The American Civil War is by far the war that lasts forever in this countries collective memory and was decreed in absentia by the flawed original signing of the Declaration of Independence leaving slavery intact. You would think that makes for great films and in many cases it did,however rarely do they have mass appeal. This 2014 release that sometimes seems longer then its 96 minutes,a flaw in pacing,is not preachy yet stark in some of its depiction that may seem uneven at times.Its based on a historic battle fought by cadets from VMI (Virginia Military Institute) that still exists today.However its also a coming of age film and in that sense some might find it corny,I didn't.The young actors were good but unknown to me.The "b"level adult actors were also good and you'll recognize a few,yet less screen time than the youngins.So if you like a somewhat different twist to a Civil War film yet keeping it "real"you might enjoy it.I certainly was pleasantly surprised.One of my lesser known gems.
56 Reviews
A Good If Unspectacular Movie About an Obscure Civil War Battle
cloud_nine29 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this movie about the involvement of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute in the Battle of New Market which delayed U. S. Grant's invasion into the Shenandoah Valley. Most of the movie takes place at the academy in 1863-4 showing the cadet's dedication to duty, honor and concern about the war.
The movie takes a decidedly ant-slavery stand though this is mostly in the background. This first scene in 1858 shows the governor of Virginia, who opposed secession, taking his 12 year old son to a slave auction to see the misery and pain inherit in the practice of slavery. Five years later the son is one of the cadets called to serve in the reserves of CSA General Breckenridge's army for the battle.
The cadets experience romance, fear, death, loss of comrades, fear but finally victory. The title comes from one of the last scenes when Confederate soldiers recover boots and shoes from the battlefield. Their sacrifice is still honored each year at VMI. This movie will only appeal to a small audience of course. It received no advance publicity of any kind. I was the only person in this theater at the multiplex. It probably won't last long wherever it plays.
The movie takes a decidedly ant-slavery stand though this is mostly in the background. This first scene in 1858 shows the governor of Virginia, who opposed secession, taking his 12 year old son to a slave auction to see the misery and pain inherit in the practice of slavery. Five years later the son is one of the cadets called to serve in the reserves of CSA General Breckenridge's army for the battle.
The cadets experience romance, fear, death, loss of comrades, fear but finally victory. The title comes from one of the last scenes when Confederate soldiers recover boots and shoes from the battlefield. Their sacrifice is still honored each year at VMI. This movie will only appeal to a small audience of course. It received no advance publicity of any kind. I was the only person in this theater at the multiplex. It probably won't last long wherever it plays.
Not Bad Despite Low Production Values...
MovieHoliks13 August 2015
Ever since having seen Ken Burns' magnificent documentary, "The Civil War", I've become somewhat of a "Civil War buff". Remember that episode of "Seinfeld"- George is like, "I always wanted to be a Civil War buff"- ?? LOL I saw this movie off Netflix the other day- pretty much standard direct-to-video fair in terms of overall production values. But I still liked this movie. It is based on the Battle of New Market fought in Virginia on May 15, 1864 in the American Civil War. The cast was good- Jason Isaacs, Lauren Holly, Keith David, David Arquette and Tom Skeritt played Ulysses S. Grant. President Lincoln was played by an actor named Michael Krebs, who has portrayed Lincoln in film and presentations throughout the United States. The main characters were a group of young people mostly played by unknowns, which worked out since it was less certain who would make it out alive at the end. All-in-all, thumbs up for this one.
US Civil War true tale that is a bit short on historical fact.
t-dooley-69-3869166 August 2015
This is a film dedicated to the boys of the Virginia Military Institute who in May of 1864 answered the call from Confederate General Breckenridge to go to defend their homeland from the oncoming Union Army of General Ulysses S. Grant.
They were mere cadets of varying age and all went to fight at the Battle of Newmarket Gap. The film follows the plight of seven cadets and incorporates their back stories up to a point and the issues of slavery. The slavery aspect is used as the sole reason for the Civil War and is posted right up front. That kind of myth should really be stopped from any more propagation as the causes were never that simple and it is only with retrospect that the nobler cause of emancipation was ever used to justify the slaughter. Still I digress.
