The Burning of Atlanta

Seemed like a re-enactment with a weak story line laid over the top. The acting was a bit wooden, the production values were okay for a re-enactment but well below par for a film, the set were primitive and very limited with the battle for Atlanta being fought by maybe 50 or less troops!

FYI my DVD was titled "1864 The battle of Atlanta - A burning city under siege"

Highly overlooked movie of tremendous historical value!! Top notch musical score, choreography & acting at Oscar worthy level. Should be shown in schools & universities across the country.

Well as title suggests-did just that.

I'm not sure if it was a very low budget reenactor made film or a film using reenactors, but it was.....offensive word

The opening reenactor battle was typically bad seen it before in person reenactors wandering around, no direction, firing off lots of rounds and no-one dies; oh and can clearly see the confederate army was very well fed judging by the number of podgy/porky people

Then the scene of 3 soldiers being brought before General Hood. I was expecting an actor or reenactor who looks like Hood, instead there's a guy in his 60s Clearly past his prime, overweight. I didn't get any further. I was expecting him to stand up and use his left arm or in fact have both his legs.

I've seen better acting from the local civil war reenactment group. The opening scenes was a pitiful display of the directors interpretative of what's written in the synopsis and does little if anything to realise it but to annoy the viewer with the same lame scenes on repeat coupled with a dreadful score. 6.1!? I don't think so

Poor acting. Poor "action" scenes. Poor quality cinematography. It was almost like watching and listening to a stage performance done in a budget theater. It was actually hard to watch. The bits of history were almost lost with how distracting the rest was, and the o kt reason for 2 stars instead of one. It was only gross fascination that kept us watching.