Civil War Movies I Like

I don't know why critics panned this well-done Civil War flick (actually, I do), but it's significantly superior to the relatively dull "Gettysburg," to which this is a prequel.

"Gods and Generals" details the battles of First Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, which are largely viewed through the lens of Stonewall Jackson (Stephan Lang) on the Confederate side and the Chamberlain brothers (Jeff Daniels and C. Thomas Howell) of Maine on the Union side. Also on hand is, of course, Robert E. Lee, played by Robert Duvall, who does a more engaging portrayal than Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg." The film starts off slow and builds momentum. By contrast, "Gettysburg" started off slower and never became engaging with the exception of Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge. Where "Gods and Generals" really pulled me in was the battle scenes of Fredericksburg and the aftermath. It showed how Civil War troops were required to march, shoot & reload in formation while rifles and cannons are blasting their way. The Chamberlain brothers had to sleep on the battlefield that night. Imagine sleeping amongst all those dead bodies and dying, moaning soldiers!

There are quite a few other great scenes, like the Yankee and Reb soldiers meeting in the middle of the river to exchange coffee for tobacco; the execution of three deserters; and the "perfect battle" for the Confederates at Chancellorsville where General Lee, with a much smaller force, takes the risk of dividing his army and executing a surprise attack. Unfortunately for the Confederates they won at a huge cost as General Jackson loses his "right arm" to friendly fire.

Although the film has some expected dated aspects, like the dreadful opening song (almost on a par with "North to Alaska"), "The Horse Soldiers" holds up well, highlighted by authentic Southern locations -- filmed in Mississippi, Louisianna and Texas.

What works best is the story and characters. The conflict between Wayne and Holden adds tension and is entertaining, but you just know they'll likely come out of this venture highly respecting one another. Wayne and Holden have great chemistry. Some complain about the Southern belle but she's a good touch and, really, there are no romantic dallyings to speak of (until the very end, that is).

"The Horse Soldiers" is one of those film you enjoy seeing no matter how many times you've seen it. It plainly shows the horrors of war but, somehow, it ultimately manages to be enjoyable and even uplifting.

The movie details the guerilla warfare of the pro-Confederate Bushwhackers and the pro-Union Jayhawkers in Missouri, highlighted by Quantrill's infamous raid on Lawrence, Kansas, on August 21, 1863.

"Ride with the Devil" is the perfect antidote to 'blockbuster' loony-toon drivel. It's totally realistic and takes its time so you get to know the characters and FEEL their experiences. For instance, what's it like spending the entire Winter in a dugout hut in the woods with three other guys and the only highlight is some cute blond stopping by to drop off food? What's it like when you have no other recourse but to saw a buddy's arm off? What's it like when a blood-thirsty "comrade" tries to kill you during battle? What do you do when you run into him two years later and you're not sure what his intentions are?

The film was shot in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas where the conflicts actually took place. Authentic locations are vital to this viewer. After all, how are we to accept the film's visualization of history if it wasn't shot where the actual events occurred?

I encourage you to view the film with the subtitles on as the language is sometimes hard to understand due to accents and archaic phrasing; this will help you follow what's going on and who's who.

The film essentially tells two stories that ultimately intertwine. The plot is reminiscent of Homer's Odyssey. In light of Inman's long journey home the film is episodic in nature but thankfully never loses its sense of cohesion.

The story shows how the war destroyed or corrupted the South on practically every level, not just the soldiers who went off to fight, die, be maimed, desert or suffer defeat, but everyone left behind as well. Every person Inman meets on his journey is somehow damaged or corrupted because of the war.

For example, in the case of the family in the large cabin (which also includes the wife's two lonely sisters) the husband's friendliness is a greedy and deceitful ruse to make money off the deserters. All the eligible men have gone to war and those who return are maimed and scarred. Is it any wonder the women are love-starved and try to lose themselves in drunkenness and casual sex? As for the overt sexuality of that sequence, I think the writer and filmmakers were attempting to contrast the drunken carnal lust of that scene (including the two sisters upstairs with the looney guy) with an intimate love scene later in the story.

