Field of Lost Shoes

What I assumed about this low budget period piece came true. Unfortunately its littered with problems from the production, story telling and pacing of the movie.. The noticeable civil war re-enactments embedded to the battle scenes took me right out of the movie and the long and establishment camera shots had terrible cgi. The one thing I did enjoy was the fact that all the cadets had different motivations for fighting in the civil war. If you're a civil war buff it's worth watching but I couldn't see myself viewing this more than once. The last positive thing I'll say about this movie is I enjoyed the score, especially towards the end while the battle is taking place.

RELEASED IN 2015 and directed by Sean McNamara, "Field of Lost Shoes" (aka "Battlefield of Lost Souls") chronicles the Civil War Battle of New Market wherein the Confederates were forced to enlist the aid of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to stave off Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley. While the story properly focuses on the young'uns, notable actors like Jason Isaacs, David Arquette, Keith David, Lauren Holly and Tom Skerritt are also on hand.

This particular occasion in history is pretty famous and I even remember reading about it in war comics when I was a kid, so it's interesting to finally see a cinematic depiction of it. The no-name youths are up to the challenge and, thankfully, they throw in some females to keep things interesting (e.g. Mary Mouser). Practically all the main characters are based on real-life people, including David as "Old Judge," who continued working for the VMI after attaining his freedom. Speaking of the VMI, the institute is still in use today and the movie was partially shot there.

One of the worst things about slavery is that it broke up families when a buyer would purchase one member of a family, but not the others. This is powerfully depicted in the opening.

"Field of Lost Shoes" is mostly a drama about the preparations for war during the Civil War, but when the action comes at almost the hour mark it's pretty effective and thrilling. The biggest downside of Civil War combat was that officers on both sides used outdated military tactics, which they learned from West Point & other academies. These tactics hailed from the Napoleonic wars of the early 1800s. Yet technological advances produced rifles with superior aim, which resulted in ridiculously long casualty lists. Soldiers had no recourse but to stoically march in formation right into friggin rifle and canon fire. Sure, I'd be willing to do this, but only if the Presidents, politicians, generals and colonels marched ahead of me. You get my drift.

So the movie's well done, as far as cast, costumes, locations and battle scenes go (despite a couple of clichés, like one guy utterly stopping to blow precious time emoting over a wounded comrade. Why Sure!). The CGI is less effective, but it gets the job done. The story, however, needed some kinks worked out to make it more compelling in the manner of the great "Glory" (1989). Still, I'd watch "Field of Lost Shoes" any day above the relatively dull, sappy and laboriously overlong "Gettysburg" (1993). To offer balance, I love the prequel "Gods and Generals" (2003).

THE FILM RUNS 95 minutes and was shot entirely in Virginia (Lexington, Charles City, Powhatan & Richmond). WRITERS: Thomas Farrell & David M. Kennedy.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

I believe that this movie was sufficiently accurate to support the events of history during the civil war. Throughout this movie, the viewer was clearly able to see how the lives of the cadets were at the time. It showed their struggles at the young age, along with their sacrifices for their people. In addition, the movie provided the fact that not all southerners supported slavery. There were some who were willing to fight for their family, but wanted a change if they were victorious. However, "Field of Lost Shoes" became a bit cliché. The love story that began in the film was too focused on. I felt as though the story of slavery and the stress and efforts of the cadets and soldiers did not get the attention that was expected given the current situation of the story. Overall, I thought that the movie provided good facts regarding the locations, uniforms of both sides, weaponry, women's clothing and responsibilities, and the tactics used. It is a movie that could have focused more on effects and the main plot, but the details and information were accurate.

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.

"Field of Lost Shoes" is far from perfect. After all, it's obvious that the folks making the film had a rather limited budget. In many scenes which should have featured many hundreds, only a few dozen are used. However, I don't necessarily see this as an awful thing. After all, the Battle of New Market is NOT the sort of thing that Hollywood would ever make a movie about, so of course the film isn't as fancy or has quite the look of a big production. I can look past this to a certain extent and think considering everything, the film actually looks pretty good.

As for the film apart from the low budget, it's okay...not great, but okay. Instead of focusing on the battle like a documentary, the filmmakers chose to include a lot of fictional subplots--some of which worked and some of which seemed a bit anachronistic (such as Southern students who believe in equality and hate slavery--not something you would have likely heard ANYONE say in the South at that time) or which just didn't work (the love story). I see it as a noble attempt and a reasonably good one at that. Worth seeing if you are a Civil War buff or love history. The ending was quite touching as well. Otherwise, there are a few better films about the era, such as "Glory". Hmmm....now that I think about it, there really AREN'T that many good films about the Civil War and this one is about as good as any...and not nearly as long and ponderous as "Gettysburg".