This film takes place in upstate New York during the American Revolution with a man named "Samuel Todd" (John Christian Ingvordsen) trying to make a living as a farmer for his wife "Becky Todd" (Jacqueline Konx) and young son "James Todd" (Ryan Washburn). Although he is not familiar with them there is an Indian village just down the river from his farm which hasn't given him any trouble so far but he still distrusts them all the same. However, when word is spread that the British have enlisted the hostile Mohawk tribe to raid nearby settlements this causes a great deal of concern for everyone living in that area. So in order to fight against both the British and the Mohawk the men in the area band together and join the Colonial Army. Unfortunately, being heavily outnumbered this leaves some homes and farms totally unprepared for a coordinated attack and forces Samuel to make a tough decision at that point. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film had a good plot but it soon became much too unrealistic and predictable the further on it went. No doubt those looking for a good "family movie" might find some value in it but other than that it probably won't appeal to most other viewers and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Below average.
3 Reviews
Made With Good Intentions But With Too Many Shortcomings.
rsoonsa7 September 2005
Strikingly beautiful scenery, photographed well, is the long suit of this low budget independent affair filmed for the most part in Ontario and upper New York State, but even its targeted audience of young children will not fail to notice a lack of realism that pervades this work intended to produce dramatic historic interest, while hampered by a script that generally ignores the demands of logic. Director/producer/screenwriter J. Christian Ingvordsen (as John Christian) plays Samuel Todd, a wilderness farmer during the period of the American Revolution persuaded to enlist with Colonial rebels in defense of Patriot lands against attacks from soldiers of the Crown, reluctantly leaving behind his wife and young son James, but after he discovers that the boy has been captured by British troops along with their Mohawk Indian allies Samuel, accompanied by Tekhane (John Weiner) leader of a local Delaware tribe termed here Lenape, from their language, sets out to rescue the lad from enemy held Fort Niagara. This is a large order for the pair to attempt as the English and Mohawk occupied fort houses James as a shackled prisoner within the compound jail (restored Fort Ticonderoga along the New York/Vermont border serves as Fort Niagara), but the more gullible viewers will enjoy the splendid countryside while ignoring the many implausibilities that occur along the way, in particular those involving ineffective enemy troops and their accompanying Indian warriors, all of whom are loud enough but seemingly never capable or alert. Ingvordsen, under variations of his name, not only stars, scripts, and directs here, but is behind the camera and a vigorous stunt performer as well, and while he lacks expressivity as an actor, he is certainly as competent as the majority of the cast, a quaint lot, specially the "Indians" which, although decidedly culturally diverse with a broad displacement of races, and ancestries to boot, display very little that is representative of the aboriginal. The dialogue lacks a colonial flavour, and inaccuracies are rife, e.g., James is sequestered in "the brig", a term exclusive to seagoing vessels, while accents freely wax and wane, largely reliant upon the native strength of a player's metropolitan area patois, and there is cartoonish stereotyping throughout, notably of English army officers, drawn as a remarkably foppish bunch; a lack of correctness extends even to the DVD box that displays a misspelling for Niagara, thrice for Ingvordsen, and a cover photograph of Dan Haggerty (billed first but with a blessedly small role) with arms about an Indian squaw and a young boy, neither of whom appear in the film.
embarrassingly bad
roedyg19 September 2014
I was the given the movie under the title, "Sign of the Otter". I was hoping for a movie about otters, but there was less than a minute's footage of them. They take no part in the plot. Instead, it is a racist and biased fantasy about the American revolutionary war. IMDb lists it under the more honest title "The Little Patriot".
The portrayal of the British is reminiscent of Mel Brook's sendup of the court of Louis the XVI, in History of the World, Part I, "Its good to be the king". It is beyond caricature into Pythonesque foppish silliness.
The Mohawks are portrayed as treacherous snakes.
In the movie, everyone living in the colonies supports the war. They are "defending their country" against an attack from the invading British. Rebellion? what rebellion?
The hero is a very young, utterly fearless little boy who is kidnapped by the British as a sex slave. His father is a racist who hates all Indians who grudgingly comes round after one who talks like Tonto saves his skin half a dozen times.
Much of the action takes place at national monuments, complete with manicured lawns, scrubbed and groomed rockwork and cannons not shot in centuries. It is a bit like vacation home movies where the family dresses up in period costumes. This is a low-budget movie.
The British are treated as if they were blind and deaf zombies, incapable of ever noticing anything going on right under their noses.
Dan Haggerty plays the bombastic Colonel Rose who likes to issue absurdly patriotic speeches like some cheap politician, even when the world is falling in around him. At least they did not play The Battle Hymn of the Republic as background to his every utterance.
After our young hero escapes the British, miraculously, the war immediately ends and everyone has the requisite happy ending.
There is a scene near the end, reminiscent of a video game, where the British fall like flies. There is an erotic content to the massacre. It is rather disgusting.
The credits are full of German and Scandinavian names. I presume bias and rewriting of history was to lure American audiences, not because of some deep hatred of the British and Mohawks the film's makers harboured.
The portrayal of the British is reminiscent of Mel Brook's sendup of the court of Louis the XVI, in History of the World, Part I, "Its good to be the king". It is beyond caricature into Pythonesque foppish silliness.
The Mohawks are portrayed as treacherous snakes.
In the movie, everyone living in the colonies supports the war. They are "defending their country" against an attack from the invading British. Rebellion? what rebellion?
The hero is a very young, utterly fearless little boy who is kidnapped by the British as a sex slave. His father is a racist who hates all Indians who grudgingly comes round after one who talks like Tonto saves his skin half a dozen times.
Much of the action takes place at national monuments, complete with manicured lawns, scrubbed and groomed rockwork and cannons not shot in centuries. It is a bit like vacation home movies where the family dresses up in period costumes. This is a low-budget movie.
The British are treated as if they were blind and deaf zombies, incapable of ever noticing anything going on right under their noses.
Dan Haggerty plays the bombastic Colonel Rose who likes to issue absurdly patriotic speeches like some cheap politician, even when the world is falling in around him. At least they did not play The Battle Hymn of the Republic as background to his every utterance.
After our young hero escapes the British, miraculously, the war immediately ends and everyone has the requisite happy ending.
There is a scene near the end, reminiscent of a video game, where the British fall like flies. There is an erotic content to the massacre. It is rather disgusting.
The credits are full of German and Scandinavian names. I presume bias and rewriting of history was to lure American audiences, not because of some deep hatred of the British and Mohawks the film's makers harboured.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