The scenes noted above, particularly the former, are very adult-oriented, so be forewarned. This sequence and the immoral and looney "Reverend" Veasey (Philip Seymour Hoffman) may tempt some to tune out and judge the film as unwholesome or even "anti-Christian", but this is a premature judgment in light of the entire story and particularly the ending. Not everyone can handle "Cold Mountain" because of its hardcore depiction of the horrors of war, madness and immorality, I understand this, but it's not all death, misery and darkness; these are effectively balanced out by the beauty of life, love, loyalty, companionship, poetry and music.

Yes, this is more of a Western, but it involves Confederate prisoners held captive in a Southwestern Union fort run by William Holden.

Holden was in his prime here, as was the breathtaking Eleanor Parker, both stunning examples of masculine strength and feminine charm respectively.

Although the soldiers rarely miss and the Natives rarely hit, the Indians are depicted in a realistic, respectable manner, showing ingenuity in their resolve to wipe out the pinned-down group of whites.

William Campbell, well-known for the lead Klingon in the original Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" and less-so as the alien Trelane in "The Squire of Gothos," has a formidable supporting role as one of the escaping Confederates. He was almost fifteen years younger and barely recognizable.

This is arguably Eastwood's best Western, starting out as an Eastern with a Civil War sequence. Josey Wales isn't an "outlaw" in the conventional sense, but rather a former Confederate soldier who refuses to submit to the corrupt Federals. He's on the run the entire film, going further and further West, and acquiring a hodgepodge group of characters along the way, who may or may not become his new family -- if he survives.

While the sentimental title might make you leery of checking out "The Colt," it would be a mistake to skip it. Unlike some Civil War flicks, "The Colt" offers a genuine look at the humanity behind the soldier. It's compelling to observe how the birth of a colt to an army mare changes the depressed disposition of the unit. The colt offers poignant symbolism: new life amidst death, hope and possible redemption. A great scene occurs when the protagonist shares a meal with a farm family: As he describes life at his homestead in another state, tears flow as he is overwhelmed by homesickness and the despair of war.

This is a moving and revealing look at the Civil War with a sudden, shocking climax that's fitting to the irony of the film.

"The Beguiled" is set in in the Deep South during the Civil War. As Union troops increasingly invade, the headmistress of a girl's boarding school (Geraldine Page) decides to allow a Union soldier with a leg wound to stay at the school, McB (Clint Eastwood), supposedly until he's strong enough to turn over to the Confederate authorities as a POW.

William Congreve wrote the famous saying in his play The Mourning Bride (1697) "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (paraphrasing). That pretty much reveals the theme of "The Beguiled." While McB tries to survive by beguiling the women through charm & trickery, the viewer shouldn't underestimate how formidable and wrathful the female species can be, particularly in the face of jealousy.

For me, the story takes a downturn in the final act and therefore leaves a sour taste, but I guess it fits the tragic genre. You can't really hold it against the film. Still, sympathy for McB is squelched when he does something heinous. To his credit, he later apologizes with seeming sincerity. The entire third act needed rewritten in my opinion, but I accept the movie as is. It's unique and there's enough depth to glean new gems on repeat viewings. We've all met women (or girls) just like the devilish Carol (Harris).

"The Conspirator" (2010) is about the only woman to be charged as a co-conspirator in Lincoln's assassination. Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) ran the boarding house where her son, John (Johnny Simmons), regularly met with John Wilkes Booth and others plotting their seditious deeds. Mary claims she simply ran a boarding house and didn't know what her tenants and their friends were hatching. The young lawyer assigned to defend her, Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy), knows that she probably knew more, but also that there's not enough evidence to convict her and, by extension, execute her.

The film starts with Lincoln's assassination and the search for Booth, but then settles into a courtroom drama. I found the first half engrossing enough for a historical drama, but it was the second half that really hooked me in when I discovered that "The Conspirator" wasn't just about the Surratt family. It's just as much about Aiken's determination to do what's right, whatever the cost, and the consequences of this decision.

