Ironclads

This a One of Kind Civil War movie Firt let me say that Virginia Madsen never looked as Beautiful as she does in this movie.

But this is the only Civil War movie that I've seen that deals with the naval battles. I think that this movie is very well crafted, and the cinematographic is wonderful. My only complaint about this movie is the dialog. At times the dialog is down right silly. However the actors do a great job with their roles The battle scenes are very well done.

If you are a history buff.. you will absolutely love this movie. It has no boring parts. Its just good. I hope someday it will be released on DVD, because my VHS copy is starting to show signs of wear and tear

That was a very interesting episode in the US Civil War when two huge ironclads, Merrimack and Monitor, clashed nearby the Cpnfederate coast, where the Union Navy was blockading the land. This TV film is rather simple as for special effects, but still, they are very well done for this decent take. Virginia Madsen is a real gem here, she is extremely feminine, beautiful, but also very smart, brave, cool and courageous in spite of all the danger, even gallows. The plot itself is very good, too, and it is a pity that the film is not long enough to make it a longer, better, greater epic a la Gettysburg. Even that, Ironclads is a very good piece of work. The scene of execution of a spy is a real powerful moment, showing real courage and valor, and the main sea battle is tense, terse, brutal, fast and ferocious, just as any real battle is. The Black slaves characters are very sympathetic, too, with Beatrice Bush really shining as Opal. The whole movie is never boring, and really very deep in depicting both sides of the war. Why only 8? Not enough character development, still, and some scenes were made real cheap.

In 1900, if one was studying the Civil War, an American student would have had some very brief discussion of the slavery issue. It would have mentioned the North was opposed to it, and the South favored it. That brief discussion would have been it - nothing further about slavery.

The heroes and heroines of the war would have been more detailed. Grant, Lee, Sherman, Jackson, Lincoln, Davis would have been mentioned. So would have Farragut, Buchanan, David Porter, Semmes, Sheridan, Early, Joseph and Albert Johnston, John Bell Hood, Longstreet,McClellan, Hooker, Meade, Bragg, Rosecrans, Thomas, Schofield, Custer, A.P. and D.H. Hill...an endless list of heroes. It's doubtful if Frederick Douglas or Sojourner Truth or Harriet Tubman would have been mentioned (except in Black schools). John Brown would have to be mentioned because of the raid on Harper's Ferry, but his reputation would have been different in the school depending on who discussed him. The majority of these names were dropped out of discussions of that war by the time that the "baby boomers" generation showed up (1944 - 1970). Even the success of Ken Burn's CIVIL WAR series has not pushed these names back into the classrooms.

The naval portion of the war was always limited. There were many ship to ship fights, but the only commander on the Northern side who became truly famous was David Glasgow Farragut, who won a series of naval victories, most noteworthy at New Orleans in 1862 and at Mobile Bay in 1864 (capped by his quote: "Damn the Torpedoes and Full Speed Ahead!). He certainly deserves our respect for his work. The best remembered Confederate naval hero was (of course) Captain (later C.S.S. Admiral) Raphael Semmes, who (while commanding the C.S.S. Alabama) became the greatest commerce raider in our history.

But the naval battles we recall today were not under these men. They involved two experimental ironclad warships - C.S.S. Virginia and U.S.S. Monitor - off Hampton Roads, Virginia, and the sinking of the U.S.S. Housatonic off Charleston by the Confererate submarine C.S.S. Hunley.

We do not recall the two commanders at Hampton Roads (Confederate Commodore Franklin Buchanan and Union Lt. John Worden). Neither really demonstrated a flair for tactics, as they slugged it out on March 9, 1862. They really did not quite know what to do with their two machines. The "cheesbox" turret of the Monitor was hit once or twice, but it's swiveling action prevented real damage. The thick armor plating of the Virginia (formerly the U.S.S. Merrimac) was dented occasionally, but it was not breached. The battle was a draw - but it showed that battleships would have to be metal from now on. The reason was the comparative one: The Virginia/Merrimac had attacked the Union fleet on March 8, 1862 at Hampton Roads, and sunk the U.S.S. Cumberland and the U.S.S. Congress, and caused the U.S.S. Minnesota to run aground. Up to Pearl Harbor that was the worst naval disaster inflicted by an enemy on the U.S. navy. But those ships were wooden.

The Second Battle of Hampton Roads became a textbook battle in naval history from the point of view of innovation - not tactics. It's full effect is a little exaggerated: Both Britain and France had started building iron hulled warships like H.M.S. Warrior before 1860. But none had been tested in battle. Now everyone knew what to expect. The subsequent Hunley experiment showed another step forward in naval warfare: one underwater one.

Oddly the Monitor/Merrimac fight has rarely been discussed in movies. A "B-feature" was made in the 1930s that showed the battle at the end. And there is this passable film made in 1991 by Ted Turner's production company for T.N.T. It is best showing the difficulties of the North dealing with the builder of U.S.S. Monitor, the gifted Swedish inventor John Ericcson, who was an egomaniac. Ericcson is played by Fritz Weaver, who gives a nice performance. But it is not the central portion of the film. The battle concludes it. I'm giving a "7" for Weaver's performance, and for a brief, sad moment (well handled) when E.G.Marshall realizes that his son is dead. Marshall's son commanded the Cumberland, and he realizes that if the ship sank the son has to be gone (he is).

In all the hoopla of the finding of the "Hunley" and it's restoration in Charleston, few noticed that the Monitor's wreck (off Cape Hatteras) was found in the 1970s, and (in the face of deterioration) the turret and other portions of the wreck were raised and are being restored at Hampton Roads. The Merrimac had to be blown up in May 1862 to prevent it being seized by the North. Some fragments of that ironclad still exist.

This mediocre claptrap about the great battle of the ironclads was nominated by the politically correct Emmy Awards committee because it was a 1990 politically correct way of presenting the greatest naval battle of the civil war, completely sanitized and with abundant civility. The whole dramatic story wrapped around the events of the great battle was so much hokum and corn, it was hard to wade through to get to the well-done battle sequences. One example of this, just one of many, is the degrading of a slave, only verbally mind you, in front of a Yankee spy masquerading as a Southern sympathizer. The slave was called whatever a TV censor would allow to pass muster, so the kids could watch, and then we see the Yankee spy clench his teeth and hold in his indignation. Later he confesses that he never witnessed such abuse. Yeah, right, like nobody in the North ever said anything but a kind word to blacks at that time. One can only imagine how such a scene would have been handled in a film like, say, Cold Mountain, where the slave would have gotten a terrible beating, and the evils of slavery and bigotry would have been roundly exposed, rather than whitewashed, no pun intended. It didn't win any Emmy awards because it didn't even deserve the nominations. But the scenes around the building of the ships and the battle were very good overall, except for the portrayal of Lincoln as a simpleton of sorts. I lay the fault of that to the actor, for the same lines said by someone of stature and strength would show strength of conviction.

For a time in the 1990s, Ted Turner's TNT channel ran a spat of Civil War inspired films. Coming early in the decade, Ironclads told the story of the historic battle between ironclad ships the USS Monitor and the CSS Virginia (aka the Merrimack). It's a dramatic story, one that would seem perfect for screen treatment.

Or, so one might think. To tell that story, the filmmakers employed an entire fictional spy story centered around Betty Stuart, a Southern belle (Virginia Madsen) who works alongside a disgraced Union Quartermaster's Mate (Reed Diamond) to learn and smuggle information about the Confederate ironclad northward. To make matters more complicated, Betty is in the midst of a romance with the Virginia's first officer Catesby Jones (Alex Hyde-White), which tests her allegiances to home and country even farther as Lieutenant Guilford (Philip Casnoff) of the Confederate navy seeks out a spy. Not the most sweeping fictionalization ever, granted, but does it serve the story?

Ultimately, no. The spy story elements and the romantic elements offer up plot complications about as predictable and embarrassing as the southern accents on display. When combined with dialogue that often leans towards the cringeworthy, it feels like a distraction from what the film's titular subject. And the cast, bless their hearts, does the best they can with a less than perfect script. All of which is a shame since there are accounts of Civil War-era espionage deserving of being put on screen, incredible tales that don't need inventing people and events around a historic battle.

In fact, Ironclads is at its best when it's focused on the two warships. The actual design and building of the two vessels, with particular focus on the Union's Monitor and its designer John Ericsson (an underused Fritz Weaver), effectively becomes a subplot in a movie supposedly dedicated to them. Even here, though, the dialogue is often little more than functional or expositional. With the likes of Weaver, EG Marshall, and James Getty in the cast, that seems like something of a shame.

Thankfully, the movie has one definite saving grace: the depiction of the Battle of Hampton Roads. Taking up much of the back half of the running time, it's got everything that a Civil War buff could dream of seeing. There are recreations of the two ironclads, both inside and out, giving viewers an idea of the incredible conditions under which the men on bought sides fought. Indeed, one might never have had a sense of just how claustrophobic and cramped they were, cannons blazing and smoking filling the air inside. A combination of sets, built at something akin to full scale, as well as some superb miniatures, work to complete the depiction of this epic battle that changed naval warfare forever after. It is here, rather than in the cliches of espionage and romance, that Ironclads finds its best moments and highest drama.

If only the rest of it had lived up to that standard, Ironclads would rank with Gettysburg as one of the best screen depictions of perhaps the defining conflict of American history. Instead, it spends much of its length trapped inside a dull melodrama and made by exposition. In the final analysis, Civil War buffs will find much to love about Ironclads, but anyone else will be bored to sleep by it.