dangerforward-85826 Remember that Conan OBrian skit where he goes to an old time baseball game? The people there were pretending it was the late 1860's and played baseball using vintage uniforms, bats, rules and the like? When they found the guy with the granola bars in his pocket? I thought this "show" was an extension of that skit until I realized they were serious. Sad thing is, that skit was so well done while this was absolute garbage. Bad acting, bad production, unrealistic action, uniforms, accouterments and details. I counted THREE separate moments where I saw modern water bottles on screen. Not even trying to hide them. The uniforms looked like something the local high school got from the Goodwill. If you have to watch it, stab your eyes or so you save yourself the horror. A lifetime of blindness is preferable.

bwenglish There isn't much more to be said that hasn't already been said. This "documentary" and I use that term loosely, is a disgrace to the soldiers and sailors of the American Civil War. This is complete and utter fictionalization of historical events. I would liken this to "The 300". Sure, it's historically based but the visuals are in no way shape or form accurate. Any historian, adviser, etc. that was associated with this monstrosity should be ashamed of themselves, including Gary Adelman, the historian for the CWPT.There is a wealth of information, books, photographs, drawings, originals out there to research things like uniforms, weapons and tactics. The fact that no one took the time to look at a single Confederate or Federal uniform is evident here. No one read a tactics manual, no one studied the progression of an actual battle.The fact that the production company is so proud of their "authenticity" is proof they did little to no research. They found gray wool and blue wool jackets from Pakistan and said "this will do it". There are even production companies out there that specialize in historically accurate portrayals of Civil War soldiers with expertise, skills and knowledge of the period. They didn't even bother with a simple google search.Unfortunately, people will look at this and think it is a visual and accurate depiction of the Civil War. They had the community and expertise available to them and they didn't use it, they had an opportunity to truly educate people about the war but they ignored it. I truly hope AHC never produces another film about any period.

siltmanf These people have wasted a great opportunity to educate people on the realities of the Civil War, but their depiction of warfare and the soldiers is utterly terrible. Did you hire historical/technical advisors for the battle scenes? If so, who? They should be fired. More likely, you didn't. There is no excuse the historical inaccuracies portrayed and does a disservice to the men you are portraying. There are too many material culture and historical experts on the Civil War to do this so poorly and not even remotely depict the appearance, conduct or nature of the common soldier, and to not even depict warfare as it was. The battle scenes are nothing short of disgraceful.

NYCPress As someone with family members who served—and died—on both sides during the Civil War, I regret that this production has done more to make "those people back then" seem even more remote to the modern viewer. Even the layman can tell that there's something hokey about how the soldiers are portrayed, in their actions and equipment. There were thousands upon thousands of photographs taken in studios and in the field from 1861 to 1865. Play a simple game of "one of these things is not like the other" and compare them to this show. One might say " well, the average person doesn't know," and this is a faulty excuse. For one, the purpose of a documentary is to inform. Second, they may not be able to articulate just WHAT is wrong, but there is a subliminal aesthetic on which anyone can pick up. Take a simple uniform cap. During the war, the brims were made of a varnished, stiff leather that can look quite fetching when worn with purpose. You see a photo of a soldier from 155 years ago wearing one, and you can connect with him. You think "this guy had a personality. He was real." Now get a cheap, costume-grade replica that is finished with a soft, pleather brim that looks rather sad and creased like a baseball cap, plopped on the head of an actor. The actor looks weird, because he treats it as a costume, and presumes that "well, this probably looked good to those old-fashioned people." It is all disingenuous because it, itself, is wrong and is being worn with ignorance. This stuff is more important, and detectable, than many realize. For me, part of making "them" feel less different from "us" is to just represent them as they would have looked and acted, not a contrived farce that seems to presume that history, left as it was, is too "boring" for modern audiences. Put it this way: you can't expect to create an accurate-looking Civil War scene from scratch by renting costumes and weapons, handing them out, and saying "action." You, literally, need to build an army unit. The background in "Cold Mountain" went through a "camp of instruction" to bring them up to a basic level of proficiency. I'm not saying that reenactors are God's gift to history, but at least there's a core, basic knowledge there. You start with that, and bring in a military coordinator/adviser to smooth out the few individual quirks and "reenactorisms," and go from there. I've seen viewers who are afraid of this production being "one-sided" (i.e. acknowledging that the North won the war) but I assure you that both sides in this are equally sullied with plastic water bottles and flag poles that look to have been taken from the church auditorium.