Alone Yet Not Alone (2013) User Reviews

Middling quality production of a frontier story

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 5/10 · 29 June 2016]

Starting in 1775 we have a story of a German family who emigrated to America to avoid religious persecution. They buy their own land in an area that was previously the domain of the local Native Indian Tribe. The British are at war with the French – again – and both sides drag the local populace into the conflict and the local tribes also.

This results in a previously allied tribe raiding the frontier homesteads and killing, burning and taking prisoners. This includes Barbara Leininger and her sister. What follows is what befalls them and their friends.

Now I love a good frontier tale, the Native Americans are really done well and some of the locations are excellent – I think they used the same area as Michael Mann in 'The Last of the Mohicans' so very evocative. The acting ranges from good to am dram and that is a shame. Some of the characters are stereo typed to the point of incredulity – especially a couple of the English officers. Then there are the wigs which started of being funny and then became annoying. I have seen more realistic toupees on sale in a joke shop. Why ruin a film that had a fair amount of money spent on it with minor hic cups? If you like a frontier story with a bit of action and some great fancy dress then there may be a great film here for you, if you like true quality in your films then think twice.

Worth a look.

[mcleanmuir · 6/10 · 13 May 2019]

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.

My Summer at Indian Camp

[amos-streeter · 3/10 · 13 July 2015]

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.

Terrible acting and the lack of research into the background of the natives makes it a poor film

[linayota · 2/10 · 30 November 2017]

I really wanted to like this movie. I really did. The premise is extremely interesting and the fact that it's based on a true story made it even more of a harrowing tale. My husband and I stumbled upon this movie while channel surfing overseas (go figure!). We had never even heard of this movie, but decided to give it a chance since it was an American-made film. While all of the actors are extremely attractive, the majority of them cannot act. Additionally, the portrayal of the natives is poor at best and racist at worst. I don't think the costume/design team did any research into what the natives in that particular area actually wore. When the main character, Barbara, (played by Kelly Greyson) is kidnapped and shown years later living among the natives, she's wearing a jean jacket and has a feather in her hair. Can you get any more generic?! Not to mention, all of the captives are forced to dye their blonde hair black? Really? It seems unlikely that this act actually took place back then. Additionally, the actors who portray the natives are speaking in somewhat broken English with perfect American accents. It's comical at times and annoying during other parts of the movie. I wish they could have effectively incorporated the natives' language rather than speaking in English. SPOILER ALERT AHEAD: The native who is in love with Barbara, named Galasko, is axed down by his rage-prone brother quite randomly. I understand that the brother has anger issues throughout the movie, but the plot fails to set up an arc of tension between himself and his brother effectively, or even develop the characters enough to warrant this random act of violence. In fact, this is a problem throughout the whole movie. The characterization and plot development are totally lacking. For example, when Galasko expresses his desire to marry Barbara, she is quite content. Literally one scene later, she realizes she cannot marry him because of her Christian faith (and the fact that her father's scalp hangs above Galasko's tent/home). You'd think that the Stockholm syndrome arc would be played out a little longer than one scene, but it's not. Another thing that bothered me, which bothers me about most Christian films, is how forcefully the topic of Jesus is introduced. I am a Christian and agree that we need more religious films out there. However, if the films are poorly made, then what's the point in making them? For example, in this film, Barbara has a discussion with Galasko about Jesus. The scene is so forced and cheesy, it's quite painful. Overall, this could have been a harrowing story about faith, love of family, and never giving up hope. Instead, it's a movie you watch to have some laughs.

