Best Civil War Movies

[Matthieu Brevet]

(there is also another Movie about missouri with Clint Eastwood, forgot the name)

Must be "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (on TV in France next week ... ). The begining with the "Redlegs" and Southern raiders is very good. I'm not fond of what is next ...

Matthieu

[Sven6345789]

that is the one, thanks

or merci bien

[Henry D.]

Coming late to the party (as usual) I'd like to add my two cents to Gettysburg and G&G:

Gettysburg:

four hours of reenactment for sure, but I think, that was the point of the movie. Sure, many of the more introspective parts of the novel went missing, but including more of that would have slowed the pace of the movie dramatically for the worse (as it did G&G). Gettysburg had a great cast and even at the most pathetic moments (Lee and Longstreet after Pickett's charge, Chamberlain "preaching" to the 2nd Maine men or his conversation with Kilrain about "the divine spark") they made the movie believeable for me, I never had the feeling the actors merely played a part, it felt real. The soundtrack was simply great and very moving too, IMHO.

Of course, Gettysburg had it's drawbacks, too: Just look at some of the beards (Longstreet's changes its colour by the hour), cannon fired without any wadding and therefore not recoiling at all or at the merrily oscillating rubber bayonets at Pickett's Charge...

Now, G&G on the other hand:

On first glance, TERRIBLE! Wooden actors giving bloodless and pompous speeches, instead of live extras (reenactors) lots of bad CGI, a very lame "country-style" soundtrack. And waaay to much introspection slowing the pace. Someone earlier did compare G&G to "The thin red line" and I think that hit the nail on the head. Both films cultivate a very slow, very introspective pace like some of the 50s movies ("The Naked and the Dead" and such), viewers nowadays are no longer used to.

Two more of my favourite pet peeves about G&G:

Jeff Daniels! I worshipped his performance as Chamberlain in Gettysburg, but in the 10 years between the two movies, he has aged considerably. And he gained quite a bit of weight during shooting to boot. In his later scenes he literally looks like a walrus in blue. I didn't know that a diet of hardtacks and salted beef could do that to man...

Stephen Lang: Very enjoyable as Pickett, but how he managed to butcher the character of Jackson is beyond me. He managed to make him an utterly unlikeable humorless religious maniac. Yes, he is adored by his aides and by his black cook, but the audience ist left to wonder why? Jackson is allowed to make a hollow sermon about his passionate believe about ending slavery, but given the rest of "background information" the movie offers, it just does not ring true. (Sidenote: I know that Jackson was opposed to slavery and even taught at a black sunday school for a time, breaking the law by doing so). Also the, forgive me, "alibi black man" Lewis: "They may come to free my folks, but nonetheless, they invade my home and if I could, I'd take up a musket and fight them off, too!"? Yeah, sure, I'm positive the majority of black virginians, free or slaves, thought like that at the time...

But suprisingly, I came to like G&G in spite of all its shortcomings. I bought it on DVD (neither Gettysburg nor G&G made it into theatres in Germany), was initially appalled, but with time passing, it began to grow on me. I can't really explain that, maybe I'm just a sucker for expansive campy movies...

Talking about campy movies made by Turner Pictures: Anybody seen "The Hunley" and want to share his opinions about it?

Regards, Henry

[Gilles THIBAUT]

Surpising nobody mentioned this one.
"the good, the bad, and the ugly"
A very good movie

Another war was the movie with clark gable and sydner poitier i do not remember the title in english.

And a last one which i do not remember the name..maybe "the raid" about a force of confederate soldiers raiding a city in the Union...an old movie i believe starring van Jonhson.

[GShock]

tut tut...best is : gone with the wind!

[Spharv2]

Also the, forgive me, "alibi black man" Lewis: "They may come to free my folks, but nonetheless, they invade my home and if I could, I'd take up a musket and fight them off, too!"? Yeah, sure, I'm positive the majority of black virginians, free or slaves, thought like that at the time...

Then you'd probably be surprised. I can't recall the name of the book now, but there was a collection of stories and recollections of former slaves that was put together after the war, and the above view was a surprisingly prevelant one. It probably didn't help matters that most of the slave's experience of the northern armies were raiding and foraging parties who aren't exactly the most well behaved military formations.