The film itself is rather good; it balances the comradeship and action perfectly and is filmed using real actors / re-enactors for the main battle which is also done very well. It is overly sentimental but then I am a sucker for such and never mind that at all. The title 'The Field of Lost Shoes' is in reference to the many that became unshod in the fog and mud of the battle. Noteworthy performances are aplenty - but Jason Isaacs as Breckenridge is extremely good at getting the Southern charm with steely resolution just right. All in all a film that war fans and indeed some history fans will appreciate.
They were mere cadets of varying age and all went to fight at the Battle of Newmarket Gap. The film follows the plight of seven cadets and incorporates their back stories up to a point and the issues of slavery. The slavery aspect is used as the sole reason for the Civil War and is posted right up front. That kind of myth should really be stopped from any more propagation as the causes were never that simple and it is only with retrospect that the nobler cause of emancipation was ever used to justify the slaughter. Still I digress.
The film itself is rather good; it balances the comradeship and action perfectly and is filmed using real actors / re-enactors for the main battle which is also done very well. It is overly sentimental but then I am a sucker for such and never mind that at all. The title 'The Field of Lost Shoes' is in reference to the many that became unshod in the fog and mud of the battle. Noteworthy performances are aplenty - but Jason Isaacs as Breckenridge is extremely good at getting the Southern charm with steely resolution just right. All in all a film that war fans and indeed some history fans will appreciate.
Revisionist History From Confederate Point of View
mbrahms2629 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This is a dramatic, but highly distorted depiction of the Battle of New Market. The Cadets did not charge and break the Union line all by themselves and independent of orders, as shown in the film. What a crock. The whole Confederate force advanced as ordered, and the Cadets formed just a small part of the line. The final assault occurred late in the battle and succeeded because most of the Union infantry had run out of ammunition by then. There was also no hand to hand combat as depicted in the film, with Cadets bayoneting hapless Yankee veterans right and left. That scene was as bogus as the scenes in "Glory" showing intense hand to hand combat between the black soldiers of the 54th Mass. And the Confederates. Hand to hand combat involving infantry was quite rare in the Civil War. Thanks in large part to Franz Sigel's mismanagement, the Union men, who fought bravely and well, had to withdraw before the Confederates reached their position.
I have been to the New Market battlefield on a battlefield tour and read a book about it as well. It is sad to see history distorted in such a fashion. The participation of the VMI Cadets could have been depicted accurately. It was certainly dramatic enough.
I have been to the New Market battlefield on a battlefield tour and read a book about it as well. It is sad to see history distorted in such a fashion. The participation of the VMI Cadets could have been depicted accurately. It was certainly dramatic enough.
Confederate cadets from Virginia are to defend the Shenandoah Valley from the Union at New Market
linasoccer2 January 2017
I believe that this movie was sufficiently accurate to support the events of history during the civil war. Throughout this movie, the viewer was clearly able to see how the lives of the cadets were at the time. It showed their struggles at the young age, along with their sacrifices for their people. In addition, the movie provided the fact that not all southerners supported slavery. There were some who were willing to fight for their family, but wanted a change if they were victorious. However, "Field of Lost Shoes" became a bit cliché. The love story that began in the film was too focused on. I felt as though the story of slavery and the stress and efforts of the cadets and soldiers did not get the attention that was expected given the current situation of the story. Overall, I thought that the movie provided good facts regarding the locations, uniforms of both sides, weaponry, women's clothing and responsibilities, and the tactics used. It is a movie that could have focused more on effects and the main plot, but the details and information were accurate.
Pretty poor Civil War movie
dtbach51426 February 2015
I'll give it a 3 because the Civil War re-enactors did a great job on the battle scenes. Otherwise this is a poorly acted movie. All the actors seemed stiff, just reading their parts. Many of the scenes seem contrived and unrealistic. I doubt if the cadets had time to party the night before the big battle.