Misconception of Native People/Woodland Native People

[jdramsey-166-943450 · 2/10 · 17 June 2014]

Let me start out by saying, I am a Native Re en actor and have been in a few movies and several documentary's relating to the French and Indian War. And I am a Native American Little River Band Of Odawa Indians Tribal Member. The Person who put the native casting together to play the parts in the movie certainly did not do any research at all in regards to what did the woodland native people woman/men(period correct) look like as far appearance,their clothing, there hair, their beliefs, there traditions. The whole native outlook in this movie is so far fetched. It is in comparison to a Hollywood John Wayne shoot um up cowboys and Indians type native scenes. Here are a few things what I saw with the movie in regards to the native characters are so wrong. Woodland Natives Warriors east of the Mississippi for the most part only had a scalp lock in the back of the head which means the rest of the head was plucked of hair. Glasko is wearing a long porky pine roach which is western plains peoples tradition, not woodland. Squaw in the French language back then and today means Whore. Warrior men would never miss use there women, children and more so white captives or children. Remember they would replace there fallen warriors with captives, which meant males would become warriors and there hair plucked with only a scalp lock remaining. Women would become providers, not squaws for sure. There English clothes would be discarded and all would be dressed as natives. We never dyed the hair black of white captives. Food was always distributed throughout the tribe, so we never had to eat grubs believe me. Burning captives at the stake is very far fetched to say the least. Native people are far from being sadistic barbarians. And the Great Spirit is the person you call God or Jesus. We are spiritual people, God gave us our language and one of the words in our language is Gitchi Manido(Great Spirit) So one last comment in this review is, I was one of the Native Re enactors in the movie in which at the time of the filming of this movie myself and other Native Re enactors tried to tell the casting, movie director and ward robe personal that period correct clothing was not being used, and scene were just out of character for a French and Indian Type True Story Movie. Myself, Ron Pinson, Tony Wade, Dancing Elk were the only Natives who were dressed in period correct French and Indian War type clothing. At the end of the movie, they showed the casting in which I did not see one Native American name in the casting. And with that, I Have Nothing more to say.

Not very good :/

[trackie02rock · 3/10 · 29 January 2014]

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

Pretty good movie

[grafxman · 9/10 · 7 April 2017]

First the good news. The sets and scenery are absolutely top notch. Much of it was shot outdoors in woodland areas, caves, waterfalls, etc. The exteriors and interiors of the cabins, fort etc. are quite realistic. It seems to be very authentic.

The story was excellent. It was fascinating and based on real events involving real people. I found it interesting and compelling from start to finish. The music was great.

Now for the not so good news. Unfortunately the acting was somewhat spotty. A few actors did a decent enough job however many, too many, appeared to be amateurs on their first job. The lead actress is, in my opinion, just way too beautiful.

Entertaining enough and visually pleasing

[rdrift1879 · 7/10 · 29 August 2015]

A worthy effort for a low-budget movie from a Christian production company. It's a bit uneven at times in terms of dialogue and performances. It is visually pleasing, and held our interest. My wife loved it. It has something of the flavor of Last of the Mohicans, but not as professionally executed. The latter portion seems a bit anti-climactic until the very end, which is moving.

As something of a history buff, I've read quite a bit about this fascinating period in colonial history. Things are portrayed a little simplistically, of course, as almost all movies do. While I cannot speak to the details of Native American culture portrayed in the film, it certainly softens the barbarity of these tribes against their enemies, and especially captives. Burning people is about as cruel as they get in the film, but reality could be much, much worse than that. Torture was something of a form of entertainment then. The film portrays the Delaware as real people, however. Some more inclined to brutality than others. Their chief is presented as a wise leader. Almost all the English government officials are portrayed as fools, especially in scenes with the founders (Col. Washington and Dr.Franklin make brief appearances).

Not a great film, but for what it is and what it cost, it succeeds rather well. Families should enjoy it.

Poorly cast, poor acting, poorly edited.

[Fostoria · 2/10 · 30 January 2014]

The first 30 minutes of this film is the only part worth watching. Once Kelly Grayson hits the screen, all believability is out the window. I could barely sit and watch the rest. The only tolerable actors were the extras. Miss Grayson's character somehow managed to maintain clean clothes and perfect teeth despite living in the woods with her native captors. The British General was so poorly acted as to be comical. The only redeeming quality of this film is the beautiful cinematography, and much of this is marred by poor color correction and editing. All in all, an extremely poor treatment of a very touching historical event. Don't waste your time.