It's one of those "what if" things. Like the Germans and Jewish people in WWII. A large source of additional manpower that could fight if allowed. The CSA had about 5,000 blacks in their army, but I would guess that if they had offered the slaves a chance to fight for their freedom and country, they would have added a very significant number to their armies.

[Henry D.]

Then you'd probably be surprised. I can't recall the name of the book now, but there was a collection of stories and recollections of former slaves that was put together after the war, and the above view was a surprisingly prevelant one. It probably didn't help matters that most of the slave's experience of the northern armies were raiding and foraging parties who aren't exactly the most well behaved military formations.

It's one of those "what if" things. Like the Germans and Jewish people in WWII. A large source of additional manpower that could fight if allowed. The CSA had about 5,000 blacks in their army, but I would guess that if they had offered the slaves a chance to fight for their freedom and country, they would have added a very significant number to their armies.

Given the fact that I, apart from having read "Roots", would not in any way call myself an expert on afro-american history, yes, maybe I would be surprised , and sure, at times, atrocities comitted by rampaging US-soldiers were at least as bad if not worse than those committed by southerners. One might even argue that "contrabands" in a war zone often were better off under conferate rule while protected under the "laws of property", than they were submitted to the whims of some of their initial union "liberators". That's war, I guess.

But still, in the context of the movie the statement of the Lewis character, like Jacksons, was not delivered in a way plausible or believeable for me. That, IMHO was one of the major failures of the movie: nearly all its dialogue came across as hollow and pompous, but not in any way "heartfelt"...

Has nobody seen "The Hunley"?

Regards, Henry

BTW, who is "Gilles THIBAUT"? Phillipes evil (or good ) twin?

[fantasy57]

Another vote for "the Horse Soldiers"

It have everything: John Ford, John Wayne, William Holden... it even have a good looking southern lady!!
It´s about a Union cavalry raid deep in southern territory with dramatic clashes with second rate confederate units including cadet boys from a military school.

Cheers

Is it the one where John Wayne is spanking a cadet like a 5-year-old boy ?

I saw it a long time ago, but definitely a funny and classical scene !

[Le Tondu]

One not so bad movie about the Civil War is "The Last Confederate".

One great thing about it is how much of it is based on a true story. It was filmed where most of the actual events took place. To top it all off, the lead actor is a great, great grandson of the guy that the movie is about.

I recommend it.

[Kiwinomad]

Glory might not be historically accurate (the worst offence I think is that the 54th didn't exactly volunteer to lead the assault), but it's a convenient vehicle to explore themes and I think it does an exceptional job of that.

[Coffee Sergeant]

Although I didn't see much of it - I echo the sentiments on G&G. Absolutely terrible, except for some battle scenes. But those aren't particularly hard to do. People don't talk like they write, its as true now as it was back then. It was trying to be both a "history" movie and a idealization of the Civil War, and you can't do both at the same time. I could see maybe doing a very idealized, metaphorical film that is so overly dramatic its obvious that whats depicted isn't "real". Similar to what was done in "300". Toward the end, Glory kind of turns into that kind of surreal film too, so that theme wouldn't be totally alien to the genre.

Glory might not be super historically accurate, but it did do a good job of showing some of the brutality of that period - like when that Irish drill sergeant physically beat one of the soldiers in training (Brodericks' friend), the terrible conditions of camp and the conditions there (they pulled off the shoes of one of the soldiers - yuck!), harsh punishments for desertion, etc.

Other than that, the list is pretty thin. Blue and the Gray was OK but acting wasn't that spectacular, and I disliked the much overdone "brother vs. brother" theme. I can't remember Gettysburg too well. From what i remember it was an OK film - but again it was pretty much 4 hours of battle scenes. I would include The Good the Bad and the Ugly, but I wouldn't really call that a "Civil War" film - it was a Western that was incidentally set during the Civil War. So as much as I hate to say it I would have to say Cold Mountain is #2.

