some thoughts from a long time lover of this movie and richmonder (VA, for the uninformed)

Rating: 9/10 (24 February 2008)

i first saw this movie when i was 14, to lend some perspective on my view of this film. i am well learned on the "facts" of the war and am aware that this movie was not exactly an accurate portrayal of all the events that transpired in Pennsylvania in those heady days of '63. for instance, chamberlain wasn't even in the center during Pickett's charge and so forth. to defend the film, they didn't portray him as being effective as the bulwark against the south on that valiant charge. as a matter of fact, they show him cowering in the onslaught of the rebel charge. no, it was Hancock, who later ran for president. nonetheless, the film is notable. one, for the obvious fact that had it not been produced, even if by the infamous Ted turner, we wouldn't have this outstanding film to criticize. i'm a member of the lower middle class and a socialist, so i have no predilection to defending media moguls. but i think we should be grateful, those of us who care enough to write comments and think about this film that it was ever made. sure, it could've been better. the props sucked. that's common knowledge. Longstreet's, lee's, chamberlain's beards sucked altogether, well that's like saying Nixon knew nothing about the break-in at the Watergate offices of the democratic national headquarters. of course the movie is nothing but speeches, one for states rights and the other for preservation of the union, and of course it's questionable whether fighting men thought of it so much in those terms. Jackson that made it so clear that was what it was all about and that was some thirty-odd years before the great conflict. of course it was about ideals and we all know literacy wasn't that great in those days so an inspirational speech may have been the vehicle to get some of these simple boys to fight. i know that scene with rebs being interrogated by chamberlain's brother was overdone, but when those southerners retorted about their rights, they weren't acting. those poor downtrodden white boys of the south had been fooled into thinking they were fighting a war against an ever encroaching federal government, and maybe they were right. i live, hell i was born in Virginia, and i believe that if i am to be held for a crime, it should be the governor of Virginia that accuses me of a crime, that i should be punished by laws applicable to Virginia. after all, for all those out there who know Virginia's history, we did not ratify the constitution until it was already ratified by the necessary 2/3, in other words, we didn't support the constitution because it didn't go far enough to support civil liberties. don't forget, we're the home of Patrick henry, a major detractor of that hideous document. he knew that the second amendment did not go far enough. as it reads, people can only have guns for the support of the militia, so as not to have a Bastille where all the guns are in one place. in other words, the 2nd amend means that people can have guns in there homes because it is the governments best interest not to have all arms located in place lest some rebel force react and try to take over the central arsenal, e.g. the Bastille. the 2nd amend was never meant to guarantee average citizens the right to bear arms and henry knew it and that's why he fought so hard against Hamilton's oligarchy. but back to the movie, all in all, we're lucky to have it. it could've been better, but i guess Forrest gump could've been too, or maybe Casablanca, or the longest day, etc, etc, guess someone could've done Charles ingalls better than m. Landon, guess someone could've been better first pres than g. Washington. where does it stop?