"Wicked Spring" is a very ordinary low budget indie which plays out like a slice of Civil War life as men from both sides spend time together during a respite in the Battle of the Wilderness. This plotless film is put together with relatively unknown actors delivering mediocre performances; lots of reenactment battle scenes which give no sense of generaling and strategy; and a big dose of visuals to make up for the absence of content and story arc; etc. I'm a Civil War buff of sorts and have seen just about everything from Ken Burns CW to Glory to the Gettysburgs to the Civil War Journal, Red Badge of Courage, North vs South, etc., etc. and, though I think I understand what Hershberger was trying to do with this movie, it just didn't work for me. Keep expectations real and make this the last CW movie you watch. (C)
64 Reviews
Average movie about the cost of humanity during war
beaglepilot200320 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is an average movie with a few tense battle scenes. The story illustrates the humble and honest backgrounds of the soldiers from both sides of the conflict, both before their meeting and during a night spent around the campfire. When the sun rises, a few of the soldiers return to being soldiers while others want to separate as comrades-in-arms despite being on opposite sides of the war.
The ending of this movie takes me back to those 70s movies where all the heroes can be counted on to die futile deaths by the end of the flick, and the audience is left slightly depressed or thinking "Bummer, dude." Although movies like this can be a bit depressing, they are good at illustrating the point that, although war may be necessary for the greater good, that good always comes at a terrible price.
The ending of this movie takes me back to those 70s movies where all the heroes can be counted on to die futile deaths by the end of the flick, and the audience is left slightly depressed or thinking "Bummer, dude." Although movies like this can be a bit depressing, they are good at illustrating the point that, although war may be necessary for the greater good, that good always comes at a terrible price.
in disagreement with the rest
inrain19 September 2002
"Wicked Spring" is a love story, left unfulfilled, between a Civil War Soldier and his sweetheart back home. The film opens up with timely folk music and long, simmering shots that pull the viewer back to a time long ago, with no fast moving cars, just trains. The relationship, which seems dreamlike in comparison to the war, is drawn out with no words, almost smearing like chalk pastels.
Once the first words are spoken however, the film does not get much more interesting than that. The first monologue, the girlfriend of Harrison, the benevolent gentleman soldier, is poor in quality. The words seem forced and badly chosen. In fact, most of the dialogue in the film is of this same quality, distracting from attempt to evoke emotion from the viewer.
The shots of the war before morning are very grey and uninteresting. The lack of color seems obviously symbolic of the deprivation, the hunger, the death, the lost love, but it is not done well, and lacks a visual alertness that the film really requires. The sound in they grey scenes is extremely repetitive and contains a rolling bass that is supposed to be like continual gunshot, however seems more like a rumbling stomach. That could have been my own stomach though, starving for content.
If the film was in fact more visually interesting, than its main stream love story plot would be more forgivable. While the emphasis is obviously on the ordinary man, the plot is left much too ordinary to really embrace. A stronger character begins to become defined when the illiteracy of Harrison becomes apparent. However, this is not a focus of the film until after an hour of heaping mounds of grey fighting scenes that could have been done without. I think that the director should have spent more time working on the basic elements of plot and composition before getting carried away with knit-picky things like the historical correctness of the costuming. This film will probably not stand long in the wake of time.
Once the first words are spoken however, the film does not get much more interesting than that. The first monologue, the girlfriend of Harrison, the benevolent gentleman soldier, is poor in quality. The words seem forced and badly chosen. In fact, most of the dialogue in the film is of this same quality, distracting from attempt to evoke emotion from the viewer.
The shots of the war before morning are very grey and uninteresting. The lack of color seems obviously symbolic of the deprivation, the hunger, the death, the lost love, but it is not done well, and lacks a visual alertness that the film really requires. The sound in they grey scenes is extremely repetitive and contains a rolling bass that is supposed to be like continual gunshot, however seems more like a rumbling stomach. That could have been my own stomach though, starving for content.
