AGEOD Forums

I won't be able to see this in the UK

I might get on DVD if it is worth watching. Can anyone who gets to see it let me know if it is worth getting?

Cheers, Chris

I saw it last night. It was a disaster. I could only stand to watch 45 minutes before turning it off in disgust. The acting was really awful. The "reenactments" were a farce. The whole production was very amateurish. It was like watching an episode of Civil War Journal - lots of "talking head" professors intermingled with repetitive live action scenes and boring narration - just terrible.

The battle scenes were rediculous. Take the Battle of Atlanta, for instance. Apparently, a typical scene in that battle would have been 10 or 12 Yanks charging through the woods at two Rebels hiding behind trees. Then a couple of the Yanks would get blown up by a cannon. Repeat this scene five or six times and you have yourself a documentary.

I could go on about the actor portraying Sherman, but it would take an hour.

I thought it was very good.
It was a 2 hour TV documentry, not a major motion picture.
I'm just glad they actually took the time and money to do 2 hours on the Civil War.
I was losing hope in the History channel.

I also watched it last night.....

My advice would be that if you typically enjoy History Channel shows of this type, then you should give it a chance. Furthermore, if you're unfamiliar with the subject, then you might learn something. Sherman is a controversial figure, and you'll get a little bit on both sides of the argument. However, if you are already familiar with Sherman and his march then you're unlikely to pick up anything too intersting.

Disclaimer: I tend to be less than critical when it comes to these shows. Personally, I'm happy when there is ANY variety on the History Channel and they put something on that's not World War II related
In the History Channel's defense, I'm sure they were on a pretty tight budget and couldn't splurge for thousands of reenactors or computer generated effects. Furthermore, I doubt the guys who played Sherman or Grant were actors...they were probably historian/reenactors, so I won't go bashing their consierably weak acting skills too much. Hey, the producers made an effort....at least the guy who played Kilpatrick had the funky sideburns and Howard had one arm! We'd all love for these shows to be impeccably researched, with oscar-caliber actors, and 50 million dollar budgets for effects, but its just not realistic.

On a side note, it would be good if they could do some more shows like the "Decisive Battles" series that took advantage of game graphics (Rome Total War)....or maybe an 18th or 19th Century battles series like the "20th Century Battles" series that is on History International all the time lately.

By the way, I would recommend the "Dark Ages" show that was on the History Channel recently (if you have "On Demand" on your cable system, you can load it up for free).

rickd79 wrote:In the History Channel's defense, I'm sure they were on a pretty tight budget and couldn't splurge for thousands of reenactors or computer generated effects.

Oh, I agree. It was definately low-budget. That's why my expectations were so high. If you saw the commercials for the program, THS billed this as a big-budget dramatic saga (they have already removed the trailer from their web site as far as I can tell). So when I saw that it was simply the same old bare-bones narrative of Civil War Journal meets the bad acting of Gods and Generals, I was really let down.

I don't wish to make my postings here sound like I'm only a fan of action-packed blockbusters. Not so. As a scholar, I have a high appreciation for documentaries. I've found, though, that the Civil War material found on THS is typically introductory in nature and lacks any of the deeper study found in today's wonderful range of Civil War scholarship. Unfortunately, "Sherman's March" turned out to be ordinary THS fare. leure:

I've noticed that a number of the "soldiers" in these programs are older gentleman.
Is that because there aren't many 20-30 year old's re-enacting?

For example, I also have PBS' "War that made America", noticed alot of fat old indian re-enactors.

tc237 wrote:I've noticed that a number of the "soldiers" in these programs are older gentleman.
Is that because there aren't many 20-30 year old's re-enacting?

For example, I also have PBS' "War that made America", noticed alot of fat old indian re-enactors.

Its actually a very expensive hobby. I would say it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand dollars to get fully outfitted with "accurate" gear, weapons, and a uniform.

As someone in my late twenties, I can confirm that it just doesn't always fit into the budget with other things at this stage of life such as rent/mortgage, tuition/school loans, wedding expenses, bar money , ect. (or at least thats the case with me :innocent

rickd79 wrote:Its actually a very expensive hobby. I would say it takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3 thousand dollars to get fully outfitted with "accurate" gear, weapons, and a uniform.

As someone in my late twenties, I can confirm that it just doesn't always fit into the budget with other things at this stage of life such as rent/mortgage, tuition/school loans, wedding expenses, bar money , ect. (or at least thats the case with me :innocent

Yes, and I think also that an appreciation for history often emerges midway through peoples' lives. At that time, it seems, the "complications" of life today cause one to harken back to a simpler time.

I thought the show was good.

The guy wasn't a very good actor, no doubt, but he was a good likeness of Sherman, and I thought that was more important.

I wasn't convinced with their version of Grant though...

It was good. A brief history of the march. It's amazing though, to this day there are parts of the deep south were the mere mention of Sherman will make the hair on their backs stand up.

Thanks for the views chaps!