The story is based on a true person (although only a corporal in real life portrayed as a captain). The family connection of the writer and actors was appreciated. The movie had unnecessary cursing and a sex scene, all of which could have been omitted and the story would have been enhanced. These "modern" devices insult the imagination and taste of viewers like me. My Christian family could have enjoyed it without these elements. The story and action stalled about three quarters of the way through, kind of like a sermon gone too long.Appreciated the inclusion of a "Copperhead" character, a Northerner who had sentiment for the Southern society and cause. There were a multitude of these "Southern sympathizers" throughout the North, but one would be hard-pressed to find such facts in history books. Good movie except for the elements already mentioned.

Very well done, especially considering the budget. I liked the independent, realistic feel to it, vs manufactured or contrived Hollywoodism.I read somewhere a reviewer saying that this was "revisionist history" wrt this movie's depiction of how the slave owners treated their slaves so nicely. Absolutely untrue... there really wasn't that much depiction of slave owners with slaves to begin with, and to see one white gentleman actually talk nicely to a few slaves was totally believable.That same reviewer also said this movie was about "nostalgia" for the pre-war south. But I think it was more about southerners protecting their tradition, and then finally knowing when to surrender (hence the title "Strike the Tent"). Otoh, the extra featurette on the DVD about how the film was conceived did show that Julian's intention was to proudly depict his much beloved, land-owning family history.The film depicts pre-war southern life favorably, yet doesn't demonize the north (much), even after it's clear that the south had lost the war and had to free their slaves. It was a good depiction of one side "protecting their own", but pretty much intentionally blind to the issue of slavery itself. An interesting "real life" depiction of real history--at least from a southern, white-man's point of view.

I saw a few good comments on this and thought I'd give it a try. What a mistake. The movie started with a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, and just got worse from there. The outfits were unauthentic and looked like inexpensive costumes, the speech too modern sounding, the acting awkward, and the transition from scene to scene choppy. A crucial rule for me is that to enjoy a movie, I have to be able to get lost in the movie. When I can't get through two scenes without being shocked by mismatched outfits, speech, or photography, the movie won't get a good rating from me. Call me picky, or maybe it's just that I've seen enough movies to know what's expected in a historic movie.

OK, first and foremost i like good "realistic" war films, secondly i like films even better if they are based on fact. This was both, and a bonus to both of those critical points is the lead role, who is a descendant of the "historical" character who is the main focus of the film. My wife enjoyed the film too, hard to find a film both of you can watch knowing there's going to be some bloodshed mixed in with a love story, but it works and it works well. Its hard to tell at times this is not a big budget film, but reading about it elsewhere you know its not and you can appreciate it even more. You can see there's a lot of personal effort gone into getting this film made. You see so many people on here saying "well thats 90 minutes of my life wasted" well this is just the opposite, i wish it had been longer, you get a great insight into some real peoples lives during the civil war, and the authentic backdrops and locations just add to its quality.