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.

See other user reviews