my collection, and that is a rare honor indeed. Movies are so cheap and easily attainable that it's not worth the time and trouble to buy them. But I will definitely buy this one so that I always have it near to hand.

A million thanks to Julian and Weston Adams and to Gwendolyn Edwards. You all made it so real and so natural.

Thank you.

Jim Kirk

Paris, Tennessee

The story is based on a true person (although only a corporal in real life portrayed as a captain). The family connection of the writer and actors was appreciated. The movie had unnecessary cursing and a sex scene, all of which could have been omitted and the story would have been enhanced. These "modern" devices insult the imagination and taste of viewers like me. My Christian family could have enjoyed it without these elements. The story and action stalled about three quarters of the way through, kind of like a sermon gone too long.

Appreciated the inclusion of a "Copperhead" character, a Northerner who had sentiment for the Southern society and cause. There were a multitude of these "Southern sympathizers" throughout the North, but one would be hard-pressed to find such facts in history books. Good movie except for the elements already mentioned.

Because of my sympathy for the Cause, and a glowing review I had read elsewhere, I was prepared to love this movie, but I can't. I can recommend it, but with the following qualifications: It is a good story, but not well told. The principal problem is the story is chopped up into numerous flashbacks, to the point where the "unity of time" is lost. Not only is this mildly confusing at times, but it prevents the full power of the story from developing.

The acting is average at best. The script, surprisingly, does not seem to have much room for a wide range of emotions, but rather most scenes are executed with the same solemn sincerity. I wasn't yawning, but I was surprised by the lack of vitality in some scenes that really called for it.

The cinematography was very fine. The story was not greatly partisan; it could have made much more of Union Army atrocities against Southern civilians, but took the high road and chose to illustrate, but not dwell on them. It leaves me with a strong sense of the tragedy that was the War, and I think and hope that was one of the makers' main intentions. So it is successful on some levels.