John Frankenheimer pain stakingly chronicles prisoners of war struggling to survive in an ill run Confederate prison camp during the Civil War. New prisoners are savagely introduced to the pecking order in this small pit of hell. Strong images support the story line for this well written and produced epic. Featured cast members in this trial of humanity are:Frederic Forrest, William Sanderson, Jarrod Emick, Jayce Bartok, Cliff De Young, Justin Henry and William H. Macy. It is hard to find fault in this glimpse of the notorious place called Andersonville.
24 Reviews
Life In Hell
sddavis6311 January 2010
This is a sobering, if perhaps a bit too long, recreation of life in the notorious Confederate Camp Sumter (better known as Andersonville after the neighbouring community) which housed almost 50000 Union prisoners of war during the last year and a half of the Civil War. I found it difficult to determine from what perspective the story was being told - which perhaps makes it a fairly balanced movie. There's no doubt that the Confederate guards were portrayed as ruthless, and that Captain Henry Wirtz, the Camp's commander, was portrayed as both ruthless and perhaps a bit insane, but the bulk of the movie really deals with the problem of factionalism between the Union prisoners, as a group known as the "Raiders" establish their own ruthless control over the other prisoners, stealing from them, withholding supplies from them and sometimes murdering them. The first half of the movie dealt largely with this internal conflict, and was very interesting. The point at which the rest of the prisoners rebelled against them and finally, with Wirtz's approval, put them on trial, seemed to mark a transition in the movie. After their trial and the execution of the ringleaders, the movie took on more of an air of hopelessness (and perhaps became a bit less interesting), as the prisoners await a liberation that, in the movie at least, never comes, as the movie ends with the prisoners being transferred to other prisons.
The movie begins somewhat abruptly with Union soldiers captured in battle being sent into the hellhole that was Andersonville, but there was no real historical context given. It might have been more interesting to see the camp from the beginning, and to trace the descent of the camp into what it became. The whole Andersonville issue is historically controversial, and the movie alludes to the controversy, with Wirtz pleading with a Confederate colonel sent to inspect the camp for more supplies, and many today think Wirtz was unfairly condemned after the war for a situation that was largely out of his control. I thought his portrayal in the movie was fair. Others complain that conditions in Union camps were also harsh, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of evaluating this movie, which certainly presented a sobering enough look at the conditions in this particular camp - which was, after all, its purpose.
The movie features not a stellar cast (there are some fairly well known faces, but no mega-stars) but a solid cast that did a pretty good job with their roles. 7/10
The movie begins somewhat abruptly with Union soldiers captured in battle being sent into the hellhole that was Andersonville, but there was no real historical context given. It might have been more interesting to see the camp from the beginning, and to trace the descent of the camp into what it became. The whole Andersonville issue is historically controversial, and the movie alludes to the controversy, with Wirtz pleading with a Confederate colonel sent to inspect the camp for more supplies, and many today think Wirtz was unfairly condemned after the war for a situation that was largely out of his control. I thought his portrayal in the movie was fair. Others complain that conditions in Union camps were also harsh, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of evaluating this movie, which certainly presented a sobering enough look at the conditions in this particular camp - which was, after all, its purpose.
The movie features not a stellar cast (there are some fairly well known faces, but no mega-stars) but a solid cast that did a pretty good job with their roles. 7/10
Brutal honesty
mvike1 February 2020
Shows that neither side always knew what they were fighting for, as the case in most wars. Also shows the brutal side of humanity, as men on the same side killed one another when desperate...or at times just for slightly more comfort.
Don't really know who any of the actors were for the most part, and they were all GREAT! The main villain was little cheesy, but overall the acting was 9/10.
If you're interested in the civil war as it likely was, this is probably close to as real as you'll get as far as being a POW during it. Should be required viewing in high school.
Don't really know who any of the actors were for the most part, and they were all GREAT! The main villain was little cheesy, but overall the acting was 9/10.
If you're interested in the civil war as it likely was, this is probably close to as real as you'll get as far as being a POW during it. Should be required viewing in high school.
Finally, the Civil War, down and dirty
PMFan31 May 1999
The movie Andersonville was one of intense drama. The historical subject matter made the film all the more pertinent to society today. Man against Man, Brother against Brother. That is what the Civil War was, and Andersonville was its worst. Men treating other men like animals and game for sport. The utter despair. The terrible suffering.
Andersonville is set during the Civil War, in the south, in a Prisoner Of War camp run by the Confederate Army. The story depicts the conditions of suffering that the Union soldiers endured while held captive. The best and the worst of humanity is shown in this film as the viewer is shown all ends of the spectrum of pain and suffering.
