UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (28) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: AngryCandy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 63271  
Subject: Gods and Generals Date: 2/20/2003 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sounds like this one is a total dud. Bummer. I really loved Gettysburg but when Gods and Generals got bumped from an Xmas release to February, I got worried. Then rumors began to leak that they wanted to just sweep this one under the rug. Now it's getting the kind of universally awful reviews usually saved for Tom Green. I don't think I can spend 4 hours in a theater to find out if the critics got it wrong.

-chris
Print the post Back To Top
Author: skybluewater Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26025 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 12:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't think I can spend 4 hours in a theater to find out if the critics got it wrong.

Come on. It's not like it's Gone With The Wind or anything.

Erik


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jacketfan Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26027 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 1:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I don't think I can spend 4 hours in a theater to find out if the critics got it wrong.

I'm not sure how it got released in theaters vs. TNT. I'll watch it on DVD when it comes out...I'm pretty easy to please. But no way am I going to see a made-for-cable movie at the theater.

- Tom


Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngryCandy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26029 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 2:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I'm not sure how it got released in theaters vs. TNT. I'll watch it on DVD when it comes out...I'm pretty easy to please. But no way am I going to see a made-for-cable movie at the theater.>>


Yeah, I think I'll wait too. I would love the chance to watch Gettysburg on the big screen though.

I'm a sucker for any competent Civil War material. Doesn't have to be good - just acceptable. I don't much care for Ken Burns' documentary style but I'll still buy the Civil War DVD set (as soon as I find a good price on it.)

-chris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: FoolYap Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26030 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 7:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Come on. It's not like it's Gone With The Wind or anything.

No, no; you need to tell him it's no longer than a double-feature of "American Beuaty" followed by "Forrest Gump". Helpful, --FY

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eboller Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26031 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 7:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Bummer, when I saw the preview during Two Towers I was really excited to see this one. Now I'm worried about getting stuck in the middle of a long-arse movie. I love Civil War history so I may be able to plod through this one anyway. I hope it isn't all that bad and the issue is more length of movie, but it doesn't appear that way from the one or two reviews I saw.

eric

Print the post Back To Top
Author: UhuraY2K Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26032 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 9:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
According to www.rottentomatoes.com, Gods and Generals got an 11% rating. Anything under 60% sucks; 11% sucks donkeys. Out of 45 reviews, only 5 said it was any good, and even those had reservations, the biggest being the blatant pro-Confederacy message of the movie.

Uhura :o)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jacketfan Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26033 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 3:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
and even those had reservations, the biggest being the blatant pro-Confederacy message of the movie.

Somehow I doubt it can be that pro-Confederacy. Just making the Southern characters into cheesy, sterotypical gentlemen wouldn't qualify in my book. Makes for a bad movie of course, but hardly pro-Confederacy.

And as to the comment I saw about "Someone needs to tell Maxwell the South lost the war:" That reviewer is an idiot. This movie takes place BEFORE Gettysburg, and back then the Confederate forces did quite well for themselves.

On a side note, has anyone read the book by Jeff Shaara? I didn't, but I did read his two-part story of the American Revolution and I thought it was outstanding.

- Tom


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Trick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26034 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 3:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
and even those had reservations, the biggest being the blatant pro-Confederacy message of the movie.

Somehow I doubt it can be that pro-Confederacy.


A movie that claims Lincoln started the war is pretty much the definition of pro-Confederacy.

It's like Bush defenders. There is a core 11% who will believe anything in line with their own screwed up logic.

Rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: eboller Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26035 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
A movie that claims Lincoln started the war is pretty much the definition of pro-Confederacy.


I disagree. One can think that Lincoln started the war, but not be a supporter of many of the things that the confederacy stood for (i.e. slavery).

Eric

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jacketfan Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26036 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 3:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
A movie that claims Lincoln started the war is pretty much the definition of pro-Confederacy.

It's like Bush defenders. There is a core 11% who will believe anything in line with their own screwed up logic.


OK, so how is showing that the Confederate characters in the movie BELIEVE Lincoln started the war anything other than reality? You would prefer they go around spouting "Well we know we brought this on ourselves and are a bunch of worthless slave-owning inbreeds, but damn those Yankees are touchy."

Or was Lincoln actually shown in the movie (or book for that matter) doing something other than what he historically in fact did, which was not appease the South thus sparking their rebellion?

- Tom


Print the post Back To Top
Author: mglf Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26037 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 6:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Lincoln...doing something other than what he historically in fact did, which was not appease the South thus sparking their rebellion?"

Jesus, I hate revisionism: If you don't klike the facts, make up ones you like instead.

South Carolina, Florida, Georgia. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas all seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. How the hell do you appease somebody if you aren't even in office?

From the beginning of Lincoln's sppech at his first inauguration:
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them."

What the hell is that if it isn't appeasement? Blaming Lincoln for starting the Civil War is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

m


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: alchook Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26039 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 7:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OK, so how is showing that the Confederate characters in the movie BELIEVE Lincoln started the war anything other than reality? You would prefer they go around spouting "Well we know we brought this on ourselves and are a bunch of worthless slave-owning inbreeds, but damn those Yankees are touchy."