If the film was in fact more visually interesting, than its main stream love story plot would be more forgivable. While the emphasis is obviously on the ordinary man, the plot is left much too ordinary to really embrace. A stronger character begins to become defined when the illiteracy of Harrison becomes apparent. However, this is not a focus of the film until after an hour of heaping mounds of grey fighting scenes that could have been done without. I think that the director should have spent more time working on the basic elements of plot and composition before getting carried away with knit-picky things like the historical correctness of the costuming. This film will probably not stand long in the wake of time.
Not very good
georgepickett6326 February 2004
I saw this one in the video store just the other day. Being a huge Civil War buff I just had to pick it up. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big disappointment. I see, by many of the other comments written here, that I am not alone in seeing the primary (huge!) fault in this movie. It doesn't have a plot or a story! Are we supposed to "ooooh!" and "aaaaah" over beautiful scenes of actors and reenactors dressed up in authentic uniforms? Are we supposed to look at the pretty packaging and not notice that this film doesn't really have any depth? The whole story (and I use that term loosely!) can be distilled into one sentence. Soldiers in the war were once civilians with lives all their own, and soldiers in that war die. I've seen more depth to the subject in a children's book. All in all, not very good
non existent drama
deffoy20005 August 2004
This film might be described as a non-existent drama. First, we are subject to a long non verbal montage of the soldiers and their wife's/lovers before the war. Without the benefit of completely developed scenes in this prologue, we do not really get a chance to "feel" for the women and the men that must soon leave them. The lack of feeling for the characters leaves their interactions flat and lifeless. The war part of the movie makes up a majority of this film. Throughout most of it we witness the Battle of the Wilderness with a non existent story line. Soldiers from both sides attempt to slaughter each other and we are supposed to "feel" something for them. Unfortunately, because we did not get to know and understand them in the beginning, and now war scenes have taken the place of character development, their is little compassion that we can have for such two dimensional characters. Throughout we never manage to have a "stake" in the character's lives. We never care for them, because we never really get to know them. So, by the end of the movie whatever happens to them becomes meaningless and inconsequential. This could have been a good film. But, like most of what Hollywood is offering as of late, this independent tries to cover up an incredibly weak story with visuals that they hope will both impress and camouflage. It doesn't work. This film was doomed from the start because of a lack of a good script.
This film leaves you wanting.....
topher_christopher21 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This film leaves you wanting a lot of things: a story, more dialogue, better scenes, better actors, a better script, a more accurate portrayal of the Civil War. What more can I say? There is absolutely no plot to this film at all. The acting is all really forced and tiredly fake, which leads me to believe that may be the reason there wasn't really very much to the script. Maybe they started with more of a script and then realized that the actors could not pull off any of the lines and delivered them all so woodenly and fakely so they decided to go with more music and less dialogue. In any case, we do not get to know the characters at all so we are very detached during the battle scenes and end up not really caring who dies, etc.
Avoid this worthless film and watch Gettysburg or Cold Mountain if you want to see a real Civil War film. 0 stars.
Avoid this worthless film and watch Gettysburg or Cold Mountain if you want to see a real Civil War film. 0 stars.
An Under-appreciated Civil War Gem!
dmhughes-448-69510214 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw this film in 2004 when my dad bought me this film for my birthday present. I'm a huge American Civil War fan. I've enjoyed many Civil War films, from Glory to Gettysburg to Gods & Generals to Cold Mountain; even The Red Badge of Courage from the 1950s. This was a film that was made on a small budget; with little-known actors; and had a story that you probably couldn't really tell in a big-budget film. If Gods & Generals had been made like this; it would have received an even worse critical and financial backlash than it already did. Yet for all its shortcomings, this small-budget film is actually a great little film that doesn't focus on the battle, but focuses on the people who fought in it, which is something most Civil War films fail to address.