Peter Murnik's character, Limber Jim, was the voice of conscience in this film. Jim was the one who finally stood up to the injustice that other Union soldiers were enacting against their fellows. It was Jim who rallied the troops to a riot to stop the "Raiders" from continuing their carnage. Not a single 'Peter' scene went by without the viewer sensing the intensity. He portrayed it in his face, in his demeanor and most of all, in his eyes. In this film, Peter said so much without uttering a word. The look he gave in his eyes told the viewer the intensity of his feelings. His determination. His desire to see the wrongs righted. In a sense, Limber Jim was one of the saviours of this film. His standing up to the injustice he witnessed and lived through, enabled his fellow prisoners to also rise up and change the world around them, as small as it was.
In spite of the fact that this was a film and an artistic production, the real Andersonville shone through. The viewer came away knowing the despair that the Union soldiers felt and lived. There was no question that humanity, as a whole, had been wronged by the cruelty that took place at Andersonville. The human race came away from Andersonville worse off for having realized that we could fall so far from the very civilization we pride ourselves on creating to treat other fellow human beings the way the Union soldiers were treated.
Andersonville actually existed, and does so today as a Federal Park and tourist attraction. This movie is a very good link in telling the tale that so many never got to tell. The actors, staff and crew of Andersonville did such a magnificent job that anyone seeing this movie will know what it was like to have been there. They will know the suffering, the pain, the disease, the despair. The cast and crew are to be applauded for their efforts.
In his bio, Peter lists Andersonville as one of the projects he is most proud of. And, well he should be. He did an excellent performance and is to be commended. It will go down as one of the favorites with his fans. Once again, Peter's genius comes shining through.
Andersonville is set during the Civil War, in the south, in a Prisoner Of War camp run by the Confederate Army. The story depicts the conditions of suffering that the Union soldiers endured while held captive. The best and the worst of humanity is shown in this film as the viewer is shown all ends of the spectrum of pain and suffering.
Peter Murnik's character, Limber Jim, was the voice of conscience in this film. Jim was the one who finally stood up to the injustice that other Union soldiers were enacting against their fellows. It was Jim who rallied the troops to a riot to stop the "Raiders" from continuing their carnage. Not a single 'Peter' scene went by without the viewer sensing the intensity. He portrayed it in his face, in his demeanor and most of all, in his eyes. In this film, Peter said so much without uttering a word. The look he gave in his eyes told the viewer the intensity of his feelings. His determination. His desire to see the wrongs righted. In a sense, Limber Jim was one of the saviours of this film. His standing up to the injustice he witnessed and lived through, enabled his fellow prisoners to also rise up and change the world around them, as small as it was.
In spite of the fact that this was a film and an artistic production, the real Andersonville shone through. The viewer came away knowing the despair that the Union soldiers felt and lived. There was no question that humanity, as a whole, had been wronged by the cruelty that took place at Andersonville. The human race came away from Andersonville worse off for having realized that we could fall so far from the very civilization we pride ourselves on creating to treat other fellow human beings the way the Union soldiers were treated.
Andersonville actually existed, and does so today as a Federal Park and tourist attraction. This movie is a very good link in telling the tale that so many never got to tell. The actors, staff and crew of Andersonville did such a magnificent job that anyone seeing this movie will know what it was like to have been there. They will know the suffering, the pain, the disease, the despair. The cast and crew are to be applauded for their efforts.
In his bio, Peter lists Andersonville as one of the projects he is most proud of. And, well he should be. He did an excellent performance and is to be commended. It will go down as one of the favorites with his fans. Once again, Peter's genius comes shining through.
And what do you call this little piece of heaven?
hitchcockthelegend20 July 2016
The American Civil War, and Union soldiers are imprisoned at Andersonville, a crude stockade establishment presided over by the inept and cruel Captain Henry Wirz. It would prove to be a another dark and soul destroying chapter from the war.
Lets get it out there right away, Andersonville was not the only hell hole prison operating during the American Civil War. Information from both sides of the coin is available on line for those wishing to explore further. That said, Andersonville is a story that deserved and is needed to be told, and this John Frankenheimer directed two - parter brings it vividly into the viewers' lives.
In filmic substance terms it has all the standard POW movie cliche's. We follow a group of prisoners and a group of "convict bullies", with those in authority observing menacingly and proving desperately carefree as to the conditions of the prison and of humane traits in general.
But as formulaic as it ultimately is, there's a determination by the makers to keep the characterisations real and viable, and they achieve this in spades. Pic is also boosted by superb period detail, costuming is grade "A", while the production and art design for the prison is harrowingly effective.
Frankenheimer's tracking shots brings home the enormity of the misery, while Gary Chang's score is thankfully never bombastic. Cast are a mixed bag - to be expected in such a large ensemble piece - and you can't help but yearn for more of William H. Macy.
Yet even though 30 minutes could easily have been shaved off of the run time, Andersonville is a production that should stay with you. The coda serving to remind us that that should be the case. 7/10
Lets get it out there right away, Andersonville was not the only hell hole prison operating during the American Civil War. Information from both sides of the coin is available on line for those wishing to explore further. That said, Andersonville is a story that deserved and is needed to be told, and this John Frankenheimer directed two - parter brings it vividly into the viewers' lives.
In filmic substance terms it has all the standard POW movie cliche's. We follow a group of prisoners and a group of "convict bullies", with those in authority observing menacingly and proving desperately carefree as to the conditions of the prison and of humane traits in general.
But as formulaic as it ultimately is, there's a determination by the makers to keep the characterisations real and viable, and they achieve this in spades. Pic is also boosted by superb period detail, costuming is grade "A", while the production and art design for the prison is harrowingly effective.
Frankenheimer's tracking shots brings home the enormity of the misery, while Gary Chang's score is thankfully never bombastic. Cast are a mixed bag - to be expected in such a large ensemble piece - and you can't help but yearn for more of William H. Macy.
Yet even though 30 minutes could easily have been shaved off of the run time, Andersonville is a production that should stay with you. The coda serving to remind us that that should be the case. 7/10
Without bias.
Gettysburg2000go7 March 2001
As a practicing Civil War re-enactor, I have found myself drawn into viewing this movie several times. I considered the movie to be the result of a very thorough and extensive research done by its creators. Everything was completely in accordance with what we in the re-enacting community call "of the period". I am speaking of authenticity. I have studied the true-life accounts left to us in the words of both Union and Confederate soldiers found in exerpts from the pages of their personal diaries, and in so doing, I have been able to combine this newly acquired knowledge with other experiences and studies related to this time period in our nation's history. After doing this, I was then able to formulate unbiased opinions about the movie.
We have to remember that the people of the middle nineteenth century were men and women just like us. There was nothing "mysterious" about their ways, their words, their fears and all their other emotions. I felt that these natural human reactions and outlooks were well portrayed by the actors of the movie, "Andersonville".
We have to remember that the people of the middle nineteenth century were men and women just like us. There was nothing "mysterious" about their ways, their words, their fears and all their other emotions. I felt that these natural human reactions and outlooks were well portrayed by the actors of the movie, "Andersonville".
Good Civil War Movie
tiagoabreu200731 August 2018
This was a good Civil War movie. It doesn't say so here but I'm pretty sure this was a made for TV movie? Or maybe when I saw it it actually was not new. I saw it on TV back in the 90's I guess 96.
There weren't any big stars in it but the acting was quite good. The story focuses on the infamous Andersonville prisoner of war camp in the south during the Civil War, where starvation, cruelty and disease were rampant among the captured union soldiers.
The movie holds back a lot, I think because it was made for TV like I said, and they obviously didn't put tons of money into it, but the story is good and the acting is quite good which elevates this to a higher rating. It's not easy to find but I did track it down online, give it a watch if you are a fan of this genre.
There weren't any big stars in it but the acting was quite good. The story focuses on the infamous Andersonville prisoner of war camp in the south during the Civil War, where starvation, cruelty and disease were rampant among the captured union soldiers.
The movie holds back a lot, I think because it was made for TV like I said, and they obviously didn't put tons of money into it, but the story is good and the acting is quite good which elevates this to a higher rating. It's not easy to find but I did track it down online, give it a watch if you are a fan of this genre.
One of the best Civil War films Ever
Tilla-225 November 2002
As a Civil War buff, this is one of my favorite films.
If you enjoy romantic war stories, don't rent this. There are no romantic plot lines or even women in the movie. The closest thing to a romantic plot line would be when Martin speaks of his wife and asks Josiah to send her his wedding ring.
If you enjoy war films that are not cluttered with cliche romantic plots and are more like buddy films this one is for you. The acting is amazing, and the story if fresh look at a little known part of Civil War history.
The only problem with the film is time spent watching the men weaken and starve. Those scenes could have been cut a bit, but overall they are needed in order to feel the despair of the men.
The story and characters are completely enthralling and I recommend this film to everyone. Just be prepared to cry.