At only 27 years of age, I'm sure those who assigned Aiken the job of defending Mary Surratt weren't expecting much, especially since he fought for the North and despised the rebellion. He was a puppet expected to just go-through-the-motions of defending Surratt. But, as Aiken discovers that there's really not enough evidence to convict Mary and observes the outright corruption of the prosecution, Aiken understands that there's more than just Mary Surratt's life at stake. If she could be railroaded and executed so easily in the land of the free, anyone could.

But there's a hefty price for doing what's right if it goes against the grain of popular opinion.

The peculiarly-titled "Pharaoh's Army" is a 1995 indie film about a real-life incident that took place in Kentucky during the Civil War. Because Kentucky was a border state the allegiances of its people were split between North & South. I'm sure it was hard to be neutral.

Although the story is based on real events and takes place during the Civil War, this is not an epic war film with big battle scenes, strategizing generals, etc. The entire film takes place in and around a Confederate widow's small farm and focuses solely on the events that take place there. This limited scope may turn some viewers off.

Even though this is a small indie film, the score, cast, acting and writing are all top notch. The story is fairly slow-paced and there are no cataclysmic events to arouse those with ADHD.

The way the film plays out and is presented to the viewer is REAL LIFE. What I mean is that it's almost as if someone went back in time and actually filmed the actual events. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. I tire of all the silly Hollywoodisms common in modern American cinema -- supposedly humorous one-liners, unrealistic action scenes, excessive explosions, melodrama, unconvincing dialogue, etc.

The ending is powerful as the Union captain, a good man, is thrust into a position of cold-blooded murder in the name of war. It's intense, and so REAL. The insanity of war can easily turn the best of us into heartless killers.

Richard Gere stars as a Confederate soldier returning to his rundown estate in Tennessee and his wife, Laurel (Jodie Foster), after a long six years absence. Curiously, Laurel discovers that the war has changed Jack for the better. Bill Pullman plays his rival for Laurel's affections while James Earl Jones appears as a judge in the final act.

This is such a well-done Civil War drama, taking place just after the war in 1866-1867. The story is contrived, but executed believably with convincing performances. Contrived or not, something like this COULD happen, if you reflect on it. I can't say more because it's best that you go into the movie without knowing the revelations of the final act. The first half is low-key, but it's just a foundation for the realistic thrills of the mid-point and the suspenseful drama of the closing act.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY ***SPOILER ALERT***

A clueless reviewer criticized the film on the grounds that "this story fell a bit flat for me when Jack, for some reason, doesn't tell the same (true) story (that clarifies the identity confusion) to the court, that he does to his wife in the final jail scene."

This is incredible because the movie plainly reveals several reasons why Jack didn't want to tell the truth that he wasn't really Jack Sommersby: (1.) The freed blacks and others who bought & farmed parts of his land would lose it; (2.) his wife & daughter would be condemned as an adulteress and a bastard child respectively; (3.) he "buried" Horace Townsend forever when he buried the real Jack Sommersby; he wasn't willing to "resurrect" that wicked loser, even at the cost of his life.

And (4.) If jack was proved to be Horace, and was released, another court would have arrested him on the grounds that he was a liar, an impostor and a thief. That court would NOT have released him on the grounds that he had found love and done charitable things while impersonating a dead man. He would have gone to prison and possibly even died for his actual crimes.

So dying for a cause he believed in, for people who respected him, made more sense than dying without any honor or legacy whatsoever.

Based on the true story, "Glory" details the first black platoon to fight for the Union cause. The ending assault on a South Carolina coastal fortress shows that's there's little glory in an idiotic and suicidal charge, but -- if you're a member of the platoon -- you HAVE to do it or lose your sense of manhood and be branded a coward.

Obviously this is more of a (great) Western, but there is a significant opening Civil War sequence.