The film is set on the night of May 5, 1864 during the Battle of the Wilderness in Virginia. The film follows three Union and three Confederate soldiers who get trapped in no-man's land, and they decide to survive together during the night, but as we all know, once the morning comes, they will become enemies again and be forced to fight to the death. It's the first two acts that work really well. We see the battle pan out; we see men fighting in formations, and dying by the dozens. Then we see these six men, and they decide to survive the night together. One of the Southerners is a man who simply wants to return home to his love; another is a hothead who wants to fight and win the war. The Union soldiers are more one-dimensional, because they all fight for the Union, and don't have personalities, except for one who is shot in the leg, and only wishes to go home. The men talk to each other about their problems, and their opinions on the war, and the dialog is really well done here. Unfortunately, the third act is where the film falls apart. On the morning of May 6, the men start fighting each other and try to capture each other; a couple try to run away; all the while the two massive armies are about to fight with our main characters caught in the crossfire. The final image of the movie is actually pretty heart wrenching, but the ending was pretty sloppy.
The effects of this movie are, well, primitive. The uniforms and weapons and the locations look good, but you can tell the extras are using modern gunpowder and ammunition in the scenes, and the sound quality isn't spectacular. The cinematography is okay; but it's either too frantic or too slow to really work well. The actors who play the Confederates are really good; the Union soldiers could have used more work. Overall, this is a film that has a short and simple, yet very powerful tale of survival, companionship, and betrayal in the middle a fierce battle in the Civil War. It's not perfect, and it definitely shows off it's limited budget, but it's definitely a film that will make you sit back and think about what really could have happened in the Civil War, and for that, I was completely satisfied.
Final Verdict: 7/10
The film is set on the night of May 5, 1864 during the Battle of the Wilderness in Virginia. The film follows three Union and three Confederate soldiers who get trapped in no-man's land, and they decide to survive together during the night, but as we all know, once the morning comes, they will become enemies again and be forced to fight to the death. It's the first two acts that work really well. We see the battle pan out; we see men fighting in formations, and dying by the dozens. Then we see these six men, and they decide to survive the night together. One of the Southerners is a man who simply wants to return home to his love; another is a hothead who wants to fight and win the war. The Union soldiers are more one-dimensional, because they all fight for the Union, and don't have personalities, except for one who is shot in the leg, and only wishes to go home. The men talk to each other about their problems, and their opinions on the war, and the dialog is really well done here. Unfortunately, the third act is where the film falls apart. On the morning of May 6, the men start fighting each other and try to capture each other; a couple try to run away; all the while the two massive armies are about to fight with our main characters caught in the crossfire. The final image of the movie is actually pretty heart wrenching, but the ending was pretty sloppy.
The effects of this movie are, well, primitive. The uniforms and weapons and the locations look good, but you can tell the extras are using modern gunpowder and ammunition in the scenes, and the sound quality isn't spectacular. The cinematography is okay; but it's either too frantic or too slow to really work well. The actors who play the Confederates are really good; the Union soldiers could have used more work. Overall, this is a film that has a short and simple, yet very powerful tale of survival, companionship, and betrayal in the middle a fierce battle in the Civil War. It's not perfect, and it definitely shows off it's limited budget, but it's definitely a film that will make you sit back and think about what really could have happened in the Civil War, and for that, I was completely satisfied.
Final Verdict: 7/10
Not very good, inaccurate
schnitzel_tomas21 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is the very last Civil War movie you should ever see. It is not very accurate and it is very, very boring. The first ten minutes of the movie doesn't have any speaking which apparently was supposed to make a big impact but it fails and it just comes off as boring and uneducational. You can tell the people who made this didn't do very much research and just threw it together really quickly just so they could say they made a Civil War movie. The script and the dialog are very unintelligent, and the acting is not very good. The costumes don't look very authentic, once again going back to this movie probably being thrown together in a matter of a couple of weeks.
I would never watch this again and I would not recommend it to anyone!
I would never watch this again and I would not recommend it to anyone!
and interesting CW view
pepper_phantom15 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The war between the States. How many movies have been done about it and not until "Wicked Spring" have we seen that particular view. A rather interesting view of the Civil War at that.
"Wicked Spring" begins like most other Civil War movies but seems to center on two individuals. One from the North side of the war and the other from the South side of the war. It isn't very hard to tell them apart either.
What happens sometime during one of the battles is where the story really begins. A few Yankees get separated from their unit and find a campfire with a few Rebels sitting by it. Both sides are lost. What happens from there is like a neverending story. A side to the Civil War that most of us would like to believe it was really like. Friendships form under some of the most unusual circumstances every once in a while and, this was just one of those times.
Brian Merrick was a true Southern gentleman who didn't have much of an education but was willing to make new friends and give a helping hand where the need was.
DJ Perry was the Northern soldier was humble in heart and found the camp so that he could help his fellow soldier who was injured.
A friendship formed from the embers of the campfire as the one read the letters of the others sweetheart. A really very special moment in time. Neither one judging the other but, each offering a helping hand of what the other needed.
The end of "Wicked Spring" didn't exactly end like you would have expected it to but... THAT WAS WAR!!! I really enjoyed the very human side to a not so humane war. Be prepared to have a pile of hankies... and don't be a scat cat to admit it.
"Wicked Spring" begins like most other Civil War movies but seems to center on two individuals. One from the North side of the war and the other from the South side of the war. It isn't very hard to tell them apart either.
What happens sometime during one of the battles is where the story really begins. A few Yankees get separated from their unit and find a campfire with a few Rebels sitting by it. Both sides are lost. What happens from there is like a neverending story. A side to the Civil War that most of us would like to believe it was really like. Friendships form under some of the most unusual circumstances every once in a while and, this was just one of those times.
Brian Merrick was a true Southern gentleman who didn't have much of an education but was willing to make new friends and give a helping hand where the need was.
DJ Perry was the Northern soldier was humble in heart and found the camp so that he could help his fellow soldier who was injured.
A friendship formed from the embers of the campfire as the one read the letters of the others sweetheart. A really very special moment in time. Neither one judging the other but, each offering a helping hand of what the other needed.
The end of "Wicked Spring" didn't exactly end like you would have expected it to but... THAT WAS WAR!!! I really enjoyed the very human side to a not so humane war. Be prepared to have a pile of hankies... and don't be a scat cat to admit it.
Inane and inaccurate
chuckrandell29 July 2004
Plot less and inane. This incredibly boring movie made Gods and Generals look like an action flick. It seems the writer/director really doesn't have much to say about the Civil War experience. What little story there is could have been told in a fifteen minute short. Filming a few re-enactors shooting at each other in the woods is not much of a plot. On top of this the lead characters are flat and uninspired. What is also of interest is the fact that in the making of video the filmmakers emphasize the historical accuracy of the movie. I counted at least 9 major errors, the most glaring is the totally out of date train. If you claim historical accuracy you best deliver.
An Artistic Approach
mel-4731 September 2011
A simple-minded knee jerk reaction to this film would be of one an initial notice to lack of character development. HOWEVER, this stems from an ordinary mainstream concept in which we have all become accustom. Sad really, that as an audience our opinion shoots straight toward familiar. As a public we have become in such a hurry for the heart of something to unfold we fail to realize, with patience will flow a far more beautiful reveal. "Wicked Spring" took the challenge of recreating expectation, and did it well. In the beginning, it 'introduces', through facial expression, (visual) and powerful music (sound), nothing more. Enticing us as an audience to create our own dance of dialog. True, heartfelt love scenes between, a family, and a future, without the gratuitous nature, offering depths a 'show' could not. The battle scenes were incredibly realistic, capturing small sounds to achieve loud impact, once again redirecting our influence from the Hollywood skirt of screaming special effects. As the story moves forward so opens the window into the lives of the characters. Scenes on the surface with so little, involve so much. Men through darkness and fear are forced to be silent, forced to be blind. It is this blindness that gives them the ability to listen, to ignore possible differences and leave them with the raw quality of their souls, helping each other when mere hours before the goal would have been very different. I truly enjoyed what this film brought, and found it to be refreshing in the face of ordinary.
