I didn't dislike the film, to be honest. It was competently made. And they burned lots of stuff, so it was entertaining.
It follows a group of Confederate soldiers who escape from a Union prison camp in Plattsburg, NY.
They proceed to run an undercover operation out of Montreal, in which they target the small town of Saint Albans in Vermont, with plans to rob their banks and raze the commercial area.
They are being led by Major Neal Benton, played by Van Heflin.
Van Heflin never became a major star, but he plays the role competently...though not particularly memorably.
Anne Bancroft plays a young widow and mother, who runs an inn, and becomes the focus of a love triangle between Benton and a Union soldier who lost his hand trying to get out of the war with an injury, prior to seeing combat (though he does show some signs of valour when faced with a dire situation)...and she was pretty much the highlight of this, for me.
Despite the story being about a confederate "victory", Fregonese has not portrayed the confederate characters in a positive light.
The underlying message clearly acts as a subtle condemnation of the perspective and mentality of the south, in general.
That message being, that despite knowing what they are doing is wrong, the hate that drives their hearts tends to override everything...reason, love, human decency, etc...so they do it anyways (though it must also be noted that there is also some condemnation of the acts committed by the union- which effectively spurred this particular campaign of retribution on).
Not only is this condemnation applied to this specific act, in the specific case of this film...it's also used as a metaphor for the motivations of the south as a whole.
So it makes no sense to watch this film- like some other commenters clearly have- and think that it is promoting the confederacy, southern culture, or this particular "victory" in any sort of positive light.
But I guess if you're grasping at straws, and never were good at understanding something as complex as context...then it really isn't that surprising.
Anyways...all of this is displayed in the storyline of Benton, the main character.
He is welcomed into the town with hospitality. He falls in love with the young widow- whose husband died fighting as a union soldier. And even becomes the town hero when he guns down one of his comrades, who gets drunk and goes on a rampage (because he was at risk of exposing their whole plot).
Yet he still goes through with his plan, effectively making him become exactly the type of monster he shot his compatriot for being.
So, despite the fact that they ride away with the loot, having razed the town in the end...the moral of the story suggests, they did so by handing their soul over to an eternity of hellfire.
Making the burning bridge at the end a dual metaphor.
All in all, though, as a western...it's really quite entertaining...with a decently constructed narrative, lots of gunfights, and pretty much the entire set getting burned down with molotov cocktails by the time it's all over.
But it's no masterpiece or anything.
6 out of 10.
It follows a group of Confederate soldiers who escape from a Union prison camp in Plattsburg, NY.
They proceed to run an undercover operation out of Montreal, in which they target the small town of Saint Albans in Vermont, with plans to rob their banks and raze the commercial area.
They are being led by Major Neal Benton, played by Van Heflin.
Van Heflin never became a major star, but he plays the role competently...though not particularly memorably.
Anne Bancroft plays a young widow and mother, who runs an inn, and becomes the focus of a love triangle between Benton and a Union soldier who lost his hand trying to get out of the war with an injury, prior to seeing combat (though he does show some signs of valour when faced with a dire situation)...and she was pretty much the highlight of this, for me.
Despite the story being about a confederate "victory", Fregonese has not portrayed the confederate characters in a positive light.
The underlying message clearly acts as a subtle condemnation of the perspective and mentality of the south, in general.
That message being, that despite knowing what they are doing is wrong, the hate that drives their hearts tends to override everything...reason, love, human decency, etc...so they do it anyways (though it must also be noted that there is also some condemnation of the acts committed by the union- which effectively spurred this particular campaign of retribution on).
Not only is this condemnation applied to this specific act, in the specific case of this film...it's also used as a metaphor for the motivations of the south as a whole.
So it makes no sense to watch this film- like some other commenters clearly have- and think that it is promoting the confederacy, southern culture, or this particular "victory" in any sort of positive light.
But I guess if you're grasping at straws, and never were good at understanding something as complex as context...then it really isn't that surprising.
Anyways...all of this is displayed in the storyline of Benton, the main character.
He is welcomed into the town with hospitality. He falls in love with the young widow- whose husband died fighting as a union soldier. And even becomes the town hero when he guns down one of his comrades, who gets drunk and goes on a rampage (because he was at risk of exposing their whole plot).
Yet he still goes through with his plan, effectively making him become exactly the type of monster he shot his compatriot for being.
So, despite the fact that they ride away with the loot, having razed the town in the end...the moral of the story suggests, they did so by handing their soul over to an eternity of hellfire.
Making the burning bridge at the end a dual metaphor.
All in all, though, as a western...it's really quite entertaining...with a decently constructed narrative, lots of gunfights, and pretty much the entire set getting burned down with molotov cocktails by the time it's all over.
But it's no masterpiece or anything.
6 out of 10.