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.