pedestrian and unrewarding
jscreenwrite2 January 2004
First and foremost is the story. No matter what kind of special effects or horrific battle scenes you toss in, you've got to have a story. This film lacks even the rudiments of a good story. This film is so plotless that it makes it difficult to criticize. Its hard to discuss something that isn't there! In other words, the plot is so very simplistic as to be non existent. It seems that the director was so dazzled by the cinematography, so wrapped up in capturing the boys in blue and gray, that he utterly failed to bother with plot or character development. What you end up with is a "pretty" film with no substance. The movie equivalent of a beautiful blonde with the intelligence of a gnat. Unfortunately even this glossy initial appearance fades quickly as well. The battle scenes are pedestrian and unrewarding. Attempts to use sound design to fool the viewer into thinking there are a lot more soldiers than what we see on screen, fail abysmally. And the failure of the director to actually take the viewer into the battle, leaves you with an unemotional "third person" documentary feel. So what you get after looking past the apparent glitz and glamour of this Civil War movie, is a very weak, overly simplistic, lackluster montage of battle scenes.
The dumb blonde of Civil War films
civilwarfield3 February 2004
Wicked Spring is like a beautiful blonde that you see across a crowded room. She looks great, everything is in the right place. You decide to approach, and as you get near you begin to see the flaws carefully hidden beneath the make up. Still she is very attractive up close. But then... She opens her mouth to speak. And you discover she is a total vacuum with absolutely nothing to say. Instantly, you wish you were somewhere else talking to anybody but her. Wicked Spring looks good on the surface. High marks for period set design and wardrobe. But then you realized this writer/director is more impressed with surface gloss than any real substance or depth. I agree with one of the other comments that said Wicked Spring would have been better with some severe editing, turning it into a short. At a more abbreviated length it might stand up a bit better as one could overlook the lack of character development and lack of any meaningful drama.
horribly uninspired
tom_wolfen27 January 2004
I see that a lot of people feel the same way about this flick. And it's all because NOTHING HAPPENS! Hard to believe that a war flick could be boring, but this one is. In the entire course of this film we watch as soldiers from both sides go off to war, fight in a pitched battle, face each other in an oft repeated truce, and then succumb to an all to predictable end. That's it. Dialog is very minimal, characterization is non existent, and the battle scenes are tepid at best. Horribly uninspired and weak.
lackluster film making
cavalryone200023 December 2003
It's obvious that in this day and age movie fans are easily impressed by lame attempts at depicting the horrors of war contrasted with slow motion fake sentimentality. Because that's exactly what you have here. No plot. No story. No human interest. I am assuming that the script was written on the back of a napkin as there isn't anything to it. Just depicting tearful goodbyes and battle scenes does not a movie make. Remember when movies were about stories? Remember Shenandoah? Go rent that if you're interested in things like plot, substance, and a deep look into the human condition. Cause you ain't gonna find it here!
a dull witted snoozefest!
johnzeek1 November 2004
After half way through this movie you realize that this is the most boring war film ever done! How do you do that? How do you make a film about war boring? True, war has been characterized as consisting of "long bouts of boredom interspersed with moments of sheer terror," but the movies are supposed to cut out the boring parts. Instead, of bothering with plot, characterization and conflict, Wicked Spring decides that we should be so impressed by the ability of reenactors to pull off authentic small scale battles, that nothing more need be said. However, a lot more needs to be said. It needs to be said by the main characters as the plot develops to a climax in it's usual three act manner. Instead we are only left with the simplistic conflict of north against south. The characters conflict is boiled down to blue against gray. Nothing about their inner fears, longings, or desires ever comes to the surface. What is left is a boring snoozefest that has the emotional impact of a high school history text.