[berto]

I had the occasion to view Gettysburg and Gods & Generals last weekend, the former for the third time (saw it when it first came out and again ~5 years later) and the latter for the second time (saw it soon after it came out). Here are my mini-reviews:

----

Gettysburg -- *** (out of 4 stars)

This was better than I remembered. On first viewing years ago, I thought it was stiff and too reverential. The third time around, I now think it's a pretty decent movie, even speaking as a typical movie goer and not as a Civil War fanatic.

The acting is generally excellent. Particularly good were Martin Sheen as Lee, Richard Jordan as Brig. Gen. Armistead, Sam Elliot as Brig. Gen. Buford, Tom Berenger as Longstreet, and Kevin Conway as Sgt. Buster Kilrain.

The action sequences are well done, although I wished to see more realism in the gore and horrors of war a la Braveheart. Instead of relying almost exclusively on reenactors, why couldn't the movie producers instead have more frequently employed well-rehearsed real actors and professional stuntmen for the battle closeups (or maybe made better use of CGI a la Band of Brothers)? Apart from several scenes where stuntmen somersaulted through the air after an artillery explosion, there were too many scenes where it looked more like pushing and shoving and milling about than real fighting. Still, overall, the reenactors were not bad (if appearing a bit overfed; Confederate soldiers were supposed to be very gaunt by this stage of the war), and you can't fault their realistic costumes.

The first day was well enough covered, and of course the movie obsessed on the third day's Pickett's Charge. Most of the second day's action was glossed over, however, with just a brief scene or two of fighting in Devil's Den, and no scene set in the Peach Orchard or the Wheatfield, not to mention no depiction or even mention at all of the fighting around Culp's Hill. From the movie, you would get the impression that the second day was all about Chamberlain and the contest for Little Round Top. (To be fair, the movie was character driven, and the focus on the Union side was on Joshua Chamberlain & co., so battle sequences without identifiable characters were slighted.)

Recommended.

----

Gods & Generals -- * (out of 4 stars)

God awful. A Southern apologia. Like most sequels (although it's supposed to be a prequel), a big letdown. Interesting to students of the Civil War, I suppose, but a big, long bore for everybody else.

The reverential treatment, especially of the Southern cause and characters, is carried to the extreme. From the movie, you would gain the impression that for blacks, slavery was just an inconvenience and "why don't those damn Yankees just go home and leave us be?" The Christmas party scene was sentimental to the point of being saccharine. Jackson, the focus of the movie, is portrayed as a saint. When he danced with the (doomed to die) little girl on his shoulders, I almost choked. When I spotted Ted Turner in the crowd enjoying a performance of "The Bonnie Blue Flag," I had to laugh. (Turner appeared briefly in a Pickett's Charge sequence in the Gettysburg movie.)

If I haven't mentioned battle sequences so far, it's because there aren't many, despite the movie depicting First Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville. (Um, Seven Days, Second Manassas, Antietam? Hello, where did a year and a half of the War go?) The fighting within the town of Fredericksburg is okay, but one gained no sense of the Fredericksburg battle's grandeur. First Manassas and Chancellorsville were brief affairs, all about Jackson, Jackson, Jackson. All in all, the battle sequences, such as they were, were a big disappointment.

It didn't help that the actors who carried over from the Gettysburg movie (Jeff Daniels, Kevin Conway, etc.) were obviously aged in this prequel, despite the action having occurred prior to Gettysburg. Some characters were played by different actors (Robert Duvall sleepwalked through his brief part as Robert E. Lee), and Steven Lang played Jackson (albeit a fine performance) while in the Gettysburg movie he played Pickett--distracting!

Not recommended. Don't bother. Ugh.

[MarkShot]

tut tut...best is : gone with the wind!

Yep. They don't make them like that anymore.

The scene of Atlanta prior to it being torched. That was powerful.

[tagwyn]

I agree!! Gettyusburg is a wonderful movie; G&G was terrible. John Wayne made a CW movie where he played General Gregg in his famous raid through Mississippi. Overall pretty good, too much tilted toward the Union. Aside, for Marcone, If Gregg had run across Forrest ... no more Gregg. He was very lucky. T

[Brochgale]

Glory and Gettysburg hands down. Gettysburg is the greatest, though. I had a bit part in it as a reenactor. I've got two close-ups during Pickett's Charge.