Awesome movie

[angelakpaull · 9/10 · 15 June 2014]

I was on the edge of my seat throughout the movie. From the very beginning, there was excitement and suspense. I went in as a normal viewer with not very much background about the storyline or even the general history of the French-Indian war. I learned a lot about history and had a much greater appreciation for events that occurred in America during the 18th century. There was something for everyone - war scenes, humor, suspense, and even romance. I loved it and highly recommend it to mature viewers (13 and over). The scenery was beautiful, the cinematography was excellent, the soundtrack enhanced the mood and story perfectly, and the actors were believable and inspiring. The only reason I did not give it a perfect 10 was because I thought there was a little too much fighting. My advice is to watch it without knowing the full plot so that you will be intrigued in the suspense of what will happen throughout the movie.

Escape from the Delaware "savages" in Pennsylvania

[Wuchakk · 7/10 · 10 December 2022]

During the beginning of the French and Indian War in 1755, a settler family from Germany is attacked by Delaware (Lenape) Indians in central Pennsylvania, with the two daughters being taken captive, along with a friend. The next ten years of their lives are chronicled during the conflict. Will they assimilate, perish or escape?

"Alone Yet Not Alone" (2013) is based on the true story of Barbara & Regina Leininger and Marie LeRoy, whom the Delaware forcibly seized in the Penn's Creek Massacre. The 'Indians' and general milieu are akin to "The Last of the Mohicans" (1992) except with a budget and tone closer to "Battle of the Brave" (2004) or "The Sign of the Beaver," aka "Keeping the Promise" (1997).

Speaking of the tone, the family-oriented scenes are a little too quaint in an almost eye-rolling way and I wish the creators shot for the more realistic social approach of "Last of the Mohicans." But, don't get me wrong, a LOT of this flick is evocative of that great film, in tone, locations, costumes, sets, etc.

The quaint family scenes are reminiscent of the first act of "How the West was Won" (1962), which went on to be a very entertaining Western. In other words, don't trip over the 'family friendly' vibe of the opening scenes (which aren't THAT bad). Give it a chance and you'll be rewarded.

How so? The flick is rich with American history despite some bits being overdone, like General Braddock's British arrogance toward the "savages." No doubt a lowkey approach would've been more effective, yet Braddock WAS pompous and incompetent, overestimating his troops and underestimating the opponent, which led to his ignominious demise near Fort Duquesne (modern-day Pittsburgh). It is widely believed that he was shot by one of his own men so that George Washington could take command.

Meanwhile the depiction of the Lenape is well done. These are hearty people used to living in the wilderness day-in and day-out, not to mention formidable warriors. They originally intended to side with the more numerous Brits, but Braddock foolishly put the kibosh on that.

Objections to the faith element are laughable in light of the fact that the Puritan pioneers of the 1600s and Pietist Lutheran settlers of the 1700s WERE devout believers. Whole congregations with their pastors migrated to the colonies and pioneered settlements to escape religious oppression in Europe, let alone families. Then there's the fact that the faith factor is hardly overdone. In other words, it's there but not constantly in your face.

The pastor in the film, Henry Muhlenberg, was the founder of the Lutheran Church in America, as chronicled in the postscript. His son, Frederick, become a minister and was the first Speaker of the House of Representatives, as well as the first signer of the Bill of Rights in 1789, which was passed into law in 1791 after being ratified by 11 states. His brother also signed it.

I wish this production had more money because it needed a rewrite to make the story more compelling and clear up some bits. For instance, I had a hard time figuring out that the raven-haired protagonist that emerges in the second half (Kelly Greyson) is the blonde Barbara of the first half (Natalie Racoosin), which wasn't helped by the fact that their faces are very different.

Then there's grown-up Owen and David, who are prominent in the third act, but we don't know them from Adam. In short, they needed to be fleshed out a bit BEFORE the attempted escape, which would've made the long escape more dramatically compelling. After all, you CARE about characters when you KNOW them.