Kevin Costner stars as a Civil War hero assigned to a remote outpost on the Great Plains and ultimately joins a band of Lakota Souix. It's not really politically correct, as some criticize; see my review for details.

"Journey to Shiloh" details the story of seven youths from Concho County in near-West Texas who travel across the Mississippi to join the Confederate Army and kick some Yankee arse. While they intend to ride to Richmond, Virginia, they end up hooking up with Braxton Bragg's Gulf Coast outfit and fighting in Shiloh, Tennessee. The male ingénues learn a lot on their long journey and their introduction to soldiering and war. Who lives and who dies?

James Caan plays the main protagonist, "Captain" Buck Burnett, while the other six "teens" (all well into their 20s) are Michael Sarrazin, Don Stroud, Jan-Michael Vincent, Michael Burns, Paul Petersen and, believe it or not Harrison Ford.

Directed by one of Universal's TV movie directors and lacking a quality budget, don't expect the cinematic scope of contemporaneous Westerns, like "Duel at Diablo" and "Hang 'Em High." It looks serviceable, but also phony and stale. A big part of the phoniness is due to the fake Southern countryside, as the movie was shot in Agoura and Thousand Oaks, California, but takes place in East Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and adjoining regions. No matter how you slice it, California doesn't look like the deep South, not to mention the studio sets. Another issue is the movie's cartoony vibe. Things that would ordinarily take much longer occur with the quickness of a comic book.

Despite these glaring flaws, I found myself ignoring them in favor of the story, particularly as it moved along. You feel like you get to know most of the gang by the end of the movie, Harrison's character being the biggest exception. The "boys" grow from wide eyed youngsters to hardened men over the course of the movie, the biggest rude awakening of course being their baptism into soldiering and war.

Speaking of which, I really enjoyed the last third of the film that involves the youths joining up with Bragg's brigade, the ensuing warfare, deaths, injuries, possible desertion and aftermath. Although decidedly comic booky the movie offers a unique glimpse of being a Confederate soldier.

James Stewart stars as a curmudgeonly widower in Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, trying to keep his sons out of the war because (1.) his big farm needs them since they have no slaves and don't believe in slavery, and (2.) he feels the war isn't his concern; at least, not until his youngest boy (Phillip Alford) is captured by the Yanks.

Mel Gibson & Roland Emmerich took the basic plot of "Shenandoah" to forge 2000's "The Patriot," which is okay because they changed more than enough to make it stand on its own. The only problem I have with "Shenandoah" is that it substitutes California & Oregon for Virginia and you can always discern the difference when the movie shows the decidedly coniferous hills in the background. Other than that, they do a pretty good job of making the locations look like the Shenandoah Valley.

The movie was released during the Centennial of the war's end. It doesn't focus on conventional Civil War-type battles, but is dramatically-driven within the war's context and effectively so. Stewart easily carries the movie. Unfortunately, there are some dubious or eye-rolling elements, like the kid wearing a Confederate cap he finds and his dad & brothers not objecting to the folly of this with Yanks operating 5-12 miles away. There are other obvious examples, but the film accomplishes what it sets out to do: It entertainingly brings the viewer into the midst of the conflict and the inherent challenges thereof. But the movie will likely drive erudite sticklers nuts.

Admittedly, this great movie based on the classic Jules Verne book is more of an adventure flick, but it has a significant opening Civil War sequence. It is outstanding for a number of reasons:

• A truly awe-inspiring score by Bernard Herrmann, one of cinema's best ever.

• Likable cast & characters, including Michael Craig as Captain Craig and Herbert Lom as the eccentric genius Captain Nemo. -- Good acting & script.

• Fantastic creature F/X by Ray Harryhausen, which holds up well TO THIS DAY.

• Compelling adventure/survival story (unlike, say, the comparatively boring "Jason and the Argonauts").

• A very authentic vibe of mystery.

• Some interesting musings on humanity's penchant for war & violence and possible solutions, etc.

