Gone with the Wind, of course, is the best of all time.
Second place: The Horse Soldiers, which was based on a true story
The film is based on the true-life raid by Col. Benjamin Grierson who, as shown in the movie, began his expedition–known as Grierson’s Raid–from LeGrange, Tennessee, in April of 1863.
Third: The Great Locomotive Chase (also a true story)
That tells a lot about you.
Eh? I think one thing it says is that six is too young for a first viewing.
That Rilch has taste?
I thought Ride with the Devil was a pretty good movie that was sadly overlooked.
I love Gone With the Wind but consider it only tangentially a Civil War film. (I consider the book very much a Civil War novel but the movie is overblown to the point of mythology, though as a movie it works magnificently.)
I didn’t like the plot of Cold Mountain but I agree the reenactment of The Battle of the Crater was epic. I also love the battle scenes and the characterizations and houses in Ride With the Devil, and I really liked Glory except for Matthew Broderick who I thought was way out of his element (it may be just me but I’ve never thought he could act in anything but light comedy).
Generally though I think the sword has yet to be pulled from the stone for The Greatest Civil War Movie. With the sesquicentennial just around the corner of all the great battles and CGI making epic battle scenes a bit more affordable I’m hoping there will be a renaissance of Civil War films.
!!!
And I only consider The Abyss tangentially an underwater movie. But i constantly have to explain why.
It has to be Glory for me. I love Gettysburg and Gods and Generals but Glory packs a punch that the others don’t IMO.
Gettysburg, easily, but with Glory a strong second.
I’ve never really understood the preposterous notion that War = Combat and that a war movie only “counts” if there’s an action sequence somewhere.
Evidence A: There is no film that probably makes as large or profound a commentary on the nature and tragedy and complexities of War than The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and there isn’t a single sequence of combat in its 2.5+ hours.
Colonel Blimp is about the war and its participants, without the war there is no movie. GwtW is not, it just happens to be set in wartime - with minimal script changes it could be set 10 years before or after the CW.
Buster Keaton’s “The General” You don’t mind rooting for the Southerner. I also like the fact that former baseball player Turkey Mike Donlin is cast as one of the Union generals.
“Birth of a Nation” is a well made piece of film that celebrates a vile organization like th Ku Klux Klan. But then we live in an era when films are made celebrating and people wear t shirts for the equally repulsive Che Guevara.
John Ford once said the Civil War was hard to make films about because you inevitably side with one side and get half the country upset.
It would be hard to set it in peacetime, but I would agree it could be set on the losing side of any war anywhere with minimal changes. As I mentioned above the book itself is very much tied to Civil War/Reconstruction Georgia, but the movie is too elevated: Twelve Oaks goes from a Greek Revival planter’s mansion in Georgia to a Tsarist palace and the mansion Scarlett builds after the war is equally ridiculous in terms of realism, while many of the characters and events and places from the book that are uniquely Georgia/Civil War are glossed over.
This isn’t knocking the movie- it’s a classic and easily one of my Top 10- but it’s a bit too glossy to be a great Civil War pic in my taste.
I completely agree action sequences aren’t needed for something to be a war movie: Judgment at Nuremberg couldn’t be more of a WW2 movie for instance.
I’ve actually never held that against it in the slightest. As you say it’s from the pov of Scarlett: Frank Kennedy and Charles Hamilton are portrayed as fawning idiots who serve no purpose other than Scarlett’s, and Emmy Slattery/Jonas Wilkerson as a “sorry no account white trash couple” when even from what’s in the movie they’re more complex than that (Wilkerson could have had his pick of half the women in Georgia including Scarlett after the war- he was rich from being a sutler and making a bigger fortune as a carpetbagger- yet he goes back to the woman who bore his illegitimate stillborn child- there was clearly more there than a fling). We’re not seeing them how they are so much as how Scarlett sees them.
Besides which, Mammy is not cardboard and will give Scarlett a smackdown in a heartbeat. Prissy is sly and a liar, but I’m sure there were slaves who were just like her- law of averages- plus things like her careless packing of the china and all when fleeing Atlanta were totally understandable: if you’re terrified (with good reason) do you give a damn about the possessions of the rich bitch who owns you?
I was coming to say, Gone with the Wind for most of the reasons already listed. The book was better, as often is the case, but the movie was marvelous.
Definitely Gettysburg.
My son and I camped on the battlefield earlier this summer with his Boy Scout troop. I made him watch the movie before we went, and we played it on the bus on the way down and on the way back.
It was still mesmerizing, even watching the whole 4-hour movie three times in a week. (Of course the movie’s impact was enhanced after we hiked 15 miles over two days around the whole battlefield, including retracing the steps of Pickett’s Charge.)
Another for Gettysburg, with Glory getting a strong 2nd place finish.
If you found the battlefield affecting, try the Memorial Illumination at Antietam some time.
Glory is far better than Gettysburg, IMHO. Great cast, a heartfelt message, stirring action, pathos and heroism - Glory is just about a perfect movie, while Gettysburg has too many loooooong scenes of troops marching back and forth over Pennyslvania fields. Martin Sheen is miscast as Lee, and Tom Berenger’s beard is just silly. Jeff Daniels is outstanding as Chamberlain, though. Cold Mountain is pretty damned good, too.
A behind-the-scenes article about recent Civil War movies: http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/blue_gray_silver_screen.htm
I did not like Gettysburg and Gods and Generals because they both used dialogue far too florid to be realistic. I think the mistake the screenwriters made was in thinking that the folks of that era spoke using the same stiff and formal voice with which they wrote. The result was that the characters in the films come off sounding as though they shit marble. That, plus battle scenes featuring a bunch of fat, middle-aged reenactors really put me off those movies.
Me, I vote for Ride With the Devil as the best Civil War movie.
Cold Mountain had a lot of faults (poor casting decisions, mostly), but its battle scenes were terrific. I also liked it for depicting the depredations of Confederate troops and the Home Guard as well as those of Union foragers. Anyone who reads some of the claims submitted to the Southern Claims Commission will learn just how accurate those scenes were.
And since no one else has mentioned it, I will also give a sentimental nod to the Jimmy Stewart classic Shenandoah.
