Men Go to Battle

What is happening on a lot of the reviews posted on the IMDb site is that the reviewer must have an interest be that financial or simply they know the actors, writers, producers, etc. What ends up happening is when we (a typical IMDb user) check the reviews on little known movies, we end up getting a load of BS and personal bias.

Let me set the record straight on this movie for anyone looking for a honest personal review. This is maybe the worst movie made in the last couple of years. There is no story, the acting is pathetic, it's way too long, way to slow, there is absolutely no reason to watch this garbage. Your life cannot be so completely void that you need to bring this trite into it. To say this movie is a complete and total waste of time would actually be understating it. I'm sick and tired of being misled by brain dead reviewers. The bottom line is avoid this movie, do NOT waste your precious time or money on this crap, even with your finger on the fast forward button, it won't make this one go away soon enough. Just in case you didn't quite get the message....I HATED THIS MOVIE AND EVERYTHING ABOUT IT INCLUDING THOSE REVIEWERS WHO RECOMMENDED IT.

The story is about 2 brothers in Kentucky, Francis and Henry, hard pressed economically, in the winter at the start of the American Civil War, 1861. They live on a farm overrun by weeds. The brothers horse around at a camp fire one night with knives and Henry gets a bad cut. They seek medical help at the estate of the Smalls, a well to-do shopkeeper family in the area. While waiting for Henry to be treated, Francis socializes with the Smalls and their guests at a party being held there. Henry returns, see his brother socializing, feels left out and disappears into the darkness. Francis, now alone, take steps to work the land. Meanwhile, Henry joins the union army and enjoys a life of getting 3 square meals a day in exchange for his service. The two brothers correspond by letter, each forging their own destiny. The climax comes when Henry's unit is overrun and wiped out in a battle. Being the lone survivor, he reject military life, deserts, and makes his way back to the Kentucky farm. Upon arriving at the farm, Henry discovers Francis is now a successful tobacco farmer and married to a Small. The Smalls, on the other hand have lost their business and are out in the cold. This movie is a parable about how one pursues his vision of possibility for the future and another forgoes that and settles for a life of basic survival. This is a universal lesson in life. Each moment, the universe hold an infinite number of possibilities. We choose only one in this life. What we choose can lead to a life from rags to riches or a life of rags to one of being a wandering army deserter.

I found this movie in a section on Netflix called award winning movies and after viewing the movie I figured it must of been a participation ribbon. The characters were so poorly portrayed that you could not make connection to them or care about what happens to them. The acting was wooden and tiresome, the plot poorly executed. Not a good effort and not worth watching.

Obviously, there are viewers who love this movie and others who hate it. I love it. It's atmospheric, with clear ties to a particular place (rural Kentucky) and time (early in the Civil War). The relationship between the brothers is full contradictions and conflict as well as brotherly love and disappointment--if you like movies about relationships, it's fascinating. I was left wondering what happens to Henry, the more complex and conflicted brother, who disappears at dawn at the end of the movie.

I don't recommend this for people looking for a "war flick", but there are some viewers, myself included, who think this movie is a gem (and have no "financial interest" in it, as one reviewer seems to think). We just don't all like the same things, right?

"Men Go to Battle" (a somewhat misleading title) has its charms. The party at the Smalls' house vividly displays the similarities and differences between life then and now. (The research into detail will appeal to the history buff; although, this is not to say that every single detail is perfect because you can't expect perfection.) The plot points involving the Mellon brothers' competing ideas about how to run the farm and their sub-textual rivalry over Betsy Small (Rachel Korine) are compelling when reviewed in the end. Everything that happens leads up to a resolution of the brothers' relationship. We do not know what becomes of them after the movie ends, but we know that some things must be permanent.

Apparently, the movie achieved its economical budget ($500K) by using Civil War re-enactors to make the several military scenes. (They have their own costumes and gear, after all.) The war is far from glamorized. It is boring much of the time and parasitic on the civilians – except when it isn't, and you never know which it is going to be – and then, suddenly, there is death.

The story-telling is slow paced. The camera work is detached, static, ponderous, and often disorienting. When there are long shots – often starkly beautiful establishing shots – they are so static that they might as well have been taken with a still camera, but there are too many close ups and it is often too dark. The lighting appears to be entirely natural or at least imitates natural lighting. This is not a problem in daylight, but there are many scenes at night in which the actors seem to disappear into and reappear out of an inky blackness. What is going on? A second viewing does not clear matters up in every case. (Were the filmmakers too pure to use day-for-night filter technique to control lighting in night scenes?)

The dialogue is an odd mixture of the boringly pedestrian with sudden bursts of spontaneity. Consider a scene between Henry Mellon (Timothy Morton) and Betsy Small on her porch. There hasn't been a real conversation between a man and a woman up to this point. (Arguably, there still hasn't been afterward.) There is a party going on in the house, but, as it happens, Henry and Betsy both feel alienated from the frivolity, albeit for different reasons. There is a very long dialogue between them about the weather. It definitely has a subtext, which is interesting, but the bare text of the exchange is numbingly boring. (I am reminded of the late Judith Christ's observation that a movie that is about boredom is inevitably going to be boring.) The subtext almost earns this movie its mischaracterization as a comedy, but only if you do not fall asleep or gnaw your own leg off before the payoff.

A scene that illustrates the detachment of the camera and sound work occurs about halfway through the movie. Francis Mellon (David Maloney), Henry's brother, is in the general store buying supplies. There is a conversation between a clerk, whose counter is near the front window, and some Union soldiers who keep demanding tobacco even after the clerk has explained that he has no tobacco to sell them and knows no one else who has any. (The soldiers overhear Francis ask for some tobacco seed, and one of the soldiers comments, "You can't smoke that.") Francis then walks out of the store, but the camera remains inside, only showing Francis through the window. In the foreground, we continue to focus on the long-since pointless dialogue between the tobacco-jonesing soldiers and their dried up source. Suddenly, we become aware that Francis has said something to two soldiers passing on the street and one of them punches Francis, sending him to the ground. Only on second viewing do we hear the faint dialogue: Francis addressed the soldiers as "ladies", they took offense, and he got hit. Why is this in the background instead of in the fore?

I am glad I saw this movie, but I would not recommend it if you just want an enjoyable adventure that won't make work.