Do any of the Confederate characters ever use the “n” word? I noticed in Gettysburg that the Rebs, when referring to slaves, sounded as if they were writing for the New York Times op-ed page.

Come to think of it, no American soldier in Forrest Gump ever used the word gook.




Print the post Back To Top
Author: SaintCroix Big red star, 1000 posts CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26040 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 7:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Blaming Lincoln for starting the Civil War is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

No, the two things aren't similar at all. The Holocaust was bad. The Civil War was both good and bad. It was bad because lots of Americans died (many of them needlessly, because of disease in POW camps). But it was also a just war, like World War II. It was one of those wars that had to be fought. I can't imagine the slaves being freed in any other way (although, I suppose, anything is possible).

In other words, saying "Lincoln started the Civil War" is sort of like saying "Lincoln fought a war in order to free the slaves." It's not an accusation of wrongdoing.

Having said all that, I think you're right, in part--Lincoln didn't start the Civil War. But that's a negative in Lincoln's historical record, not a positive.

My own opinion, I think we've done a bit of historical revisionism in favor of Lincoln. We say that he fought the war to free the slaves. That's only partially true, and it's definitively not true at the begining of the conflict.

Most of Lincoln's speeches at the time show that he was ready to appease the slaveowners. He thought slavery was immoral and wrong, but he didn't want to fight a war over the issue. In fact, for Lincoln the whole issue, at the beginning, was whether or not the South could leave the Union. He was quite willing (if you take his speeches at face value) to allow slavery to survive as an institution, as long as the South didn't secede. Lincoln was an abolitionist, but he was also willing to keep the status quo. (So he wasn't a fully committed abolitionist--not like John Brown, for example).

However, the South declared its independence. It was only then that Lincoln fought the war. He wasn't going to allow the South to secede.

I would (tentatively) suggest that one of the reasons the North failed so miserably in the early stages of the conflict was that Lincoln was defining the war on the South's terms--as a question of secession. This is a lousy motivation to fight a war, in my opinion. If California declared its independence today, my inclination would be to shrug my shoulders and let 'em go, not go over there and shoot Californians. Stopping a State from leaving the Union is not, on its own, a sufficient basis to motivate the troops.

It wasn't until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, halfway through the Civil War, that he put the war on a moral basis, in my opinion. Lincoln clarified that the war was not being fought over secession, but rather slavery. By doing this, Lincoln justified the war. Once he did that, it was easier to motivate the North to fight and win the conflict.

I'm being a little simplistic here. There were, of course, other factors that explained why the North did so badly in the beginning (like the qualities of the respective generals). But I think we tend to underestimate how important it is to win the hearts and minds of the people who actually fight the conflicts. I think most wars are won by the people whose motivations are strongest. We had a weak motivation to win the war in Vietnam. We lost. The North had a weak motivation to win the Civil War ("secession is bad"). The South had a strong motivation ("independence is good"). In other words, redefining the conflict as a question of abolition made the Civil War a just war, and (possibly) helped the North actually win the conflict.

Anyway, if Lincoln started the Civil War in order to free the slaves, that would be a good thing. But Lincoln didn't do that.


Taylor

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26041 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 8:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
It's like Bush defenders. There is a core 11% who will believe anything in line with their own screwed up logic.

Rick


I want to apologize for my friend Trick. We've tried everything--tied weights to his ankles, injected his leg muscles with botox, but nothing we've done so far has managed to stop him from the occasional jerk of the knee. I really don't think he can help it.

--fleg


Print the post Back To Top
Author: UhuraY2K Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26043 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/21/2003 10:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
On a side note, has anyone read the book by Jeff Shaara? I didn't, but I did read his two-part story of the American Revolution and I thought it was outstanding.

I haven't read the Civil War book yet, but the two parter on the American Revolution is on my must read list.

Uhura :o)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26052 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 2:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<Do any of the Confederate characters ever use the “n” word?>

Not in "Gods & Generals". But Tom Chamberlain, younger brother of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and an officer in the 20th Maine Regiment, does say "darkies". But his older brother quickly admonishes him not to use that term anymore.

I saw the movie tonight. My take is posted at:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=18630467

if anyone here is interested.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26057 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 4:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Blaming Lincoln for starting the Civil War is like blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.>>--m

Well, I don't quite see that analogy, no matter what light I shine on it. But you are quite right about the secessionist movement having a big head of steam before Lincoln took office.

But what was portrayed in "Gods and Generals" on this was all about Virginia. As I understand it, Virginia was one of the last to secede. In the opening scene of the movie, Col. Robert E. Lee, U.S. Army, is offered Supreme Command of the Army of the Potomac, then being raised by Lincoln. At that moment, VA had not yet seceded, though the legislature was in session and the issue was clearly up for consideration. Lincoln's messenger to Col. Lee, Blair, tried to persuade Lee that Virginia and the border States would not necessarily secede. But Lee wasn't buying in to their argument. Next scene he is present in the legislative chamber at Richmond to accept command of the A.N.V.