Where are the close ups? I have the DVD!

[Coffee Sergeant]

I had the occasion to view Gettysburg and Gods & Generals last weekend, the former for the third time (saw it when it first came out and again ~5 years later) and the latter for the second time (saw it soon after it came out). Here are my mini-reviews:

----

Gettysburg -- *** (out of 4 stars)

This was better than I remembered. On first viewing years ago, I thought it was stiff and too reverential. The third time around, I now think it's a pretty decent movie, even speaking as a typical movie goer and not as a Civil War fanatic.

The acting is generally excellent. Particularly good were Martin Sheen as Lee, Richard Jordan as Brig. Gen. Armistead, Sam Elliot as Brig. Gen. Buford, Tom Berenger as Longstreet, and Kevin Conway as Sgt. Buster Kilrain.

I got to rewatch Gettysburg recently and I agree big time here. I especially loved Elliot as Buford.

Personally I think Daniels portrayal of Chamberlain was a bit flat. I think the 'Schoolteacher turned warrior' angle was a bit overdone. Shouldn't Civil War colonels had a bit more of an edge?

[bloodybucket]

I can't believe we have three pages and no mention of Buster Keaton in "The General".

[Henry D.]

I see Your Buster Keaton and raise a Red Skelton in "A Southern Yankee"!

Ragards, Henry

BTW, Happy New Year, everybody!

[DirkX]

I agree!! Gettyusburg is a wonderful movie; G&G was terrible. John Wayne made a CW movie where he played General Gregg in his famous raid through Mississippi. Overall pretty good, too much tilted toward the Union. Aside, for Marcone, If Gregg had run across Forrest ... no more Gregg. He was very lucky. T

John wayne even played William Sherman

[Geohff]

I have been collecting Civil War Movies for years. I have over 100 now so here are some of my Favorites and why.

I like the classic series. Gone with the wind, North and South, Beulah Land, Blue and the Gray, Dances with Wolves. They are all good but lacking in realism sometimes (story driven).

I Like G&G and Gettysburg and hope Last Full Measure will be made to complete the trilogy. I like Cold Mountain, Glory and of course Red Badge of Courage. They are all more realisitic.

O.K. Now old B&W must see. (Note sometimes way off reality, but that's because of when they were made) #1 Silent movie Birth of a Nation, just a classic for it's time, excellent. #2 An occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, A short interesting movie which I don't wan't to spoil, but I loved.#3 Drums in the deep South, a great story of two friends who end up on oppisite sides of a fictional special ops artillary battle in the west.

Honorably mentions go to 2nd tier but very god movies. 1st Pharaoh's Army, a story which takes place in a occupied homestead in Virginia, A small Union Cav group come upon a small homestead and because of a injury must stay awhile. Very people, story driven with some excellent results. 2nd Andersonville, about the camp. 3rd Sommersby, about a soldier returned home without his memory? Come home to find, peace, love etc. But can he put the war behind?

O.K. And my overall favorites, next post.

[Geohff]

My best movies.

#1 Wicked Spring, a small film group puts this one out about the 1864 battle of the Wilderness in Virginia. 6 Men from both sides end up hoplessly lost after the confusion of the battle and find themselves all "camping" the night togather. This movie is so strong on cararicter building, so excellent on story, so graphic on battle, I find it hard to believe it never became as big as G&G or Glory etc. I think only it's small production company kept this from the general public. #2 Ride with the Devil, previously mentioned, but a classic about gorrallia warfare in Mo. and Bleeding Kansas. Great story driven movie, modern studio effects for battles, some big names including my wish she was my gal Jewell the folk singer and Toby Maguire. #3 No Retreat From Destiny, by the same people who put out Wicked Spring. Great story about 1864 during the Petersburg situation, General Ewell marched on Washington, little known battle but the movie is very accurate and the same actor quality and effects that were used in Wicked Spring (A love of the subject matter and a stress on realism) were used. One bad thing however, the sound was awful on this one, going from loud to quiet and garbled, sometimes not matching the actors mouths. How they got everthing else so good and screwed the pooch on the sound mistifies me.

