Could be better if...


...the film was made as a biopic of Stonewall Jackson. Stephen Lang is probably the only actor who stands out from a huge cast in an insanely long movie. His portrayal of Jackson has made the general all the more fascinating.

If the film had just focused on Jackson without any Union scenes, I'm sure it wouldn't be considered controversial or politically incorrect as many people say it is. Jackson himself was opposed to slavery and supported the preservation of the union, as with General Lee. They mainly served in the Confederate army because their home state of Virginia had joined the Confederacy.

WILD CARD, BITCHES! YEEEEEE-HAW!

reply

Stonewall, like General Lee was a good Christian man, I love how this movie showed his faith.
I love stories about this time period, and especially about the southern heros as I am a GRITS, a girl raised in the south.
I am a descendent of a Missisippi volunteer who fell at Vicksburg.
I am so looking forward the the new movie To Appomattox. I hope they touch on Vicksburg, it was one of the most fought far strongholds.

reply

[deleted]

I actually didn't like Stephen Lang in this movie, I don't think he's a strong enough actor to carry a whole film, he doesn't really have any screen presence, and I thought his acting overly 'theatrical', by which I mean he seemed to feel the need to declaim his lines loudly and in an exaggerated manner, like he was on stage. And yes, maybe Jackson was like that in reality (although I doubt it), but so what? This is a movie, not a documentary, and if the performance takes you out of the world created by the filmmakers, then it's a failure, no matter how true to life it is (and it doesn't matter with Jackson anyway, because there's no way for anyone to check the accuracy of the actor's performance).

Although I thought Robert Duvall was a huge improvement on Martin Sheen (who was too young, for one thing).

reply