Andersonville (1996)

Purely Joyful Movie!

i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The American Civil War, and Union soldiers are imprisoned at Andersonville, a crude stockade establishment presided over by the inept and cruel Captain Henry Wirz. It would prove to be a another dark and soul destroying chapter from the war.Lets get it out there right away, Andersonville was not the only hell hole prison operating during the American Civil War. Information from both sides of the coin is available on line for those wishing to explore further. That said, Andersonville is a story that deserved and is needed to be told, and this John Frankenheimer directed two - parter brings it vividly into the viewers' lives.In filmic substance terms it has all the standard POW movie cliche's. We follow a group of prisoners and a group of "convict bullies", with those in authority observing menacingly and proving desperately carefree as to the conditions of the prison and of humane traits in general. But as formulaic as it ultimately is, there's a determination by the makers to keep the characterisations real and viable, and they achieve this in spades. Pic is also boosted by superb period detail, costuming is grade "A", while the production and art design for the prison is harrowingly effective. Frankenheimer's tracking shots brings home the enormity of the misery, while Gary Chang's score is thankfully never bombastic. Cast are a mixed bag - to be expected in such a large ensemble piece - and you can't help but yearn for more of William H. Macy.Yet even though 30 minutes could easily have been shaved off of the run time, Andersonville is a production that should stay with you. The coda serving to remind us that that should be the case. 7/10

This is a sobering, if perhaps a bit too long, recreation of life in the notorious Confederate Camp Sumter (better known as Andersonville after the neighbouring community) which housed almost 50000 Union prisoners of war during the last year and a half of the Civil War. I found it difficult to determine from what perspective the story was being told - which perhaps makes it a fairly balanced movie. There's no doubt that the Confederate guards were portrayed as ruthless, and that Captain Henry Wirtz, the Camp's commander, was portrayed as both ruthless and perhaps a bit insane, but the bulk of the movie really deals with the problem of factionalism between the Union prisoners, as a group known as the "Raiders" establish their own ruthless control over the other prisoners, stealing from them, withholding supplies from them and sometimes murdering them. The first half of the movie dealt largely with this internal conflict, and was very interesting. The point at which the rest of the prisoners rebelled against them and finally, with Wirtz's approval, put them on trial, seemed to mark a transition in the movie. After their trial and the execution of the ringleaders, the movie took on more of an air of hopelessness (and perhaps became a bit less interesting), as the prisoners await a liberation that, in the movie at least, never comes, as the movie ends with the prisoners being transferred to other prisons.The movie begins somewhat abruptly with Union soldiers captured in battle being sent into the hellhole that was Andersonville, but there was no real historical context given. It might have been more interesting to see the camp from the beginning, and to trace the descent of the camp into what it became. The whole Andersonville issue is historically controversial, and the movie alludes to the controversy, with Wirtz pleading with a Confederate colonel sent to inspect the camp for more supplies, and many today think Wirtz was unfairly condemned after the war for a situation that was largely out of his control. I thought his portrayal in the movie was fair. Others complain that conditions in Union camps were also harsh, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of evaluating this movie, which certainly presented a sobering enough look at the conditions in this particular camp - which was, after all, its purpose.The movie features not a stellar cast (there are some fairly well known faces, but no mega-stars) but a solid cast that did a pretty good job with their roles. 7/10

As a Civil War buff, this is one of my favorite films. If you enjoy romantic war stories, don't rent this. There are no romantic plot lines or even women in the movie. The closest thing to a romantic plot line would be when Martin speaks of his wife and asks Josiah to send her his wedding ring.If you enjoy war films that are not cluttered with cliche romantic plots and are more like buddy films this one is for you. The acting is amazing, and the story if fresh look at a little known part of Civil War history. The only problem with the film is time spent watching the men weaken and starve. Those scenes could have been cut a bit, but overall they are needed in order to feel the despair of the men.The story and characters are completely enthralling and I recommend this film to everyone. Just be prepared to cry.

This film won three awards and was nominated for several others. The directing, acting, editing, script and cinematography are all of a high standard. It seemed quite authentic, and this is confirmed by the comment below. Even if you do not normally like 'films of this type', this film is worth watching or even studying, because of the overall excellence. An admiration of the quality of this film is probably the reason that the brutal story that it portrays did not place a heavy or negative feeling upon me. Lesser films would contaminate the story with adding romance, light comedy or bright flashbacks. This film powerfully gives the viewer a strong sense of realism.