[pepe4158]

Yeah my 2c late....you know the Gettysburg film to me was ruined by Sheen's portrayal of Lee (never send a liberal to pretend hes a conservative lol).....n Berenger as Longstreet was pithetic at best.

Gods n Generals has a much better suited cast IMO Lang makes a suburb Jackson, n Duval isnt a great Lee, but at least plausable.

You know there was a really old series, North and South I believe, fictious yes, but still a great movie, with non other then Patrick Swayze (forget Sp) playing a confederate general very well an Loyd Bridges as J. Davis

Glory is good in that it captures the confusion on a civil war battleground.

Oh yeah...cold moutain someone mentioned, good movie if you want to be entertained and capture the desperation of an average confedearte soldiers dilema caught up at that time....in a dilema between duty and loyalty versus the hard facts of the situation around him.

[jackfox]

#1 Wicked Spring, a small film group puts this one out about the 1864 battle of the Wilderness in Virginia. 6 Men from both sides end up hoplessly lost after the confusion of the battle and find themselves all "camping" the night togather.

Now, I only saw Wicked Spring once, but I was awfully confused at the end (and disappointed). The way I remember it is that it wasn't until the morning dawn that any of the soldiers realized that they had been sharing a campfire with the enemy. Seemed too unbelievable to me. Otherwise it was good.

[LMUBill]

Gods n Generals has a much better suited cast IMO Lang makes a suburb Jackson, n Duval isnt a great Lee, but at least plausable.

At least Duvall had the pedigree to play Lee. They are related. Plus he owned some of the property used in the filming of the movie.

[pepe4158]

Yeah Bill; IMO libs tottaly screw up trying to portray any conservative lol...I dunno what Bergs political affiliations are, but from the way he butchered Longstreet's demenre I'd bet he is a flaming lib lol
N I thought I throw up when Sheen says in the movive when Kemper is shot, 'N i will pray to my God that doesnt happen.'...(as if Lee was a multi-culturalist to believe like Sheen, we all just have a different form of God n thats ok )
Duval wasnt a great Lee, but he didnt try to do too much, and seemed to have a quite and professional demenre about him.
Sheen rode around like a pompous idiot, which is how he probably views any conservative anyway lol

[pepe4158]

Coming late to the party (as usual) I'd like to add

Stephen Lang: Very enjoyable as Pickett, but how he managed to butcher the character of Jackson is beyond me. He managed to make him an utterly unlikeable humorless religious maniac. Yes, he is adored by his aides and by his black cook, but the audience ist left to wonder why? Jackson is allowed to make a hollow sermon about his passionate believe about ending slavery, but given the rest of "background information" the movie offers, it just does not ring true. (Sidenote: I know that Jackson was opposed to slavery and even taught at a black sunday school for a time, breaking the law by doing so). Also the, forgive me, "alibi black man" Lewis: "They may come to free my folks, but nonetheless, they invade my home and if I could, I'd take up a musket and fight them off, too!"? Yeah, sure, I'm positive the majority of black virginians, free or slaves, thought like that at the time...

Regards, Henry

Jeff Daniels! I worshipped his performance as Chamberlain in Gettysburg, but in the 10 years between the two movies, he has aged considerably. And he gained quite a bit of weight during shooting to boot. In his later scenes he literally looks like a walrus in blue. I didn't know that a diet of hardtacks and salted beef could do that to man... ---agreed

Stephen Lang: Very enjoyable as Pickett, but how he managed to butcher the character of Jackson is beyond me. He managed to make him an utterly unlikeable humorless religious maniac. Yes, he is adored by his aides and by his black cook, but the audience ist left to wonder why? Jackson is allowed to make a hollow sermon about his passionate believe about ending slavery, but given the rest of "background information" the movie offers, it just does not ring true. (Sidenote: I know that Jackson was opposed to slavery and even taught at a black sunday school for a time, breaking the law by doing so). Also the, forgive me, "alibi black man" Lewis: "They may come to free my folks, but nonetheless, they invade my home and if I could, I'd take up a musket and fight them off, too!"? Yeah, sure, I'm positive the majority of black virginians, free or slaves, thought like that at the time... --------