The costuming was done very well as well as the battle scenes. In fact these 2 things saved the movie from getting a 2 star rating as far as I'm concerned.
I watched it through the end, but should have cut my losses after the first 20 minutes.
The costuming was done very well as well as the battle scenes. In fact these 2 things saved the movie from getting a 2 star rating as far as I'm concerned.
I watched it through the end, but should have cut my losses after the first 20 minutes.
An emotional tribute to young cadets who fought and died in the American Civil War
makleen215 April 2019
Written by Thomas Farrell and David M. Kennedy and directed by Sean McNamara, Field of Lost Shoes (2014) tells the story of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute who fought at the Battle of New Market during the American Civil War. Despite an obviously low budget and inexperienced cast, the film is charming and emotionally engaging; one of the better Civil War films to be released in recent years.
Robert (Nolan Gould) is a freshman cadet, or "Rat", who falls in with a tight group of upperclassmen, including John Wise (Luke Benward), an ex-governor's son, and Moses Ezekiel (Josh Zuckerman), an aspiring sculptor and the first Jewish cadet at VMI. The war forms a backdrop to schoolboy antics like hazing, stealing food from the Institute's enslaved cook, Old Judge (Keith David), and pursuing a romantic interest with the local girls, including Libby Clinedinst (Mary Mouser).
War comes knocking on their doorstep, however, when Union General Ulysses S. Grant (Tom Skerritt) sends Franz Sigel (Werner Daehn) and Captain Henry A. DuPont (David Arquette) with an army to subdue the Shenandoah Valley. Opposing him with a much smaller force is Confederate general and former U.S. vice president John C. Breckinridge (Jason Isaacs).
Breckinridge badly needs reinforcements, and he reluctantly sends for the VMI cadets, who his battle-hardened veterans regard as nothing more than children playing soldier. Will the cadets get there in time, and more importantly, will they prove their worth on the battlefield?
Field of Lost Shoes is based on the true story of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute who fought in the Battle of New Market on May 15, 1864. As depicted in the film, the cadets played a role in winning the battle for the Confederacy. Ten were killed or mortally wounded and 47 wounded. The title "Field of Lost Shoes" comes from the fact that several soldiers lost their shoes in the mud while crossing the battlefield. Moses Ezekiel did become a well-known artist and sculpted the monument to his fellow cadets that stands at the Virginia Military Institute to this day.
Critics hated this film, charging it with rewriting history to whitewash racism, but that's unfair. Not only did Field of Lost Shoes depict the heartbreaking reality of a slave auction and the splitting up of black families, but it shows VMI's cook, "Old Judge" (Keith David), being brutally beaten and falsely imprisoned for stealing food. The film also outright says the war is being fought over slavery, something other Civil War films have been hesitant to do. There's nothing ahistorical about the characters having differing opinions over slavery or acting compassionately towards slaves.
John Wise's father, Virginia Governor Henry A. Wise, exemplified these Southern contradictions. The movie implies Governor Wise was an opponent of slavery, but it's a bit more complicated. He criticized the slave trade as Ambassador to Brazil and described African Americans in humanizing terms. However, he also said slavery was justified "by the natural as well as divine law" and became an ardent secessionist. Later in life, he supported U.S. Grant for president, the very man who trampled Southern aspirations for independence into dust.
Sculptor Moses J. Ezekiel was another man of contradictions. As an adult in Rome, Italy, he kept a Confederate battle flag hanging in his studio. His best known work was the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, which depicts (among other figures) a black body servant in military uniform and a weeping black woman holding a Confederate officer's child. In Field of Lost Shoes, Ezekiel is shown as empathizing with Old Judge, which seems in keeping with his later "lost cause" sentiments.
Overall, Field of Lost Shoes was more compelling and emotionally engaging than larger-budget Civil War films like Free State of Jones (2016). It managed to keep a tight reign on its multitude of characters and events, using them to enhance rather than detract from the main story. We can both condemn a society based on slavery and recognize the courage of the men who fought under its flag. There's a reason the Virginia Military Institute still honors these boy-soldiers to the present day, and this film is a fitting tribute to their memory.
