"American Confederate" follows a group of Confederate cavalry, and a group of Union (Federal) cavalry, from late 1862 until the end of the Civil War in 1865."American Confederate" follows a group of Confederate cavalry, and a group of Union (Federal) cavalry, from late 1862 until the end of the Civil War in 1865."American Confederate" follows a group of Confederate cavalry, and a group of Union (Federal) cavalry, from late 1862 until the end of the Civil War in 1865.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
If you are looking for a main-stream movie based around the Civil War, and don't check the reviews first, you can expect to be seriously disappointed.
"How far can I throw this disk" disappointed.. It has the feel of a home movie produced by Civil War re-enactors. Costumes are generally pretty good, and the period equipment, at least to my eye, seems authentic and researched.
But it's in the actual 'Movie Making' that this production falls flat on it's face.
You kind of get the feeling that the entire crew would get a buzz every time they hear that someone actually bought a copy.
Apart from one or two exceptions, the bulk of the cast appear to have no acting experience whatso-ever, and those one or two exceptions manage to make the 'Bulk' seem even less skilled by comparison.
The film quality is as under-whelming as the performances and there is a clear absence of resource when it comes to just about every 'Behind the Camera' aspect required to make a movie.
That said, we need to keep things in perspective.
This isn't a Hollywood blockbuster.
I imagine the invoice for one day's supply of coffee for such a movie would dwarf the entire production budget of this endeavour.
It gives the impression of being made by a bunch of guys with a passion for the history, but absolutely no movie-making experience, and a budget equal to what they collectively found down the back of the sofa.
But at least they went out there and made one.
What did I do today?
Not much by comparison.
"How far can I throw this disk" disappointed.. It has the feel of a home movie produced by Civil War re-enactors. Costumes are generally pretty good, and the period equipment, at least to my eye, seems authentic and researched.
But it's in the actual 'Movie Making' that this production falls flat on it's face.
You kind of get the feeling that the entire crew would get a buzz every time they hear that someone actually bought a copy.
Apart from one or two exceptions, the bulk of the cast appear to have no acting experience whatso-ever, and those one or two exceptions manage to make the 'Bulk' seem even less skilled by comparison.
The film quality is as under-whelming as the performances and there is a clear absence of resource when it comes to just about every 'Behind the Camera' aspect required to make a movie.
That said, we need to keep things in perspective.
This isn't a Hollywood blockbuster.
I imagine the invoice for one day's supply of coffee for such a movie would dwarf the entire production budget of this endeavour.
It gives the impression of being made by a bunch of guys with a passion for the history, but absolutely no movie-making experience, and a budget equal to what they collectively found down the back of the sofa.
But at least they went out there and made one.
What did I do today?
Not much by comparison.
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.
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 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.
Over the years I have watched a good number of war movies, incl. Civil War flicks like Gettysburg, Glory, Andersonville, The Blue and the Gray etc. This is absolutely at the bottom of the pile, and I gave it a one. Please, Mr. Forbes, producers, and most of the actors, with all due respect find a new line of work, maybe anime, but not pseudo reality. The other review I read I agree with, about the bullet wound, lame field hospital, etc. I noticed over 3 campaigns and a couple or more years the surgeon's apron never changed, same exact blood spatter. And a couple tents? No other personnel? I mean really? Couldn't you get some reenactors to volunteer on a low budget film? The actors just kind of recited their lines. In one scene 4 or 5 soldiers all had identical appearing wounds/blood on their heads. Seemed hoakie. Some of the cinematography/ special takes were really lame. I forced myself to watch most it, just to see how bad it would get. Luckily it was on my computer so I fast forwarded so as not to waste an inordinate amount of time. Avoid this movie and get one of the above mentioned ones or anything else, should be better. Please don't try any more war movies.
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.
Did you know
- GoofsThe field hospital shown never moves, the tents and landscape around it are the exact same in various scenes, but they're suppose to be in Gettysburg and Atlanta, over a year and several states apart.
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Ameerika Konföderatsioon
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,700,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 37m(97 min)
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content