----Dude read your history, Jackson WAS a humorless religious maniac, he WAS a preacher, not a sunday school teacher, n if you understand anything about the south, is the demenre of a hell n brimstone southern preacher, (this is the bible-belt man!) Longstreet describes his old commrade as a 'hard' man.
But as a leader he is described to have a wild look in his eyes, during battle, n full of bravado and passion that inspires his men, and Lang in the rare seens (actually) fighting tried to capture this....thus he was loved by his men for bringing them victory, not his religious attitudes.
N as far as blacks wanting to fight in the CSA....some actually did want to n its recorded, why duno?...youd have to ask them, most just were afraid of the new changes, like everyone else I gather, but hopefull.

also...little side note on Jackson's charecter n hope i remember this correctly, he would suck raw lemons, holding one arm (or was it leg?) high in the air....something about blood flow, but was quite a sight to see I bet!....if this person wasnt a maniac no one is!

[pepe4158]

I got to rewatch Gettysburg recently and I agree big time here. I especially loved Elliot as Buford.

Personally I think Daniels portrayal of Chamberlain was a bit flat. I think the 'Schoolteacher turned warrior' angle was a bit overdone. Shouldn't Civil War colonels had a bit more of an edge?

It may look overdone, but was accurate, he was a professor for good sakes!
PHD of rhetoric.

[Le Ricain]

Jeff Daniels! I worshipped his performance as Chamberlain in Gettysburg, but in the 10 years between the two movies, he has aged considerably. And he gained quite a bit of weight during shooting to boot. In his later scenes he literally looks like a walrus in blue. I didn't know that a diet of hardtacks and salted beef could do that to man... ---agreed

Stephen Lang: Very enjoyable as Pickett, but how he managed to butcher the character of Jackson is beyond me. He managed to make him an utterly unlikeable humorless religious maniac. Yes, he is adored by his aides and by his black cook, but the audience ist left to wonder why? Jackson is allowed to make a hollow sermon about his passionate believe about ending slavery, but given the rest of "background information" the movie offers, it just does not ring true. (Sidenote: I know that Jackson was opposed to slavery and even taught at a black sunday school for a time, breaking the law by doing so). Also the, forgive me, "alibi black man" Lewis: "They may come to free my folks, but nonetheless, they invade my home and if I could, I'd take up a musket and fight them off, too!"? Yeah, sure, I'm positive the majority of black virginians, free or slaves, thought like that at the time... --------

----Dude read your history, Jackson WAS a humorless religious maniac, he WAS a preacher, not a sunday school teacher, n if you understand anything about the south, is the demenre of a hell n brimstone southern preacher, (this is the bible-belt man!) Longstreet describes his old commrade as a 'hard' man.
But as a leader he is described to have a wild look in his eyes, during battle, n full of bravado and passion that inspires his men, and Lang in the rare seens (actually) fighting tried to capture this....thus he was loved by his men for bringing them victory, not his religious demeanre
N as far as blacks wanting to fight in the CSA....some actually did want to n its recorded, why duno?...youd have to ask them, most just were afraid of the new changes, like everyone else I gather, but hopefull.

also...little side note on Jackson's charecter n hope i remember this correctly, he would suck raw lemons, holding one arm (or was it leg?) high in the air....something about blood flow, but was quite a sight to see I bet!....if this person wasnt a maniac no one is!

It was his arm, which was the source of one of his nicknames, 'Tom Fool'.

[pepe4158]

Hey no one here has mentioned kevin Costner's, 'Dances with wolves' you guys remember the opening scenes?....werent they cool?
I forget the southern cavalry general Costners up against.....but I think they were trying to imply he was as good as Forest?

[Brochgale]

It may look overdone, but was accurate, he was a professor for good sakes!
PHD of rhetoric.

I gather Jackson went on a sabbatical to Scotland prior to the war and one of the places he visited was Glasgow - and I can testify that they are all nutters there? Especially when Celtic plays Rangers?