Field of Lost Shoes

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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".