Nevertheless, there's a lot of good here and it's well worth watching for fans of the movies mentioned and those interested in American history, as long as you can handle depictions of Christian faith, which happen to be true to history.

The film runs 1 hours, 42 minutes, and was shot in Roanoke & Williamsburg, Virginia; Fort Loudon State Historic Park, Vonore, Tennessee (the fort); and Transylvania County, North Carolina (the final fight sequence).

GRADE: B-/B.

Slightly Racist, Confusing and Overall a Terrible Film.

[cottemann · 2/10 · 29 January 2014]

I watched this film solely for the reason that it was nominated for an academy award and I had never heard of it. What this movie turned out to be was a racist ultra conservative fever dream of this time period only the acting was on par with a middle school play with about one day of preparation. I later learned that the reason that it was nominated was due to corruption in the voting process but I only hope to warn people that started with the same idea that I had, do not watch this movie it's not even laughably bad it's just painful. Also the original song isn't even that good compared to what it beat out, it's just a hymn

Very Disapointing

[lennydixie · 2/10 · 2 December 2018]

As a bit of an American history buff,f I was looking forward to watching this movie, especially when it was supposed to be based on a true story. How disappointing !! The acting was very amateurish especially the native Americans. Furthermore, as another user has commented on, the producers must've did much research on the authenticity, they ( native Americans), all looked like something out of a school play, not one of them looked remotely like them. they looked all like white men dressed up, and the hair!! the wigs were terrible. Also the girls, all white teeth and plucked eyelashes. I was expecting so much and it was complete let-down. These flaws overshadowed a good story.

Stereotypes ruin a potentially good story

[Reephaman · 2/10 · 25 November 2020]

This is painful to watch. Overladen with stereotyped characters that play on some kind of fanciful popular idea of how life was back on the colonial frontier. The Scandinavian settlers, all blithely optimistic and talking like the Swedish chef out of the Muppets: "sho happie to be here in thees vunderful land of opportunity!" The British administrators and senior army officers portrayed as snobbish, incompetent, uncaring and arrogant. The Native Americans all dressed like extras out 'Last of the Mohicans', speaking in totemic pidgin English with lots of exclamations like we've suddenly been transported back to a 1950s B movie western. Then the historical inaccuracies, the schmaltzy music, the perpetual sunshine and ultra-clean sets. What's to like? In this world of revised and realistic perceptions of life on the American frontier, with such excellent examples as 'Dances with Wolves', 'The Revenant' and 'Hostiles', how on earth are films like this still being made?

Strange movie

[thebodi-41807 · 21 December 2017]

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

Bad

[chrisbwolfert · 2/10 · 25 July 2019]

Bad casting, abysmal acting, and even worse writing. If you can't get people with native ancestry or at least apparent native ancestry, don't make a movie involving Native Americans. I would rather eat ghost peppers while dehydrated than have to watch green-eyed natives with spray tan run around grunting for an hour again. In addition, don't make a movie with German immigrants if you can't get actors that can do a decent German accent.

The production quality wasn't all that bad, they stretched their resources a long way and by the looks of it had help from historical groups that enabled them to get their hands on certain props. However the plot was incoherent and pointless, and my previous comments remain true.

At times when watching it I couldn't help but be shocked at how bad it was, did they intentionally find the worst actors possible? Were the writers drunk or possibly mentally handicapped? So many questions that will probably never be answered, what a waste of time and money on their part.

Dreadful twaddle

[ilwhitfield · 1/10 · 24 May 2021]

Absolutely dreadful, saccharine, poorly acted, poorly directed film with awful continuity. The historical accuracy was poor at best and the characters were about as engaging as a brick. Utterly, utterly dreadful.

Very good story and authenticity!

[jamalking15 · 8/10 · 2 December 2020]

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.

