Alone Yet Not Alone

Good plot but that's about it...acting is horrid !

I was entertained by this film. Based on a true story and made on a low budget. It's a TV movie not a Hollywood blockbuster. The storyline is good. I don't understand the very low ratings, perhaps people expect to much from a film. I've turned off plenty of films with big stars after 15 mins but this film I watched to the end.

Really enjoyed the story and story-telling. Filmography and scenery were great. Showed how people with faith can still find ways to be happy through great tribulations.

This just wasn't a very good movie. I watched a screening copy (with a friend from an appropriate guild) on a whim, and being a bit of a history buff, some movies people find to slow I still like. This wasn't one of them. It claims to be based on a true story (which it may VERY LOOSELY be), but the historical inaccuracies were rampant in nearly every scene. I'm actually surprised it was shot in Williamsburg, VA, because they clearly didn't hire a knowledgeable technical adviser. It also portrayed the indigenous Americans with a pretty racist slant. Additionally, there were a number of quality issues with the film. There was inconsistent depth of field throughout the film, making it look like something shot on Best Buy camera with a stock zoom lens. The color was off from shot to shot. The audio didn't sound feature quality and seemed like they relied on the score to cover up audio imperfections. The acting was very poor (with the exception of Mama- Joanie Stewart was good). It was either no feeling or EVERY FEELING EVER ALL AT ONCE!!! The dialogue was poor and the sisters' bond to each other and god kind of felt like it was a given, with no motives or honesty, just blind faith because Daddy told them so. It's almost a jaded rip off of An American Tale, except without any of the adventure or feeling (or cute animated mice). I was able to make it all the way through, but was left feeling empty and bored, rather than inspired and uplifted. There may be an audience for it, but I'm not sure who. It's really just a poor presentation of lower budget filmmaking. 3/10

Disclosure: My production company produced an 18th century television series ("Courage, New Hampshire"), and while we're toiling in the same time period, this project ("Alone, Yet Not Alone") was out of our league on the budget front. "Alone" has some crowd scene production value (village/nautical/battle sequences) that have a truly "big film" look. I thought the stunt work in the battle scenes was more than credible. Some of the sets were stunning, and the cinematography was beautiful.

Having said that, and trying to be as honest as I can about other 18th century projects (I liked "Turn", Hated "Sons of Liberty"), I think the script and the direction lacked any objective review. Faith films always seem burdened by the need to project a wholesomeness, and a cheerfulness in even mundane human exchanges that can put a strain on the audience. You can't even get your belongings off a ship, in these stories, or chase a dog through the woods without smiling like Howdy- Doody. Against the perils of carving out a wilderness farm, these appear to be the happiest German immigrants ever minted. Plant a seed - - smile broadly. Split some firewood -- make your sister giggle. Bake some bread -- look beatifically on the blessed land. (I know this is in reaction to dark, existential versions of history by conventional Hollywood, but still..)

The savages: one of the reasons I have never attempted (yet) to include a Native American component in "Courage" is that it's just difficult to tell this story honestly.The actual Barbara Leininger account (the primary history upon which "Alone, Yet Not Alone" is based) includes journal accounts like this one:

"Three days later an Englishman was brought in, who had, likewise attempted to escape with Col. Armstrong, and burned alive in the same village. His torments, however, continued only about three hours, but his screams were frightful to listen to. It rained that day very hard, so that the Indians could not keep up the fire. Hence they began to discharge gunpowder at his body. At last, amidst his worst pains, when the poor man called for a drink of water, they brought him melted lead, and poured it down his throat."

..and this:

"Having been recaptured by the savages, and brought back to Kittanny, she was put to death in an unheard of way. First, they scalped her; next, they laid burning splinters of wood, here and there, upon her body; and then they cut off her ears and fingers, forcing them into her mouth so that she had to swallow them..."

(The Declaration of Independence doesn't use the term "savages" gratuitously, in other words.)

Although "Alone" hints at some of this brutality, the overall effect feels a bit more like "My summer vacation playing with Indian war paint." If you don't want to show the actual ears being cut off, you can do the Hitchcock thing and let us hear it, but you have to let us know that mortal peril is always there, or you cheapen the terror these women must have felt.

Look, movie making is hard work. I've made all of these mistakes, and more. Onward and upward, folks.

Trivia: despite the rumors of ending up on the cutting room floor, Doug Phillips actually does a fair amount of face time in this film.