Disappointing and insubstantial
filmguru194120 January 2004
It seems that many of the comments posted here focus on how well this film "got the period right." They applaud the director for all the little touches that make it believable. Yes, that is important. Nothing can ruin an historical piece faster than a director that didn't do his homework. This leads to the historical stupidity of such infamous Hollywood flicks such as Pearl Harbor and Gladiator. Unfortunately, just getting the history right is not enough (unless you are doing a documentary). You must marry to that historical accuracy, a well thought out engaging story. Wicked Spring fails abysmally in this area. What others applaud as "glimpses into the lives of the soldiers" is nothing more than just that. Tenuously connected glimpses that fail to offer any plot other than the all too obvious "war kills people." It goes no deeper than that. A sophomoric attempt to illustrate the horrors of war that never digs any deeper into the subject. Like the proverbial student, who has procrastinated until the last minute, and now has to write an in depth paper on The Red Badge of Courage, this film covers the subject in an all too cursory way. Any way you look at it, it's still only C minus workmanship. In this disappointing attempt the writer/director has decided to pull out every old and worn out platitude form at least a dozen Civil War films. Tearful farewells, the noise and confusion of battle, followed by the uneasy truce of enemy combatants. But what do we learn about the characters? Nothing. The director fails to let us get to know them and in turn feel something for them. Other than a short silent vignette of their lives on the eve of war, (just to let us know that they did indeed have lives before the war, and didn't just spring to life in 1861!), we get little chance to delve into the "meat" of who they are and what drives them. So what we end up with is insubstantial two dimensional characters that move about the war's landscape, as we watch with extremely detached interest. And as the credits roll we realize (like the teacher reading the student's essay) that the writer/director has reached deep into his soul and has plucked a small bit of truth about the human condition, which he has just revealed to us through this film. He tells us...war is bad. Maybe a c minus is too high?
PRETTY WEAK WAR MOVIE
moviegooroo200021 February 2003
I went to see this movie with the hopes that it would be a very interesting and entertaining war flick, but I was very disappointed.
All of the dialogue throughout the movie is written very poorly and seems forced by the actors.
They are trying to spark some kind of emotion for the characters but you leave feeling nothing.
Most of the war scenes are very boring and uninteresting, and are not done very well at all.
The sounds in the background are very repetitive and boring and make you want to start looking around for some other action going on around you because you are so bored.
Sorry, but do not waste your time on this very weak war flick.
All of the dialogue throughout the movie is written very poorly and seems forced by the actors.
They are trying to spark some kind of emotion for the characters but you leave feeling nothing.
Most of the war scenes are very boring and uninteresting, and are not done very well at all.
The sounds in the background are very repetitive and boring and make you want to start looking around for some other action going on around you because you are so bored.
Sorry, but do not waste your time on this very weak war flick.
Modest But Effective Wilderness Battle Epic
zardoz-1328 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Wicked Spring" is a solemn, low-budget, Civil War movie set principally during Battle of the Wilderness in 1864. As battles go, the Battle of the Wilderness was as surreal as director Michael Hershberger's film. Soldiers clashed in the woods, and sometimes the discharge of musket fire caught trees on fire, and smoke swirled like fog, enough so that soldiers got lost in the thicket. This story follows three Union soldiers and three Confederate soldiers who camp out in what essentially constitutes no-man land because they are afraid that they will be shot accidentally by their own men if they go blundering throughout the woods. The two protagonists a Union corporal and a Confederate private bond during the night when they set aside their differences and behave with respect to each other. One of the Yankees is wounded in the leg, and one of the hateful Confederates relents long enough to recommend that they apply a tourniquet on it. During the night, the Confederate soldier explains to his Union counterpart that he has kept a bundle of letters rather than burn them because he cannot read and he holds the memory of his wife dear to him. The literate Yankee corporal reads all the letters to the Confederate private. Moreover, he agrees to write whatever letter that the Confederate dictates to him. When morning dawns, the hateful Confederate is afraid of being taken prisoner as a deserter and he roughs up the Yankees and tries to take them as his prisoner. The Confederate private fights him at every time. Since the skies are aglow with sunlight, Union and Confederate armies scrimmage and attack each other. Our unfortunate protagonists are tragically caught between them and killed. The Confederate prisoner dies, clutching the letter to his wife to his chest. Despite its low budget, "Wicked Spring" benefits from the presence of Civil War re-enactors who lends an air of authenticity to the proceedings,and Hershberger knows how to stage battle engagements. True, spectators may grow weary of the extended campfire scene when Union and Confederate soldiers alike treat each other with respect. The opening moments of the movie depict how the principals enlisted to fight the war. The modest film captures the atmosphere of what it must have been like to fight in the Wilderness.