What there is in the dialogue is a few comments about Lincoln "raising an army" against southern agitators as being strong motivation for defending one's hearth and home. I don't think even that dialogue got so far as to suggest that Lincoln literally started the war. It is clear that that horse was already out of the barn. A few Virginians just used the issue of Lincoln's military build-up as additional excuse to join in with the deep-South radicals.

At least that was the way I saw it, the first time through.

/s/ S.T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngryCandy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26058 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 5:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
With 75 reviews at rottentomatoes, the film is now at an amazing 8% on the meter - 69 negative reviews and 6 positive. And of the 6 positive, a few are only generously labeled positive.

I thought it might be the lowest rated film ever on the meter with, say, 50+ reviews but apparently not.

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever got 95 reviews on tomato - 95 negative.

I think that's the tomato record for most reviews with 0% positive. Anyone find a "better" one?

The Taste of Others appears to be the record holder in the 100% group, going 57 for 57.

-chris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26059 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 5:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<With 75 reviews at rottentomatoes, the film is now at an amazing 8% on the meter - 69 negative reviews and 6 positive.>>--ac

I wonder why I'm not surprised at that? One look at "rottentomatoes" and it is obvious that the clamour there is all from assorted eggheads competing to outjingo each other with the kind of baloney that is traditionally served up by the NY theatre press. I'd give them about as much weight toward ascertaining the truth as I would give all those far-left political posts over on the PA Board that garner dozens and dozens of recs. They have their constituency, and they can bring it out on cue, usually. But they rarely, rarely represent the majority view.

I'd be surprised, frankly, if 75 people posting on "rottentomatoes" could tell you what decade of what century the Civil War took place in and on what portion of what continent it happened. They should acquire a better respect for history. And when they see history replayed in dramatic form, they should appreciate it like good opera--you know what is coming, yet you pay attention to make sure the performers get it right, one more time.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngryCandy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26073 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 8:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
<<I wonder why I'm not surprised at that? One look at "rottentomatoes" and it is obvious that the clamour there is all from assorted eggheads competing to outjingo each other with the kind of baloney that is traditionally served up by the NY theatre press. I'd give them about as much weight toward ascertaining the truth as I would give all those far-left political posts over on the PA Board that garner dozens and dozens of recs. They have their constituency, and they can bring it out on cue, usually>>


Uh, I'm not sure if that's really the reactionary knee-jerk anti-intellectual spew it seemed to be so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The critics loved Gettysburg. They despised Gods and Generals. I think that suggests your theory doesn't hold much water. It's a movie and it needs to be evaluated as such. Merely being historically accurate has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good movie.

-chris

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Springtex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26089 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/22/2003 4:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Uh, I'm not sure if that's really the reactionary knee-jerk anti-intellectual spew it seemed to be so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.>>--ac

It was specially designed for your consumption, dude. No doubt. Except the "anti-intellectual" part, which is n/a.

Enjoy dwelling in the commune with the critics. Meanwhile, we'll enjoy the movie.

/s/ S.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: exoracle Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26138 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/24/2003 8:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I don't think I can spend 4 hours in a theater to find out if the critics got it wrong.

I just heard that the DVD is planned for six hours. So you can save two hours of your life by seeing it now.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gassendi Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26167 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/26/2003 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The National Review reviews Gods and Generals:

The problem for Gods and Generals as history is that the first part of the Lost Cause argument is demonstrably false. Slavery, not states right, was both the proximate and deep cause of the war. There was no constitutional right to dissolve the Union. Southerners could have invoked the natural right of revolution, but they didn't because of the implications for a slave-holding society, so they were hardly the heirs of the Revolutionary generation.

http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens022503.asp

Mike

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Trick Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26168 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/26/2003 7:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Somebody talk me down from this ledge. I am thinking of going to see Gods and Generals tonight.

Please, for the love of Mike, stop my madness.

Rick

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jacketfan Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26169 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/26/2003 8:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Somebody talk me down from this ledge. I am thinking of going to see Gods and Generals tonight.

Please, for the love of Mike, stop my madness.


Nah, go ahead. Just make sure you boo and hiss loudly anytime any of the Southern characters are portrayed as anything other than oppresive, evil people.

- Tom


Print the post Back To Top
Author: UhuraY2K Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26170 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 2/26/2003 8:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I haven't seen Gods and Generals yet, and I have no intention of doing so in any theater. My reason for this can be summed up in four words: Four. Butt. Numbing. Hours.

Here's my question for anyone who has seen it: Does the movie even mention Unionist pockets in the Confederacy? The western portion of Virginia defected to became a separate Union state, and troops had to be sent to East Tennessee to stop that section from following suit (just think, we would have had 51 states if that happened).

Uhura :o)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheNajdorfDefens Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 26181 of 63271
Subject: Re: Gods and Generals Date: 3/1/2003 12:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I just heard from a guy in the film business here that this movie was originally 6 and a half hours.

Yikes.

Naj

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (28) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement