This abysmal failure of a flick would have been better if they had just said nothing. To say it was bad is a compliment; it was the worst ever. And with a drought in the production of period pieces, this flop didn't help the genre a lick.

All of the critical comments here are right on. This is not a bad CW movie, not a bad movie, it is simply a complete waste of time. From an historical perspective, the portrayal of Gen. Longstreet as a bald old fat man in a farby (far be it from accurate) uniform is downright offensive. And Hampton himself was an active, vibrant and courageous cavalryman; the actor playing him looks like Hampton 20 years after the war ended. And the film seems to show him spending most of his time hanging around the field hospital nurses while his "Legion" was shooting it out (not) with the Federals, who are no more interested in looking authentic than his Confederates. The "battle" scenes were genuine in one sense - they were actual reenactments ... that looked like reenactments, not battles. Almost no one was actually firing their guns - just standing around or walking woodenly, awaiting for orders. As an artilleryman, I was appalled at what I saw on the "field". Evidently, the writer, the director and several of the actors learned little from these reviews. In 2022, they've released another ... film - Band of Rebels. I can hardly wait.

I've done Civil War reenacting. I decided in the first 10 minutes that this was a terrible movie, but I watched the rest of it to see if it could get any worse. It did not disappoint. Literally every confederate general was played by a 400 lb gray haired guy, and there wasn't a unit the size greater than a platoon in the movie.

Bad movie making is an art. Viewing a bad movie is also an art. This film has some nice things going for it. The color print is mostly in focus and the editor's cuts are so basic that it enhances the terrible acting as they deliver their lines of one of the worst scripts around. Put it all together and in a sick sort of way I was entertained. I hope to hell hell this director reads this review and I would love to start an acting career at my late age of 68. For this director, I will give you what you have never had. A five star review. Viewed on Amazon Prime.

Christopher Forbes is fascinated with the 19th century, especially the American Civil War and the Old West. I will say in defense that he chose an interesting person for his bio of Wade Hampton of South Carolina. "Hampton's Legion" qualifies as a cinematic history brochure about a captivating Confederate officer who armed and clothed his soldiers. Probably my favorite part concerned the spectators at the Battle of Bull Run and the efforts of both North and South as well as medical personnel to disperse these rubberneckers. It looks like Forbes went out and filmed re-enactors and then spliced that footage into this 80-minute biography. The acting is subpar. They recite rather than deliver their lines and lack any intonation. The production values are solid, but there is no real drama that you can dig into because of its length. The amazing thing is Forbes is able to churn out these pseudo-war films and westerns. The photography is gorgeous as are the standing houses from another era. Real Civil War buffs will complain about the lack of name generals participating in battles. Meantime, Hampton deserves a better bio, but celebrating a traitor in this day and age is difficult.

OMG the acting and direction is poor. One of the worst movies you can ever watch. Don't bother watching this rubbish.

I am not going to call this a movie. It looks more like an elementary school project. The only qualification for an actor is to be old fat and have a beard. The same for the actresses. Lol. I just can't believe people actually made this and spent money on it. It's awful.

Wooden acting terrible script it is just the worst movie I have ever seen.

This rubbish of a film does not even grade as a good high school project. Horrible in every way.

Hampton's Legion