Robert (Nolan Gould) is a freshman cadet, or "Rat", who falls in with a tight group of upperclassmen, including John Wise (Luke Benward), an ex-governor's son, and Moses Ezekiel (Josh Zuckerman), an aspiring sculptor and the first Jewish cadet at VMI. The war forms a backdrop to schoolboy antics like hazing, stealing food from the Institute's enslaved cook, Old Judge (Keith David), and pursuing a romantic interest with the local girls, including Libby Clinedinst (Mary Mouser).
War comes knocking on their doorstep, however, when Union General Ulysses S. Grant (Tom Skerritt) sends Franz Sigel (Werner Daehn) and Captain Henry A. DuPont (David Arquette) with an army to subdue the Shenandoah Valley. Opposing him with a much smaller force is Confederate general and former U.S. vice president John C. Breckinridge (Jason Isaacs).
Breckinridge badly needs reinforcements, and he reluctantly sends for the VMI cadets, who his battle-hardened veterans regard as nothing more than children playing soldier. Will the cadets get there in time, and more importantly, will they prove their worth on the battlefield?
Field of Lost Shoes is based on the true story of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute who fought in the Battle of New Market on May 15, 1864. As depicted in the film, the cadets played a role in winning the battle for the Confederacy. Ten were killed or mortally wounded and 47 wounded. The title "Field of Lost Shoes" comes from the fact that several soldiers lost their shoes in the mud while crossing the battlefield. Moses Ezekiel did become a well-known artist and sculpted the monument to his fellow cadets that stands at the Virginia Military Institute to this day.
Critics hated this film, charging it with rewriting history to whitewash racism, but that's unfair. Not only did Field of Lost Shoes depict the heartbreaking reality of a slave auction and the splitting up of black families, but it shows VMI's cook, "Old Judge" (Keith David), being brutally beaten and falsely imprisoned for stealing food. The film also outright says the war is being fought over slavery, something other Civil War films have been hesitant to do. There's nothing ahistorical about the characters having differing opinions over slavery or acting compassionately towards slaves.
John Wise's father, Virginia Governor Henry A. Wise, exemplified these Southern contradictions. The movie implies Governor Wise was an opponent of slavery, but it's a bit more complicated. He criticized the slave trade as Ambassador to Brazil and described African Americans in humanizing terms. However, he also said slavery was justified "by the natural as well as divine law" and became an ardent secessionist. Later in life, he supported U.S. Grant for president, the very man who trampled Southern aspirations for independence into dust.
Sculptor Moses J. Ezekiel was another man of contradictions. As an adult in Rome, Italy, he kept a Confederate battle flag hanging in his studio. His best known work was the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, which depicts (among other figures) a black body servant in military uniform and a weeping black woman holding a Confederate officer's child. In Field of Lost Shoes, Ezekiel is shown as empathizing with Old Judge, which seems in keeping with his later "lost cause" sentiments.
Overall, Field of Lost Shoes was more compelling and emotionally engaging than larger-budget Civil War films like Free State of Jones (2016). It managed to keep a tight reign on its multitude of characters and events, using them to enhance rather than detract from the main story. We can both condemn a society based on slavery and recognize the courage of the men who fought under its flag. There's a reason the Virginia Military Institute still honors these boy-soldiers to the present day, and this film is a fitting tribute to their memory.
A Confederate battle from a young perspective
quinnmet2 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The movie focuses more on the aspects of war outside of the battlefield, and I think it doesn't quite focus enough on the hardships and conditions that real Confederate soldiers in the Civil War would have faced. Rather than showing the chaos and stress felt by soldiers, the film mainly portrays the soldiers as hopeful young men, filled with spirit and compassion. The movie does not give enough attention to the issue and debate of slavery during the war, and shows all the soldiers as kind and caring to the slaves in the South.The movie was overall pretty good, and showed in detail lots of the emotions of the soldiers fighting, and gave a different perspective when it showed the role of women in the war. In the Battle at New Market, I thought some of the acting and deaths were a bit over dramatic, but for the most part it was good."Field of Lost Shoes" was more interesting than other Civil War movies have been for me, as it focuses on youth while remaining mostly accurate.
