I dont get it?
why doesn't this movie get more respect?
It is well acted, has a good story, beautifully filmed, and very well edited
[deleted]
who was disrespecting it. I read mostly good things about this movies.
sharePersonally,I just couldn't get past the girlie men. When they 1st reveal themselves early in the movie, they remove there hats and let their hair tumble down. Looks like a freakin' Revlon commercial (or whatever - female hair product
commercial).They're all directed to make 'mean' faces ... it's laughable !!
My 4 year old looks more 'threatening' when she's pouting !!
I had the same problem with 'Young Guns'. Give me a break. These were supposed to be farm boys.They musta spent their days churning butter with mom and sis while the other brothers did the real work with dad.
I guess they should have had crew cuts like real men. Idiot. The reason this movie is not more well know is because it doesn't paint everyone in the south as vicious slave owners or everyone from the North as fighting for the freedom of the slaves.
shareI think the movie got decent reviews at the time, but was not widely released at all (according to Wikipedia). One theory (again Wikipedia) is that the studio was afraid of controversy. As other messages regarding this movie demonstrate, passions can run high regarding the Civil War. Especially when it involves an accurate yet sympathetic portrayal.
I grew up in the Kansas City area, and many of my ancestors lived near the MO-KS border during the Civil War. Two of my Missouri ancestors fought for the Union; one was killed. A Mississippi ancestor fought and died for the South.
As a real-life parallel to this movie (although it's been a while since I've seen it), my great-great grandfather's brother was fingered as a bushwhacker and hanged by the Confederates in southwest Missouri. The story goes that the bushwhacking claim was made by a neighbor with a grudge. My ancestor and another brother complained to the local Confederate commander (the Southern army controlled the area at the time). Then, they crossed the border to Kansas and joined the Union army.
While my ancestor may have been a Union sympathizer anyway (there were plenty), he was probably prodded into joining the fight for very personal reasons: the Confederates killed his little brother. I'm sure that plenty of Confederates in Missouri joined the fight for similar reasons, as Tobey Maguire's character does in Ride with the Devil.
As others have said, this movie accurately depicts the MO-KS border. I believe all the location filming was in the area. A notable contrast is The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. While I generally like that movie, the scenery just felt wrong. Then, the credits informed me it was filmed in Alberta and Manitoba! No wonder...
The US Civil War was full of horror. While I can't imagine taking a side other than the Union side, the actual complexity of the time doesn't help make for a "feel good romp" either. I remember thinking this film might rate 7-8/10 when I saw it (apparently in one of the handful of theaters that screened it). It's not a well-understood part of history, and I hope more people see it after its Criterion release.
Judging the movie exclusively as a "movie", IMO RWTD is the most uninteresing film ever directed by Ang Lee. It may have good production values and decent performances, but the script is a mess and the story is plain and simple boring.
BTW I am a great fan of Ang Lee, so I am not biased against this film. In fact I really wanted to like it, but couldn't.
I wouldn't say it's boring, it's slow (like many Ang Lee movies) and that's not what most people expect from a civil war movie. The story takes its time to unfold and to show how the characters relate. There is the controversial matter of how the Southeners are portrayed, however I think the main problem for some is that it's not taking the viewer on a rollercoaster ride through but puts him rather on a deerstand to observe what's happening.
It is very very calm neverminding how brutal the ongoings are, rather watching the characters sliding in the positions they were meant for.
This is very beautifully done and I think it's unfair to call the movie uninteresting just because it's not suspenseful in a traditional way. I adore the movie for it's unconventional approach to the subject and am happy that I saw it late at night copmletely unaware of what I was watching so I had no prior expectations.
"I think that God has got a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing."
I think it also depends on which version you watch. The original theatrical version was cut to pieces by Universal; this is the DVD version most people have and it was pretty bad.
If you watch the reedited version by Lee that is distributed by Criterion, you might have a very different opinion about the pace of the film.
The marvelous cinematography and Jeffery Wright's superb performance are by far the best things going for this mixed-bag of a melodrama. Even the superior Criterion edition can't mask the limitations of the script. I'll give Jewel credit for delivering a surprisingly good, quiet performance that puts a few of the more experienced cast members in the shade. The great Tom Wilkinson is wasted, and Meyers is ham-fisted as the one-note, evil straw man. There are numerous reasons this film does not get more respect, such as Toby Maguire's severe limitations, but the main one is a cliche-ridden script, more adept at purple prose than historical complexity.
share