Milk toast rendering of overdone war vignettes
fsumpter20002 January 2004
The growing interest Hollywood hast taken in the Civil War pleases many of us to no end. There hasn't been this much mainstream interest in my favorite topic since the centennial over forty years ago. Within the past ten years or so we have seen such offerings as Glory, Gettysburg, Gods and Generals and Cold Mountain. Considering Hollywood's penchant for screwing up history, I have to say that for the most part they did a credible job. Unfortunately, along with this renewed interest in the Civil War, we have to take the bad.with the good. The bad in this instance is Wicked Spring. I wanted to like this film. I wanted to watch a good story about the Civil War. Instead I watched a milk toast rendering of overdone war vignettes. There is absolutely nothing new here. Nothing that stirs the soul, nothing that brings you closer to understanding the passions of the soldiers. Nothing but typical shots of dedicated re-enactors attempting to portray several thousands of men with several dozen. Nothing that hasn't been done better, and with more feeling on Civil War Journal. Avoid this one and go see Cold Mountain again.
Painfully boring and slow.
alottafagina19692 December 2004
In a word...slow. It was so painfully boring and slow that my wife and I digitally sped the movie up and it was still way too slow. Some of the story line could have been interesting, but they didn't do anything with the story really and the acting was really not very good at all. We both were left wondering if and when anything was going to happen. And nothing did!
I would recommend to anyone that you do not ever rent this movie, as it is definitely not worth the money of a rental fee. And I would definitely feel sorry for you if you actually spent money to buy this thing!
Avoid this super boring and slow movie, unless you want something to fall asleep to!
I would recommend to anyone that you do not ever rent this movie, as it is definitely not worth the money of a rental fee. And I would definitely feel sorry for you if you actually spent money to buy this thing!
Avoid this super boring and slow movie, unless you want something to fall asleep to!
Plotless and cliche ridden
filmreview2003200017 December 2003
A new Civil war movie has just hit the shelves. It seems that over the past few years, with such offerings as Gettysburg and Gods and Generals, as well as the soon to be released Cold Mountain, that this genre is experiencing a renaissance of sorts. Unfortunately, as in the case of Wicked Spring, this piece falls way short of even being mediocre, let alone a masterpiece.
What we have here is a plotless rehashing of every trite cliche associated with the Civil War. Plotless? Yes. There is no story here. We are offered silent (often done in slow motion) glimpses of the main characters (from the north and the south) before the go off to war. Then we jump to the Battle of the Wilderness, where these same soldiers, now grizzled veterans, are fighting for their lives. These erstwhile opponents then meet during a lull in the fighting, and agree to a uneasy truce. That, in a nutshell is the whole story. And because there is an astonishingly huge lack of character development we feel very little empathy or sympathy for any of these soldiers. So when the all too predictable end comes, it hits with the force of a wet noodle. Tossed in to the mix are silent tearful goodbye scenes with wives and girlfriends, lackluster battle scenes with anywhere from ten to thirty soldiers trying hard to look like whole regiments, and the inevitable `letter from home' reading scene, read by the Yankee, because Johnny Reb's illiterate. Again, most of this is done to minimal dialogue. All told there probably isn't twenty minutes of dialogue in the whole movie. So what you end up with are toy Civil War soldiers that have no depth, no substance, and are moved on the screen before us like the proverbial ten year old setting up a battle on the living room rug. Wicked Spring makes you long for the film Gettysburg with its pedantic long winded speeches concerning the war, that spew forth from everyone at every opportunity. At least these people said something. At least we understood a bit about their psyche. We get none of that here. Instead we get film footage that would be better suited for a documentary on the history channel, than a feature length film.
What we have here is a plotless rehashing of every trite cliche associated with the Civil War. Plotless? Yes. There is no story here. We are offered silent (often done in slow motion) glimpses of the main characters (from the north and the south) before the go off to war. Then we jump to the Battle of the Wilderness, where these same soldiers, now grizzled veterans, are fighting for their lives. These erstwhile opponents then meet during a lull in the fighting, and agree to a uneasy truce. That, in a nutshell is the whole story. And because there is an astonishingly huge lack of character development we feel very little empathy or sympathy for any of these soldiers. So when the all too predictable end comes, it hits with the force of a wet noodle. Tossed in to the mix are silent tearful goodbye scenes with wives and girlfriends, lackluster battle scenes with anywhere from ten to thirty soldiers trying hard to look like whole regiments, and the inevitable `letter from home' reading scene, read by the Yankee, because Johnny Reb's illiterate. Again, most of this is done to minimal dialogue. All told there probably isn't twenty minutes of dialogue in the whole movie. So what you end up with are toy Civil War soldiers that have no depth, no substance, and are moved on the screen before us like the proverbial ten year old setting up a battle on the living room rug. Wicked Spring makes you long for the film Gettysburg with its pedantic long winded speeches concerning the war, that spew forth from everyone at every opportunity. At least these people said something. At least we understood a bit about their psyche. We get none of that here. Instead we get film footage that would be better suited for a documentary on the history channel, than a feature length film.
i didn't like this one at all..
tragicazrael18 September 2002
i saw this in a class at VCU... and i thought it wasn't all that great. the first 10 minutes consist of scenes of the main character and his girlfriend/fiancee with no dialogue. this could have been condensed into 2 minutes tops and probably would have been better with some dialogue so that the relationship between them would be established and cause greater sympathy during the final scene. the battle scene was alright, but once the main characters ran away it got dull again. it was just them running around in the woods for however long with limited/uninteresting dialogue. when they meet with the 3 Union soldiers it doesn't make sense at all. they just wind up together. the interaction between Harrison and the Union soldier reading the letters was better. and when they wake up in the morning it gets a bit confusing because the ones wearing the Blue are apparently Confederates which makes no sense at all. and right before they get shot, the still was just horrible. made me think that was the end, but oh wait no there's however many seconds more where we see them getting shot and then dead on the ground. the camera shots were great as was the lighting, but it could have been edited to about 60 minutes tops and been a more interesting movie.
Very boring, hardly any plot...
nokiananuk1 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was very boring and there was hardly any plot to it at all. I am a very big civil war buff and I try to make it a point to go out and see every single movie that is ever made on the civil war so that is the reason that I even picked this movie up at the video store in the first place. I had never heard of it before but it looked kind of interesting and a topic that I love, but boy was I very disappointed. This movie was the most boring movie ever made on the civil war that I have ever seen, and I think I have seen just about all of them. There is no plot and there is just a lot of boring music and you end up feeling nothing at all for the characters because you never get to know them.
I would not recommend this to anyone and I would never waste the couple of bucks it cost to rent it ever again, I barely made it through the first time without falling asleep!
I would not recommend this to anyone and I would never waste the couple of bucks it cost to rent it ever again, I barely made it through the first time without falling asleep!
Horribly boring and insipid
wallywonder12 May 2005
This movie is the most boring Civil War film I have ever seen, and I consider myself quite the Civil War buff. I didn't like the very slow pace of the film and I never felt any emotion for any of the actors trying to portray the gentlemen who fought in the war or the wives they left home and their struggle. All of the music where they should have been telling a story left the whole movie feeling very incomplete. I don't think these actors were talented enough to carry this film with music alone and no dialog, it just didn't work. This is a story that has been portrayed in films many, many times and to make it interesting you have to make it different. This film is very mainstream and is not a very significant film that anyone interested in the Civil War should ever put on their list of must-see films.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