A White-Washed Version of Confederate Civil War History
zardoz-138 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Revisionist history ruins the standard-issue, tragic, American Civil War saga "Field of Lost Shoes" about gallant teenagers recruited from the Virginia Military Institute to participate in the real-life battle of New Market in 1864. VMI celebrates the exploits of these brave young cadets annually, and their story is certainly the stuff of compelling drama. Unfortunately, "Soul Surfer" director Sean McNamara and scenarists Thomas Farrell and Dave Kennedy have taken liberties with what actually occurred with regard to various real-life participants. For example, the filmmakers paints Henry A. Wise as an anti-slavery proponent when in fact he championed 'the peculiar institution.' This low-budget but handsome looking six million dollar epic features a handful of recognized stars, including Lauren Holly, Tom Skerritt, Keith David, and David Arquette, but they have little to work with aside from their celebrity personalities. Jason Issacs comes off looking the best with Tom Sherritt not far behind. Ultimately, as well-intentioned as it is, "Field of Lost Shoes" is barely memorable when compared to "Gettysburg" or "Gods and Generals." The production values look spectacular, and the Civil War re-enactors give the movie a sprawling sense of scale. The orchestral music is atmopheric. The writers fall back on clichés too often, and the structure of the story is predictable, especially with the doomed lovers. Sadly, the issue here is the white-wash job that the filmmakers have performed on the Confederates. "May God forgive me," mutters Confederate General John Brekinridge (Jason Issacs of "Daredevil"), when he commits these valiant youngsters to battle. The uniforms, firearms, and staging of the action is not without distinction. The film draws his title from the shoes lost in the muck by these young Confederates who charged into cannon fire. Apparently, McNamara has an obsession with maimed youth because both "Field of Lost Shoes" and "Soul Surfer" focus on youth.
An amazing unknown story
tbenz-6056130 December 2017
A great part of the movie was it's historical accuracy. Showing confederate soldiers without shoes and low on supplies, with the facts about the tributes to the group of cadets by the Virginia Military Institute today in the beginning and the end. It tells stories of perseverance, love, and sacrifice all at once. Right when it felt like it was starting to drag in the middle it threw a twist to keep things interesting. This movie is underrated, and a great showing of the side that isn't shown as often.
Could use a little more plot.
itsminamii3 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Despite the lack of actual 'punch' within the plot, the portrayal of wartime and issues with regards to slavery during and after the war was interesting and well-represented. It provides a new perspective for viewers, as the Confederate Army is often demonized in many Civil war movies; the Field of Lost Shoes, instead focuses on the morality and humanity of many young soldiers and cadets. Robert, as portrayed by Nolan Gould, even mentions in the beginning that his father was opposed to slavery and took him to see a slave auction as a 'lesson in life', to which he witnesses a black family being separated. In fact, many of the young cadet boys held anti-slavery sentiments, scenes such as the Old Judge and slave lady who got stuck under a cart really illustrates the notion that not all soldiers enlisted or reserved to fight with the confederate army all held the same values with regards to slavery. Many of the boy's motivation to fight was to defend their land, seek 'revenge' for the fallen and uphold honor- many in which are disregarded in many Civil War movies and the Field of Lost Shoes does a great job at providing another perspective.
There is a somber contrast between the cadets and the old soldiers, many of which are portrayed to be rude old men who jeered at the cadets. In a turn of events, during the actual fighting, it was the cadets that marched in order and upheld their bravery and honor, even suggesting they should charge through union fire.
All in all, the movie, although a little lacking in plot, provided a great and entertaining representation of the Civil War and specifically the Battle of Newmarket.
There is a somber contrast between the cadets and the old soldiers, many of which are portrayed to be rude old men who jeered at the cadets. In a turn of events, during the actual fighting, it was the cadets that marched in order and upheld their bravery and honor, even suggesting they should charge through union fire.
All in all, the movie, although a little lacking in plot, provided a great and entertaining representation of the Civil War and specifically the Battle of Newmarket.
More Southern Propaganda
kamikazecanuck8 July 2022
Decent and has genuine element of life involved
chandlerscottcc29 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While this movie may have not been the most accurate as far as miniscule detail goes this movie was actually quite an emotional roller coaster showing different more personal elements of the civil war. This movie not only shows how personal the civil war touched many but also showed how for many confederate soldiers they did not know what they were really fighting for. When many think of the confederacy and the men who fought to defend it many in their minds will be quick to blame slavery however these boys who were drafted into the military were actually fighting in the name of their family and friends and not for slavery. In fact one boy was actually emotionally scared by slavery and seeing it first hand, having sympathy for them. This just goes to show that the civil war was not just a passing crossfire between the North and South but rather something that broke up families relationships. Which is why I give this movie 7 stars.
Not accurate depiction
dcimmino7 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Who directed this movie? Grapeshot after grapeshot were exploding inches from the attacking Confederates yet no one was falling. It's clear that this is an obvious attempt to glorify elitist Confederates.
It also seems very low budget, as the battle scenes are what I'd expect from a pre-CGI time period.
Tom Skerrit is the best part of the movie.
It also seems very low budget, as the battle scenes are what I'd expect from a pre-CGI time period.
Tom Skerrit is the best part of the movie.
Not as bad as that!
planktonrules16 May 2015
"Field of Lost Shoes" is far from perfect. After all, it's obvious that the folks making the film had a rather limited budget. In many scenes which should have featured many hundreds, only a few dozen are used. However, I don't necessarily see this as an awful thing. After all, the Battle of New Market is NOT the sort of thing that Hollywood would ever make a movie about, so of course the film isn't as fancy or has quite the look of a big production. I can look past this to a certain extent and think considering everything, the film actually looks pretty good.
As for the film apart from the low budget, it's okay...not great, but okay. Instead of focusing on the battle like a documentary, the filmmakers chose to include a lot of fictional subplots--some of which worked and some of which seemed a bit anachronistic (such as Southern students who believe in equality and hate slavery--not something you would have likely heard ANYONE say in the South at that time) or which just didn't work (the love story). I see it as a noble attempt and a reasonably good one at that. Worth seeing if you are a Civil War buff or love history. The ending was quite touching as well. Otherwise, there are a few better films about the era, such as "Glory". Hmmm....now that I think about it, there really AREN'T that many good films about the Civil War and this one is about as good as any...and not nearly as long and ponderous as "Gettysburg".
As for the film apart from the low budget, it's okay...not great, but okay. Instead of focusing on the battle like a documentary, the filmmakers chose to include a lot of fictional subplots--some of which worked and some of which seemed a bit anachronistic (such as Southern students who believe in equality and hate slavery--not something you would have likely heard ANYONE say in the South at that time) or which just didn't work (the love story). I see it as a noble attempt and a reasonably good one at that. Worth seeing if you are a Civil War buff or love history. The ending was quite touching as well. Otherwise, there are a few better films about the era, such as "Glory". Hmmm....now that I think about it, there really AREN'T that many good films about the Civil War and this one is about as good as any...and not nearly as long and ponderous as "Gettysburg".
Motivations in the Civil War
pete-5578823 May 2021
What I assumed about this low budget period piece came true. Unfortunately its littered with problems from the production, story telling and pacing of the movie.. The noticeable civil war re-enactments embedded to the battle scenes took me right out of the movie and the long and establishment camera shots had terrible cgi. The one thing I did enjoy was the fact that all the cadets had different motivations for fighting in the civil war. If you're a civil war buff it's worth watching but I couldn't see myself viewing this more than once. The last positive thing I'll say about this movie is I enjoyed the score, especially towards the end while the battle is taking place.
