I probably would have given this film a fresh, but I will concede that probably about 80% percent of that has to do with the fact that I am a Civil War buff and viewed it with unbiased eyes. I understand why reviewers did not like the film. To know very little of something, and then to see a film dramatizing it in a way that is completely counter-intuitive to how they learned it, is probably a turnoff. The fact that the Confederate flag is about as abhorred as the Nazi swastika evidences this. It's ignorance, but I don't fault the critics for being ignorant. They are paid to review movies, not to research history and then review movies.
And admit, there are problems with the film itself. Plenty of the dialogue is wooden. I didn't find the subplot with Jackson's little friend interesting. In many ways I found it cringe-inducing. Much of the acting is subpar (in the case of the stars it isn't. Lang was magnificent, and Daniels and Duvall were both very good.), which I think could be blamed on the script's shortcomings. The music is alright, but I think a lot of us had come to expect much, much better than "alright" from Randy Edelman after Gettysburg. I've heard the excuse for the omission of Antietam, but I'm sorry, you've got to find a way to work it in.
But the battle scenes were done well, Chancellorsville in particular. The film's production values have never really been anyone's complaint; I mean, from a technical standpoint it's a well-made movie. The battlefield silence after Fredericksburg was awesome. The Irish vs. Irish and tobacco-for-coffee exchange scenes were splendid. The ending was done as well as it possibly could have been. The main problem most people had was the "slant," the "slant" being the shocking, shocking I say portrayal of Southerners as mainly good people.
I'd probably give it a 3.5 out of 5 a critic, maybe a light 4. Not without flaws, and, I'm sorry, not even close to Gettysburg. But a well-done film with a "controversial" bend.
reply
share