Field of Lost Shoes

A great part of the movie was it's historical accuracy. Showing confederate soldiers without shoes and low on supplies, with the facts about the tributes to the group of cadets by the Virginia Military Institute today in the beginning and the end. It tells stories of perseverance, love, and sacrifice all at once. Right when it felt like it was starting to drag in the middle it threw a twist to keep things interesting. This movie is underrated, and a great showing of the side that isn't shown as often.

This is a film dedicated to the boys of the Virginia Military Institute who in May of 1864 answered the call from Confederate General Breckenridge to go to defend their homeland from the oncoming Union Army of General Ulysses S. Grant.

They were mere cadets of varying age and all went to fight at the Battle of Newmarket Gap. The film follows the plight of seven cadets and incorporates their back stories up to a point and the issues of slavery. The slavery aspect is used as the sole reason for the Civil War and is posted right up front. That kind of myth should really be stopped from any more propagation as the causes were never that simple and it is only with retrospect that the nobler cause of emancipation was ever used to justify the slaughter. Still I digress.

The film itself is rather good; it balances the comradeship and action perfectly and is filmed using real actors / re-enactors for the main battle which is also done very well. It is overly sentimental but then I am a sucker for such and never mind that at all. The title 'The Field of Lost Shoes' is in reference to the many that became unshod in the fog and mud of the battle. Noteworthy performances are aplenty - but Jason Isaacs as Breckenridge is extremely good at getting the Southern charm with steely resolution just right. All in all a film that war fans and indeed some history fans will appreciate.

The American Civil War is by far the war that lasts forever in this countries collective memory and was decreed in absentia by the flawed original signing of the Declaration of Independence leaving slavery intact. You would think that makes for great films and in many cases it did,however rarely do they have mass appeal. This 2014 release that sometimes seems longer then its 96 minutes,a flaw in pacing,is not preachy yet stark in some of its depiction that may seem uneven at times.Its based on a historic battle fought by cadets from VMI (Virginia Military Institute) that still exists today.However its also a coming of age film and in that sense some might find it corny,I didn't.The young actors were good but unknown to me.The "b"level adult actors were also good and you'll recognize a few,yet less screen time than the youngins.So if you like a somewhat different twist to a Civil War film yet keeping it "real"you might enjoy it.I certainly was pleasantly surprised.One of my lesser known gems.

Unlike the reviewer in "The Village Voice," I found this film to be moving and touchingly old fashioned. The "love at sight,' for example, between one of the cadets and a southern girl rings true and is a familiar, though often sad motif to those of us who work with teenage boys and girls. The jocular and sometimes hostile relations between the older boys seems authentic, as does their possessive and protective feelings toward the boyish 'Sir Rat.' To return for a moment to "The Village Voice" review: the arrogance and 'know it all' attitude of the reviewer toward the South reminded me why my southern relatives refer to this conflict as "The War of Northern Aggression." It is precisely this air of superiority which contributed to the Southern break with their brothers in the North. I do, however, find the modernist desire on the part of the producers to distance the cadets from their region's stance on slavery to be forced. I feel that history and a better story would have been served to portray the boys as fighting for Virginia and their nation, the Confederacy. Part of the southern lore surrounding the Battle of New Market is that Breckenridge wept when he ordered the cadets into battle. I can believe that he cried when he gave the order. What a terrible burden it would be to send boys into battle! I can't believe that the northerner commander would not have felt, at least, a twinge of conscience when he ordered his troops to fire upon and engage with the cadets. The film's portrayal of that man as a ruthless murderer ordering his men to kill boys does not ring true. The fact that the cadets fought like lions might have surprised him and his men--but those of us who have worked with this age group know that teenage boys would make fearsome opponents. In the end, I applaud the film makers for their efforts—they did much more than produce a period piece bedecked with false whiskers—they gave the viewer insight into this brave but terrible episode in the Civil War, or the War Between the States, as my southern relatives would ask me to write.

Ever since having seen Ken Burns' magnificent documentary, "The Civil War", I've become somewhat of a "Civil War buff". Remember that episode of "Seinfeld"- George is like, "I always wanted to be a Civil War buff"- ?? LOL I saw this movie off Netflix the other day- pretty much standard direct-to-video fair in terms of overall production values. But I still liked this movie. It is based on the Battle of New Market fought in Virginia on May 15, 1864 in the American Civil War. The cast was good- Jason Isaacs, Lauren Holly, Keith David, David Arquette and Tom Skeritt played Ulysses S. Grant. President Lincoln was played by an actor named Michael Krebs, who has portrayed Lincoln in film and presentations throughout the United States. The main characters were a group of young people mostly played by unknowns, which worked out since it was less certain who would make it out alive at the end. All-in-all, thumbs up for this one.