A Flawed Premise, but Still a Great Film
RaphaelSemmes4 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The film Field of Lost Shoes is a wonderful, gripping picture concerning a group of VMI cadets and their valiant stand against grizzled Union veterans during the 1864 Battle of New Market. Jason Isaacs turns in a superb performance as General John C. Breckenridge, who during a particularly poignant scene prior to the battle, speaks frankly to the cadets. He asks each of them their thoughts on the war, and their dreams for the future after the war. Each of the main characters describes their future hopes, and why they are fighting. The cinematography with the battle scene is excellent, and is particularly surprising given the very limited budget used making the film. The only downside of the movie is the hackneyed perspective that the South fought the war solely to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Slavery was one of a many issues as to why the war was fought, but to single it out for particular attention is myopic. Taking this tact the producers acquiesce to current political correctness. That said, thankfully the film does not dwell on slavery for very long. This film is a real gem. It was well written, well filmed, and well acted. It is too bad that it has had a very limited release. The accolades that it receives are well deserved.
Too much romance, not enough plot.
kdonald-734412 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Field of Lost Shoes" is very close to being a great civil war movie. The start of the movie was a promising one, with the initiation type scene and the comradery that followed with friendship. The group faces hardships even before the battle and they grow as characters. I am happy that they didn't try to much with Abe but they did enough that it wasn't a drag. Unfortunately they tried to push to much love story into the plot and I ended up becoming invested to the wrong characters. I did enjoy the underlying tone that was anti slavery, although it was unreasonable that all of the boys that died believed in anti slavery. Not to mention that it was painfully obvious during the battle which of the boys were going to die, with the exception of Jefferson. In the end it was a good movie that commemorated the death of the soldiers on both sides of the war.
The directors and writers of this movie are snakes.
bridgetdehond29 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
During this movie there were several problems, historically speaking. During the battle only 10 of the cadets died and it shows this at the end. But, during the battle it looks like half of them died, also in the movie several of the children's marching looked to be around the age of 10, the VMI website states that the youngest person to participate in the battle was 15. This is inaccurate and makes the south look worse for sending such small childrens into battle. Also I feel that Libby did not get the man she deserved. She was following around the army at such a young age and helping those who have been injured or dying only for the man she liked to be one of the 10 out of 257 that died. There was a 4% chance that her boyfriend would be dead. The odds were in her favor and the director was like "Yes, lets have the audience become attached to this couple and be emotionally invested. Now kill him." Yes, killing him makes this historically accurate and helps the story follow in the tragic play format such as a reverse minor Romeo and Juliet sub plot. Romeo dies and Juliet grieves but doesnt kill herself (that we know of and her Romeo doesn't come back to life). These film choices lead me to give this film one star. Only because I am too nice to give it zero.
Mesmerizing Masterpiece About VMI Cadets, War And Romance
denis8885 December 2014
Yes, it was worth the wait. I had been expecting the great movie, and I have gotten this. Everything is good about this movie - actors (with Jason Isaacs and David Arquette staying power), music, the setting, the tonality, the mood, the pace, the message. Deep, anti- slavery motif is strong throughout, and even those young Southern cadets from VMI are not all pro-slavery men, they just defend Virginia the way they could. The poignant scene of the pre-battle talk of General John C. Breckenridge with 7 cadets is a real gem of the movie and it underlines the tragedy to come, as the next day was that battle. The battle is depicted with all that urgent brutality, mud, blood, mercilessness, honest severity and terrifying chilling accuracy. There is no beauty in men killing each other and shelling to shreds. There is no fun in dead enemy and joy in lost comrades. The characters of President Lincoln, General Grant, General Siegel are all well drawn and only add much to the spellbinding truthfulness of the story. It has the elegance of Gods And Generals, deep tragedy of Glory, warm humor of The Blue and The Gray, grandeur of Gettysburg, and I am sure this work will stand the test of time well. Highly recommended
Field of lost shoes is a real loser
dgefroh27 December 2014
This movie is simply terrible, a low budget attempt to re-enact a true civil war battle, this low budget flop with a cast of maybe 20 total is a lame boring excuse of movie making. In truth this looks more like a high school production than a major movie project. The acting is weak, the screen writer completely misses the mark, the war scenes are corny with a total of maybe 20 extras trying to look like a major army. All in all this is a complete waste of time. If you decide to download this dud keep your finger on the fast forward button. If you waste precious money to see this in a theater, just remember you could of used your cash for something worthwhile like a root canal which would of way more enjoyable.