If you enjoy romantic war stories, don't rent this. There are no romantic plot lines or even women in the movie. The closest thing to a romantic plot line would be when Martin speaks of his wife and asks Josiah to send her his wedding ring.
If you enjoy war films that are not cluttered with cliche romantic plots and are more like buddy films this one is for you. The acting is amazing, and the story if fresh look at a little known part of Civil War history.
The only problem with the film is time spent watching the men weaken and starve. Those scenes could have been cut a bit, but overall they are needed in order to feel the despair of the men.
The story and characters are completely enthralling and I recommend this film to everyone. Just be prepared to cry.
Solid film, but nothing stellar
Menri1143328 July 2005
Good movie, some electric acting and action scenes, but drifts into the arena of silly on more than a handful of occasions.
Gotta disagree with some of "historynut"'s points....for one, I think the TV Guide review of this film hit the nail on the head with regards to the acting: "the performances have the subtlety of sports broadcasting". And that excludes Jan Triska's performance as Captain Wirtz, which I think stole the film along with William Sanderson and Freddy Coffin. All three are over-the-top performances, but each actor knew how to pull it off. The main group of "heroes", however, played up everything they could to IMAX-scale proportions. Oftn to the point where sometimes....well, cartoonish wouldn't too far off in describing it.
And as far as the use of reenactors, Frankenheimer does use them very well here, as mentioned by historynut. Where it slips away from him seem to be the stunts...check out the prisoner v.s. raider brawl, led by Limber Jim. There's some play-fighting going on that has not been seen since my high school production of West Side Story.
And as far as past reenactor usage in film...I agree they were used well in Glory. I also agree that reenactors were used not-so-well in "Gettysburg". However, for all its instrinsic faults, Maxwell seemed to have learned his lesson when using reenactors in "Gods and Generals". There was a FAR more strict screening process in the casting of onscrean reenactors than in "Gettysburg" (I, too, participated in that film). As well, and perhaps most importantly, Maxwell did not let ANY reenactor attempt his own "death" or even "maiming" in any of the major battle shots without prior expressed permission by him, his A.D. or his stunt coordinator. When reenactors were chosen to "get hit", they were then properly coached in how to take a death fall, and placed strategically away from the actors and stuntmen. "Gods and Generals" also had a much higher production value than here, but that goes with the huge budget the film had.
Gotta disagree with some of "historynut"'s points....for one, I think the TV Guide review of this film hit the nail on the head with regards to the acting: "the performances have the subtlety of sports broadcasting". And that excludes Jan Triska's performance as Captain Wirtz, which I think stole the film along with William Sanderson and Freddy Coffin. All three are over-the-top performances, but each actor knew how to pull it off. The main group of "heroes", however, played up everything they could to IMAX-scale proportions. Oftn to the point where sometimes....well, cartoonish wouldn't too far off in describing it.
And as far as the use of reenactors, Frankenheimer does use them very well here, as mentioned by historynut. Where it slips away from him seem to be the stunts...check out the prisoner v.s. raider brawl, led by Limber Jim. There's some play-fighting going on that has not been seen since my high school production of West Side Story.
And as far as past reenactor usage in film...I agree they were used well in Glory. I also agree that reenactors were used not-so-well in "Gettysburg". However, for all its instrinsic faults, Maxwell seemed to have learned his lesson when using reenactors in "Gods and Generals". There was a FAR more strict screening process in the casting of onscrean reenactors than in "Gettysburg" (I, too, participated in that film). As well, and perhaps most importantly, Maxwell did not let ANY reenactor attempt his own "death" or even "maiming" in any of the major battle shots without prior expressed permission by him, his A.D. or his stunt coordinator. When reenactors were chosen to "get hit", they were then properly coached in how to take a death fall, and placed strategically away from the actors and stuntmen. "Gods and Generals" also had a much higher production value than here, but that goes with the huge budget the film had.
One of the best movies I have ever seen
panties50005 June 2006
If you ever find yourself with a long afternoon and nothing to do, head down to the video store and pick this one up. For drama-lovers, this is about the most dramatic movie around. Andersonville reveals so much about human nature as clans of prisoners form and battle each other for limited resources, some become delusional and die in the throngs of madness, and others starve from sheer despair. The complex characters in the film are its most compelling element, and their realism will convince the viewer that he is watching these scenes unfold from the guard tower. I was glued to the screen for the whole (very long) movie. It gets even better when you realize that 15,000 prisoners actually died in this camp in the Civil War.
