|
beeswaxer (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This is the best part of the whole movie. I love how they get even. even if it cost you. The death's had death had to be avenged. I would have done the same. Thanks bruce I didn't know you had this part.
fattoler (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I know what you mean , I can't stand most modern war movies
ginolight (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Thanks for answer. There is a film I am tracing since sometimes about same times, is Gary Cooper, John Fontaine... David Niven (??) Revolt in Manila, I think David Niven dies in the end at the machine-gun . A good oldies !Compliment for your collection !
DPx111 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
ohh dey wer on horses the poem is freaking confusing!!
56LC (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The Confederate cavalry could have driven the Union artillery and maybe temporeraly the Union Infantry from the center of the Gettysburg battle line. but the following infantry assault still had to hold on the the captured Union center to split the Federal forces in half and drive them off the field. I still believe that even a victory at Gettysburgh could have helped the Confederacy in getting recognition in Europe, but the Union could recover from that defeat and deploy fresh forces again.
56LC (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I know, but I still like it as a Hollywood version companion to the much better 1968 version. Oh, well they do not make war movies like that or 1968 version anymore. The fact that war has become a mindless, unheroic mess unlike wars back then is a sad fact. At leasr a sense of heroism and romanticism coveredf up the cold brutality of war in their day. In retrospect, both films are something of a historical record of a time that will never come again.
Finkeren (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Hooray for tripwires!Seriously though, I'm glad that they banned the use of these methods after this film was made, but it's still one heck of a battlescene. It seems strangely modern in its brutality, maybe that's because much of the suffering is real?
nicolaos777 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It's true this movie takes liberties with history and though it has its basis in history, it has been fictionalized for artistic purposes.However, we shouldnt forget that it was intended to be historical fiction, not dramatised documentary and that the movie's most essential themes are historically true: interests in India that led Britain to Crimean War, a junior officer's version of an order that precipitated the charge and accurate depiction of the charge itself.
bruce235001 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes, you are right. Check the "more info" link for this clip on the right for the cast.Errol Flynn ...Major Geoffrey Vickers Olivia de Havilland ... Elsa Campbell ..David Niven ... Captain James Randall
helmuthoorn (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
O you read it too..... ?Well, there no use in us debating any longer then. |