• Fabulous Spanish coastal locations (with interesting fake mountain & volcano backdrops).

• If you're a red-blooded male you'll find it hard to take your eyes off young cutie Beth Rogan (Elena) and her skimpy island outfit. Trust me, she blows Raquel Welch and her infamous cavegirl outfit in "One Million Years BC" out of the water.

• Lastly, the seven castaways include African-American Dan Jackson as Corporal Neb Nugent, a highly likable character just as important as any of the others. This is no big deal today, of course, but keep in mind the film was made in 1961 BEFORE the Civil Rights Movement and five full years before Star Trek featured Uhura as an important cast member in 1966.

"The Blue and the Gray" covers the Civil War era from 1859-1865 focusing on two related families: The Geysers, farmers from Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Hales from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who own a newspaper. John Geyser (John Hammond) leaves Virginia to get a job as a sketch artist at the Hale's newspaper in Gettysburg. When war breaks out after the Southern states secede from the Union, John covers the war for Harper's Weekly.

I prefer "The Blue and the Gray" to the similar "North and South" (Books I & II, 1985-86) because it's more streamlined and less soap opera-y. The first half is great, but the second half flounders a bit and includes some cheesy plot gimmicks.

What I like best about this long movie is that, despite some elements of TV-production cheese (e.g. the two Union & Confederate deserters' almost goofy meeting in the woods), the film takes you back in time to the Civil War era and provides a quality picture of what it was like.

Some of the notable events covered include: The Battle of Bull Run, Army camp life, dysentery in the camps, cowards in battle and the branding thereof, balloon reconnaissance, fraternizing with the enemy after hours, brother vs. brother, the Gettysburg Address, the siege of Vicksburg and the desperation thereof (e.g. the Caves), prisoner-of-war camps (Elmira), Lee's surrender and Lincoln's death. Yes, some key events are off-screen (e.g. the Battle of Gettysburg and Lincoln getting shot), but that's the nature of the beast with a TV-budget and an overview-styled story. Lastly, Keach shines as one of the main protagonists, easily one of his best rolls, and Julia Duffy is a delight.

"Field of Lost Shoes" (aka "Battlefield of Lost Souls") chronicles the Civil War Battle of New Market wherein the Confederates were forced to enlist the aid of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to stave off Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley. While the story properly focuses on the young'uns, notable actors like Jason Isaacs, David Arquette, Keith David, Lauren Holly and Tom Skerritt are also on hand.

This particular occasion in history is pretty famous and I even remember reading about it in war comics when I was a kid, so it's interesting to finally see a cinematic depiction of it. The no-name youths are up to the challenge and, thankfully, they throw in some females to keep things interesting (e.g. Mary Mouser). Practically all the main characters are based on real-life people, including David as "Old Judge," who continued working for the VMI after attaining his freedom. Speaking of the VMI, the institute is still in use today and the movie was partially shot there.

One of the worst things about slavery is that it broke up families when a buyer would purchase one member of a family, but not the others. This is powerfully depicted in the opening.

"Field of Lost Shoes" is mostly a drama about the preparations for war during the Civil War, but when the action comes at almost the hour mark it's pretty effective and thrilling. The biggest downside of Civil War combat was that officers on both sides used outdated military tactics, which they learned from West Point & other academies. These tactics hailed from the Napoleonic wars of the early 1800s. Yet technological advances produced rifles with superior aim, which resulted in ridiculously long casualty lists. Soldiers had no recourse but to stoically march in formation right into friggin rifle and canon fire. Sure, I'd be willing to do this, but only if the Presidents, politicians, generals and colonels marched ahead of me. You get my drift.

So the movie's well done, as far as cast, costumes, locations and battle scenes go (despite a couple of clichés, like one guy utterly stopping to blow precious time emoting over a wounded comrade. Why Sure!). The CGI is less effective, but it gets the job done. The story, however, needed some kinks worked out to make it more compelling in the manner of the great "Glory" (1989). Still, I'd watch "Field of Lost Shoes" any day above the relatively dull, sappy and laboriously overlong "Gettysburg" (1993). To offer balance, I love the prequel "Gods and Generals" (2003).