So unreal

[bolerofarm · 2/10 · 27 March 2023]

Hard to watch...an historical story with a plastic women main character that obviously has breast implants. Make up, gloss, modern cut eyebrows..REALLY? Got nothing against those, but NOT in an historical reconstruction please👎

Bad acting...obvious wigs...was disturbing to watch really!

Its sad cause the story is interesting...should have been a good one...music is nice!

Authenticity is so important in historical movies, credibility is not there AT ALL.

Please do not compare it with the last of the mohicans.. Was much better despite technology of that time. Acting was 1000% time better!!!!!!

Really Good Movie!

[rd777-986-24342 · 10/10 · 27 April 2014]

I am giving it an excellent not on how much money was spent, not rating actors or story line, but that when I walked out I felt that it was an excellent experience, if you go in with high hopes well,,,if you go in to see a good movie that is what you will get, I still think about this movie months later and would see it again, it was a true story and doesn't have Hollywood's slant, I felt the acting was better then good, storyline was great but no in comparison to a 50-100 million dollar movie, no, its a medium budget with a lot of solid entertainment and true meaning that's inspiring,,,wish more movies were like this one, great job

One Of The Greatest Movies of 2013

[sdquinn2-1 · 10/10 · 3 February 2014]

This is one of the greatest movies of 2013. I recently had the pleasure of viewing this movie and I cannot tell you how thrilled I was with everything about this movie. The acting was superb, just the right nuance, no over acting or under acting. The script was wonderful and the story was enthralling. I am surprised that this movie only garnered one Academy Award nomination, it deserved so many more. Kelly Greyson should have been nominated for best actress, and Ray Bengston should have been nominated for best director. This movie is so much better, wholesome, and fulfilling that the usual trash that is shown in theatres now-a-days. Do yourself and your family a big favor and catch this movie when it comes to your local theatre.

Beautiful, True, and Honest portrayal of real events

[tygerrstar · 9/10 · 12 March 2020]

The Leininger family researched their family history quite well. As did I over a period of about a week just to get a sense of accuracy in this incredible story of faith, family, and survival. I can find no fault in the details but, it can be daunting in that over 350 years, much has been lost and, dozens of people shared similar names and history.

SJWs will not praise and have never praised any film of Christian faith. Alone Yet Not Alone is no exception. Yet it is one of a most accurate telling of painfully honest history, including the fact that not all Native Americans were 'noble savages' but rather, like all peoples, they had their less-than-reputable groups. Sadly we are required by social law to never say this, and why this review will almost certainly remain unpublished. But if it is, please see this movie, for it is truly a work of art, and beautiful.

Well I liked it.

[finesherry · 9/10 · 3 October 2018]

A film all the family can watch, no overly violent or sexual scenes, and good Christian values. Watched it twice actually. Not big budget or anything, just a good story, about hope and never giving up. I recommend it anyway.

Immerse yourself in the world of 1755, it's factions, a family, a girl.

[bluerangerA51 · 9/10 · 15 June 2014]

I didn't know what to expect but found the film to be quite good, thought provoking, suspenseful and meaningful. Beautifully shot and quite intense many times throughout. Makes you appreciate the struggles involved by the colonists, the colony leaders, the British, the militia, the Native Americans and how all that affected families (one in particular) and individuals (a young girl in particular). Loyalty, friendship, betrayal, perseverance, faith, sacrifice, sadness and joy can all be found in this film as this story unfolds.

Unlike films set in a mythical future, like Divergent for example, this one was shot in a realistic style as if the people were real and living in the real world, our world in the historical past. I soon found myself caught up in their various struggles and ironies and felt like I was with them there in the past. These people could easily have been your or my ancestors and indeed, our ancestors probably experienced lives very much like this whatever our heritage.

You WILL feel when you see this film so I hope you don't mind feelings. Embrace the characters and go through the journey with them no matter what they must go through. You'll not be alone.

A Movie that triggers snowflakes

[romanianconservative · 10/10 · 17 May 2018]

Just read the title. Liberals almost lost their head when they saw movie was nominated for Oscar