Not Bad, Not Great
anthonycalamitacc30 December 2017
As far as a movie goes, it was fairly entertaining. Many times the script seemed cliche at best and cheesy at worst. The romantic element of the movie seemed rather overplayed, and as far as a war movie goes, the plot should have relied more heavily on the war and the politics and less on the romance. Frankly, a movie about a bloody battle in the bloodiest war in American history was no place for a romeo and juliet story. The reenactors did an excellent job, the uniforms, weapons, and battlefield effects were very accurate, and the battle itself did a good job of showcasing American military tactics at the time (specifically, the way the tactics resulted in a high death count, something the US learned from very quickly after the war.) Overall, worth the watch.
Pretty disappointing Civil War Movie
Skeauxsha13 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had a chance to present the main topic of honoring the real life cadets, and their sacrifice to serve in the Civil War. Unfortunately, this film tried to reach too far. Most of the back stories watered down any chance for this film to retain any sense of cohesion. They all lacked any sophistication of presentation. Additionally, those same back stories were presented in a fashion that would captivate today's teen audience. Sparkly vampires, Harry Potter, that sort of thing. Sorry teens, however, times were very different obviously from today. Mostly Hollywood tries, and fails to romanticize the Civil War and that conflict of our Nations History was far from romantic, but I digress.
The Back stories tried too hard, and again slowed the timing and flow of the film, and just when you thought it may pick up, it slooows down. Perhaps the most hokey, and pretentious part of the film was when the commanding general sat with the cadets on the evening before the battle... (face palm).
The battle scenes were not very well edited either, and the battle was not presented in any real coherent fashion, except for the end of the battle, and even then I was waiting for the cliché finger point, you know the one that you see in football movies? O_o
Still, I did watch it beginning to end, and if it wasn't raining buckets outside (which at times was more interesting) I think I would have found something else to do.
My apologies to every involved with this film, however this was not a good effort at presentation at all.
The Back stories tried too hard, and again slowed the timing and flow of the film, and just when you thought it may pick up, it slooows down. Perhaps the most hokey, and pretentious part of the film was when the commanding general sat with the cadets on the evening before the battle... (face palm).
The battle scenes were not very well edited either, and the battle was not presented in any real coherent fashion, except for the end of the battle, and even then I was waiting for the cliché finger point, you know the one that you see in football movies? O_o
Still, I did watch it beginning to end, and if it wasn't raining buckets outside (which at times was more interesting) I think I would have found something else to do.
My apologies to every involved with this film, however this was not a good effort at presentation at all.
Confederate point of view at the Battle of New Market
elizabetruhlandcc2 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The plot line of this movie was mainly focused on the confederate side of the Civil War. It added a different viewpoint because the battle that was fought was won by the confederates, yet the whole war was won by the union. Field of Lost Shoes provides the sense of friendship and loyalty that most soldiers acquired during training. These friendships were often the only thing that kept their spirits up and gave them a reason fight and survive. The added love interest to the film showcased another realistic reason for young men to join the army, and also helped the plot to be more interesting. The Battle of New Market was the high point of the movie and was definitely not a major fight in the war so the production for it correlated to that. There probably could have been more people involved in some scenes to create a greater impact and make the movie more legitimate. The names of the soldiers were based off of real life people and the cadets who died were also the same. The connection to real history makes the film all the better and creates a true Civil War feel. In all, the movie was heartfelt and lightened the blow on how violent the Civil War actually was. It was not a very gruesome film but considering the battle, it did not have to be. There were some historical errors, which is understandable to help move the story along and to add excitement.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
