People,THIS MOVIE BLOWS.It makes "Gods and Generals" look like "Citizen Cane".People say that "it's just a movie".So does that mean I should be able to give him an AK-47,modern camo and say it's a time warp or something?
This movie followed NO historiclly correct lines.Jesse charging a Gatlin Gun,he would have be mowed down.Gatlin Guns didn't need to be accurate because they put out alot of lead.The GG had a little devise on the underneat of the gun that would allow it to spray bullets.Jesse charging the Fed. line,PLEASE.All one soldier would have to do is shoot the horse and Jesse goes down.As a gurrilla,Frank would not have carried the Henry Rifle for the matter of lack of ammo.The CSA could not produce the brass rounds for Henry Rifles,and he would not have come in contact with Federals to get ammo.
When Jesse got shot in the arm,he WOULD BE IN PAIN!HE could not have been able to headbut Pinkerton.When they are robbing the first bank and the Native told the old man what they are doing,the old man would have told him to get lost because of him being Native American.Zee would have had her hair up,not in pig tails,not down.She's a country girl,not a beliveable one,but a country girl,but she would still try to look like a Victorian lady.When they are in the bar,the guy would have taken the hooker right there in the bar,not taking her up stairs.When the houses are being blown up,the men would have worn vest,cravets(ties),and jackets.Going aroumd in your suspenders would be like walking around naked today.Zee and Jesse would not have kissed in public,because in the 1860's that was to risky.That would be like making love in a concert hall today.Colin Ferral looks NOTHING like the real Jesse James,who is still much tougher than Ferral.Here's a like to see the real Jesse James in 1864: http://www.islandnet.com/~the-gang/jesse2.jpg
Notice no beard,no ruggedness.He looks like a young woman.In fact,here's the link to see all of Jesse's pictures: http://www.islandnet.com/~the-gang/jessepic.htm.Note how Colin Ferral looks nothing Jesse.
And the big thing was THEY WERE NOT ROBIN HOODS,stealing from the rich giving to the poor.THEY WERE HOODS-A-ROBIN,stealing from the rich giving to themsleves.
Folks,I can go on and on,but most of you are more then likly to simple minded to understand.This was a crappy movie.Not even the clothing looks correct.If you want to know why I know this,I'm an American history major.
Watch "XXX" for explosions,but don't make the true Jesse,Frank James and the Youngers turn in their graves.
Cullen Smith
reply
share
bioguyver43
19 years ago
OK, listen here pal. I don't care whether you know every single scrap of history in existence or not. The point is IT IS A MOVIE!!!!! It doesn't matter! Some people make movies to entertain while others make moves to educate. This was a movie to ENTERTAIN. It doesn't have to be accurate. Just as long as it entertains, it's OK. Besides, Jesse COULD outrun a Gatlin Gun because a horse moves faster than the people controling the gun. THINK! You need to seriously lighten up! I don't care what Jesse James actually looks like or how people acted or what they wore. I just care about how well the movie was made. And have you though for even a second that the director wasn't going for accuracy? you need to think about these kind of things before judging so harshly. If you want to be educated by a movie, go to a sex ed class. Otherwise, take the movie for what it is, not what you think it should be.
"There's no way my luck's that bad" - Del Spooner, I, Robot
reply
share
tenfed1861
19 years ago
Listin moron.I AM A HISTORIAN.I look at history for accuracy.I bet you thought Gods and Genrals was a good movie.Remeber,just because it has explosions in it doens't make it a good.This movie was a pice of crap a dog pushed out on the carpet.And no,one shot from a .58 Cal. Musket would put that horse down.Let's see Jesse out run it now.If you want an action movie,watch Die Hard.That's actually good.Don't make Jesse roll in his grave.
reply
share
bioguyver43
19 years ago
Guess what? I'm a 19-year-old kid going for a degree in Theatre, so watch who you're calling a moron. And yes, I liked God and Generals not because of the explosions, but because of how everyone played their characters. It's the same as with this movie. It's based in the file for "Entertainment," not "Boring History Lesson" (no offense, because I'm fascinated by history). It doesn't matter if it's historically accurate or not. It matters if it entertains the people who watch it or not. Besides, nowhere in the credits did I ever see an underscore saying "Based on Actual Events." I know enough history to know this isn't true. Same with Gods and Generals, even though it's closer to what happened. Also, since I'm going for a career in acting, I know people will one day look at my work and criticise it for not being a great performance or something like that. However, I will know it doesn't matter if it's based on actual events or not. What will matter is that people who watch it are entertained by it. I will know most of them didn't come for a history lesson (although in your case, I'll be very wary). I won't even care. I'll just care about them liking what they saw because of how I did my job. I'm not trying to argue with because you are more than likely my elder and I respect historians greatly for trying to teach young people like me what happened years before we were even born, and I've become a big fan of history because of people like you. I'm just trying to get you to see another side to the argument. Don't look at it for historical reference because frankly (and no offense is intended) people just don't care. Just look at it as a movie to either be entertained by or bored to sleep by. That's all.
"There's no way my luck's that bad" - Del Spooner, I, Robot
"That's a dirty trick! I'll kick the *beep* out of him!" - McCann, The Birthday Party
reply
share
tenfed1861
19 years ago
WRONG IDIOT.I know G&G was "closer to what happened".I know because I'M A HISTORY MAJOR.They did not cover Jackson's Valley Campaign.Lee was given command in 62,not 61.The characters were not true to who they were.Chamberlian was not so poetic,they were jokes.The costumes for G&G were wrong.I know becasue I had a friend work on that movie.He had an authentic VA militia uniform,the costume department handed him a pair of blue jeans to wear.No,not jean cloth,but deminem.
To be honest,I am trianed to look at a movie for historical accuracy because I have researched clothing of the period,as well as customs of the Victorian Age.
And authentisity means alot to me.
reply
share
couthlessgal
12 years ago
You keep repeating "I'M A HISTORY MAJOR" and calling the other poster "idiot" and "moron". I seriously question your education status, and here's why:
a) the grammar and spelling displayed in your posts is horrible. I'm no spelling nazi, but how in the HELL did you graduate high school---let alone get into a reputable college?
b) MAJORING in history does not make you an authority on historical authenticity. You have yet to master the usage of a thesaurus.
c) I'm a criminology major, in my senior year of college. That doesn't make me an expert on crime, I just happen to know a little more about the subject than those who are not interested by it. I have a lot of dues to pay before I can even hope to be an expert in my chosen field of study. Learning does not stop once the degree is hung on the wall.
My guess? You're a socially inept person, who spews nonsense and insults through a keyboard because you don't have the testicular fortitude to command the respect of your peers face-to-face.
My advice? Get your lazy ass off of the computer, and pick up a book. Try to aim for one with chapters in it. Learn to spell, space, and punctuate properly. Maybe, just MAYBE....someone will then take you seriously.
Most importantly---arrogance is not conducive to demonstrating knowledge or skill. Your attitude will always manage to deflect attention from every other quality you possess, and will determine how you are perceived by your audience.
reply
share