| Overall Grade: |
B |
|
| Story: |
N/A |
|
|
| Acting: |
N/A |
|
|
| Direction: |
N/A |
|
|
| Visuals: |
N/A |
|
|
true to the book; but could use some editing
by Jim Batcho (movies profile)
Mar 11, 2006
4
of
6 people found this review helpful
By editing, I don't mean cut it. I mean use some discretion. There are very long sweeping moments and pauses that don't add much to the film. I'm not talking about the battle-scenes, because those are mostly well done. I'm talking about the extended moments that don't add much. There is also a lot of the book that could have been removed.
Now, I know this is based on The Killer Angels, which I loved. But in place of some of those slow moments mentioned above, I would have loved to see some additions to the original book. For example, scenes of what happened in the Peach Orchard and the Wheat Field, in Devils Den, on Culp's Hill, taken from historical accounts. These were epic battles that were glanced over in the book, and which the movie could have highlighted to bring the whole battle into context.
There were also some acting lapses, although Buford and Armistead were beautifully portrayed, the latter almost bringing me to tears. Incidentally, no one, NO ONE, can play Robert E. Lee, not Sheen, not Duval. I get the feeling that Lee is just un-performable, and anyone who portrays him looks like an actor rather than a brilliant general.
The battle scenes for the most part are great, and accurate, but too clean. The Civil War was horrible, brutal. Pickett's Charge looked grand in scope, but tame in execution.
Just some minor quibbles on an otherwise honest representation of the novel. |
My Public Profile 