This is a realistic post-Civil War Western that shows what happens when an ex-soldier brings the war back with him. It's cut from the same cloth as "Pharaoh's Army" (1995) and "Sommersby" (1993). "Ride with the Devil" (1999) and "Cold Mountain" also come to mind. It's a slow-build rural drama with feud-ish Hatfield & McCoy elements, but you can bank on blazing confrontations in the final act.

James Badge Dale is captivating in the central figure, pretty much on the level of Brando (seriously). Meanwhile Maika is entrancingly fair. Like "Pharaoh's Army" everything smacks of real life. While the movie's no doubt low-budget, it doesn't seem like it at all. The filmmaking is thoroughly professional with a pleasing sense of aesthetics. The negative 1-Star shill reviews are absurd; pay no mind to them (the producers must've ticked off the catering service). There's a brief sex scene, but it goes with the realism of the picture; it's not raunchy or sleazy at all, just realistic and mature. It's life... and death.

This is an Indie that some have criticized as having a student film vibe with some help from (very convincing) Civil War re-enacters. It's shot kinda stagily and edited using dissolves for many cuts. Meanwhile a couple shots don't match each other colorwise.

These technical criticisms are valid due to an obvious low-budget, which reportedly cost $5 million with the bulk of it spent on the impressive cast and Civil War Reenactors (as well as lodging & catering), BUT the film does work on the most important level, that of storytelling.

My wife & I saw it separately and we both enjoyed it: The story pulls you in and maintains your interest until the end with convincing acting by the principles. It’s vital that a film like this have human interest (otherwise it’s a lost cause) and it scores well on this front.

Ulysses S. Grant has been described as "an inspired commander, an adequate president, a dull companion and a roaring drunk." I take issue with that last description. Grant might've had an issue with alcohol, but that doesn't make him a "roaring drunk." I know real-life drunkards and they waste their lives sitting around looking for their next drink, accomplishing very little. Drunks don't lead the biggest military force on Earth and win battle-after-battle, as well as the great war itself. Nor are they able to lead a country the size of the USA for eight years and have a successful marriage & family that overcome great challenges over & over.

This might be my favorite Civil War movie of all time, as good or better than the best you can cite, like "Ride with the Devil" (1999), "Glory" (1989), "Cold Mountain" (2003), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959) and "Gods and Generals" (2002). "Grant" is the best cinematic source to understand the big picture of The Civil War, especially as far as the Union's strategy to victory. For instance, what was the purpose of the Battle of Shiloh? If it was a Union victory, why did reporters lambaste Grant as an incompetent drunk and why was he demoted? After crossing the Mississippi, why did Grant go east to fight two battles and capture Jackson, Mississippi, BEFORE going to Vicksburg? What was the strategic value of the Battle of the Wilderness? Petersburg and Cold Harbor?

The reanactments are realistic with utterly savage battle scenes. This is what it was like, folks. War is hell. Thankfully, the film doesn't end with Lee's surrender at Appomattax, but goes on to address Grant's final 22 years of life as President during Reconstruction, his wide travels, tragedies and finishing his memoir 3 days before passing away.

During the Carolinas Campaign near the bitter end of the Civil War in spring, 1865, two sisters & a former slave (Brit Marling, Hailee Steinfeld & Muna Otaru) have been waiting out the war at their rural homestead. A couple of Yankee cutthroats enter the picture and they have to use their wits to survive.

A slowburn Western that takes place in the East, "The Keeping Room" (2014) has sparse settings, but a competent cast, proficient filmmaking and a realistic, grim tone. Similar movies include "Pharaoh's Army" (1995) and “Echoes of War” (2015). “War Flowers” (2012) is another one but, unlike that flick, “The Keeping Room” features top-of-the-line filmmaking for a modest-budget picture.