The MOVIE thread

[dtgreg]

Grant is always labeled a butcher, but really when you start to look at it he sacrifices less of a percentage of troops per engagement than Lee. The Southern perspective tries to show Lee and Jackson as these second comings of Napoleon and Grant as a guy that just won because of numbers. I personally think that had Napoleon been given a glimpse into the Civil War then he would probably viewed Grant, Sherman, and Henry Thomas as the best generals of the war.

Lee was a good general but not a great one. He didn’t have the manpower to lose but still he was to preoccupied with these “heroic” charges that dwindled his forces down over time. It took someone who was competent to go against him to make him finally pay for it. I’ve been to Gettysburg and seen seminary and cemetery ridge…. It’s gotta be one of the dumbest military decisions of all time to send men through that open field. Yet we constantly hear “cold Harbor”

Lee was desperate to fight and defeat the Union army. The South couldn't afford a war of attrition and Lee's greatest fear was he would be unable to engage the enemy in the field and defeat them decisively. He therefore was willing to give the Union the high ground and even an an outnumbering of troops.

Why he didn't just let the Union troops stay on the ridge and march East toward D.C. unmolested I don't know. I'm sure he had a good reason. Surely he would have drawn them out. Hopefully someone here can explain it.

 

[CoachJeff]

This looks good.

Love his competence on a battlefield. Wellington said his presence on the field of battle was worth 30,000 troops.
Invading Russia, not too bright.
Young Napoleon, like young Elvis, and young Mao, was better than old Napoleon, Elvis, and Mao.

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

There’s a movie on Napoleon from 1927 that’s supposed to be one of the greatest of all time.

I’ve found DVDs on Amazon and elsewhere, but they’re Region 2 and I don’t have a multi-region player.

I’m hoping that the 2023 movie will be successful and spark a Region 1 version of the 1927 iteration.

 

[Bazza]

 

[dtgreg]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

History is so daunting. Where to start? How can one possibly comprehend the vast scope of civilization?

As a child I decided I would forego everything outside the 20th century. Once you feel you have a decent grasp of the here-and-now, you become curious of how preceding events got you here. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Napoleon and his time are fascinating.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm about 50 pages into a 800 page biography of Napoleon. I figured as a middle aged man it's my duty to know more about him. Hopefully I'm done with it before the movie comes out.

I have read David Chandler's Campaigns of Napoleon several times.1095 pages of text. Chandler is a Brit, but his work deals fairly with le Tondu.

 

[81usaf92]

History is so daunting. Where to start? How can one possibly comprehend the vast scope of civilization?

As a child I decided I would forego everything outside the 20th century. Once you feel you have a decent grasp of the here-and-now, you become curious of how preceding events got you here. And down the rabbit hole you go.

Napoleon and his time are fascinating.

Want to get into something complicated… try the Crimean War, the European wars with the Ottomans, and The Hague conventions. All had direct effects on how the alliances were formed for WW1.

Personally if I were to say the most interesting figure besides Napoleon for the 19th century it would either be Bismarck or Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[OakMtn4Bama]

I personally feel too much is made about Gettysburg because even if Lee were to win he probably is fighting in Virginia the next year still. Lee was hoping for an Austerlitz type victory but the problem is that Vicksburg happens a day later regardless. I don’t see the union getting close to surrendering even with a disaster at Gettysburg. So in a nutshell I don’t think Lee did anything but draw the Union army out of Virginia for a few months.

The truth is that the South probably lost the war once they fired on Ft Sumter. But the closest they probably got to actual victory was Antietam. I just see the Southern military strategy as flawed. They were facing an enemy with far more men and economic advantages yet the strategy seems to still be about winning points on the map through heroic charges and stands instead of prolonging a war by taken the enemy deeper into the country and choosing the battlefield. I mean that’s how the Americans beat the British

I agree with most of what you say. Ft. Sumter was the turning point. Lee badly needed a military victory on the field for a variety of reasons. Northern will to fight, bringing in foreign allies, etc. But primarily he knew that if it dragged on there was no chance to win. Carhart theorizes that because West Point grads of the time were immersed in the battles and theories of Napoleon, that Lee was implementing a similar strategy at Gettysburg. He hoped that Stuart could assault the rear while Pickett was to be a diversion to hold the attention on the front. Stuart was to roll them up from behind, Custer had something to say about it, however. Very well written and an interesting theory.

 

[dtgreg]

Want to get into something complicated… try the Crimean War, the European wars with the Ottomans, and The Hague conventions. All had direct effects on how the alliances were formed for WW1.

Personally if I were to say the most interesting figure besides Napoleon for the 19th century it would either be Bismarck or Teddy Roosevelt.

Man, I could have sworn it was written by Robert Massie, but when I was a kid I read a biography about Charles XII of Sweden and his battles with Peter the Great of Russia. Talk about a blockbuster movie possibility, at least the way the story was written.

 

[Bazza]

 

[Bazza]

"12 Angry Men" directed by Sidney Lumet....

 

[jthomas666]

Oppenheimer is...
overwhelming, in style, in length, in volume (yes, a nuclear detonation shouold be thunderous, but that doesn't mean everything else should be).

Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr. are mortal locks for acting nominations--Emily Blunt might get one as well.

The editor probably has the Oscar locked up--The film juggles multiple time frames and you never get disoriented.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Oppenheimer is...
overwhelming, in style, in length, in volume (yes, a nuclear detonation shouold be thunderous, but that doesn't mean everything else should be).

Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey, Jr. are mortal locks for acting nominations--Emily Blunt might get one as well.

The editor probably has the Oscar locked up--The film juggles multiple time frames and you never get disoriented.

I found it to be spectacular, superseding even my lofty expectations.

 

[Bazza]

 

[DzynKingRTR]

View attachment 35523

I guess that is why Shawshank bombed in the theatre.

 

[Toddrn]

I guess that is why Shawshank bombed in the theatre.

Shawshank was the best one out of that list.

 

[Bazza]

I saw Pulp Fiction the day it premiered. I thought it was so good....I went back and watched it again the next night.....

I never saw Shawshank until it came on TV.

Never saw Forrest Gump until I watched a DVD of it while visiting my older brother in Voirginia. My niece's DVD.

Don't remember when I watched JP. Maybe in the theater.

And have yet to see TLK.....lol....

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Shawshank was the best one out of that list.

True, but it did not find an audience until TNT started showing it daily.

 

[BamaNation]

Oppenheimer is...
overwhelming, in style, in length, in volume (yes, a nuclear detonation shouold be thunderous, but that doesn't mean everything else should be).

Earlier this year I read the book (American Prometheus) that the movie is based on (having no idea there was an Oscar-worthy movie about to be released). I'm very much looking forward to seeing it.



*link takes you to the Amazon page. Purchases made through our Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans. Thanks for supporting the site!

 

[BhamToTexas]

Earlier this year I read the book (American Prometheus) that the movie is based on (having no idea there was an Oscar-worthy movie about to be released). I'm very much looking forward to seeing it.



*link takes you to the Amazon page. Purchases made through our Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans. Thanks for supporting the site!

It is sensational. Watched it on the 70mm imax in Dallas. The audio techniques, b&w vs color, loaded cast, etc.