Enjoyable Character Film
pillboxmg13 April 2019
At first I thought this might be an anti-confederate propaganda piece. While I am sure some of it was exaggerated. Like in most wars both sides had people who enjoyed others suffering. The real life camp commander was hung after the war for good reason. As you will see in the film. His bad behavior and cruelty is a crux of the plot. In that he gravitated to the role due to a personality that liked inflicting un-neccesary suffering on captured soldiers in a war (not criminals).
With the dynamic of the film not just being Confederates against Yankies, also the element of the unprincipled 'Raiders'. Essentially a civil war era prison capo, given favorable treatment to boss the camp for the confederates.
One of my favorite moments in the film is when a raider who is to reveal the location of a tunnel is dealt with. This part is one of those where you look away and look back. Won't say more on that cos it would spoil it.
It's not the best action film. But as a story this is great. The personality of the prisoners is portrayed superbly by a largely green cast (in 1996). It is important that you can empathise with the characters and that is done brilliantly here and probably why I would give it an 8 and not a 7. Matinee.
With the dynamic of the film not just being Confederates against Yankies, also the element of the unprincipled 'Raiders'. Essentially a civil war era prison capo, given favorable treatment to boss the camp for the confederates.
One of my favorite moments in the film is when a raider who is to reveal the location of a tunnel is dealt with. This part is one of those where you look away and look back. Won't say more on that cos it would spoil it.
It's not the best action film. But as a story this is great. The personality of the prisoners is portrayed superbly by a largely green cast (in 1996). It is important that you can empathise with the characters and that is done brilliantly here and probably why I would give it an 8 and not a 7. Matinee.
Rather Disappointing
Venge4 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Having looked forward to seeing this film for quite a while, I was quite let down when I finally managed to view it. Andersonville is a story that needed to be told, but this telling of the tale rattles and rambles trying to find its sense of direction. The production suffers from a rather poorly written script and mediocre acting. There were some decent scenes, and a few good performances, but by and large this was a rather jumbled, boring, over-long, predictable mess. It could have been, and deserved to be, so much more.
So unless you really have to see a movie about this notorious prisoner of war camp, I'd give this one a miss.
So unless you really have to see a movie about this notorious prisoner of war camp, I'd give this one a miss.
Best Civil War Film Ever!
historynut18 February 2004
My opinion is that Andersonville is the best Civil War movie ever made, period. As a former Civil War reenactor, I'm not going to sit here and nitpick at all the "mistakes." Were there mistakes? Sure. The timeline was a little fuzzy for one. But that does not detract from the power of this movie. The guards were not well fed regulars either, but so what? You don't have to take a test after watching this movie!
I think the REAL factor in Andersonville being such a great production was the fact that you had no real "name" people involved. Fredric Forrest may have been the biggest name in the film and is a career role actor - but WHAT an actor! These guys busted their balls for this film and it really shows. I heard one reenactor complain that the characters seemed "cartoonish," and I don't buy it. I bet he was refering to Jan Triska who played Wirz. Well, read up on Wirz. I think they got it pretty close.
Forgive me, my reenacting brethern, but alhough Gettysburg was a tolerable film (I got to be an extra in that) and Gods and Generals was a disaster, the problem with these productions was the fact that they relied way too heavily on reenactors. Reenactors are NOT actors! They were used most effectively in Glory, not so well in Gettysburg, and Gods and Generals? Don't want to even go there. Andersonville followed Glory's success formula in using reenactors as background with small parts filled in by them (my buddy Martin Leibschner playing the banjo in the Raider camp was a good use of the talent reenactors can bring to film).
Frankenheimer must be given a lot of credit, as should the writer. The script did get a little cheesy here and there, but not enough again to trash the overall production. Jarrod Emick (sp?) as Josiah Day did a nice job, but until that point he had been a stage actor mostly, and his voice inflections projected that. Still, he did a great job. Peter Murnik as Limber Jim added that "mystery character" to the film well (as the real Limber Jim who was at Andersonville is a mystery to history). Again, I can't think of one lame performance by any of the key actors here. They put 110% into the job and I commend them for it. And whoever was involved in the set design was on the ball too. To try and recreate that place was no small task.
I remember a reenactor bitching because for the "filling" of the stockade for the wide shots, they had to use women and even cardboard figures. Big frekin deal! When they are dots on the screen, did it REALLY matter?
I can't see this movie being topped in terms of a Civil War period piece. Hollywierd is always bent on turning just about every period piece into some type of romance for the younger target audience. Andersonville is certainly a refreshing change of pace to that drill.
I think the REAL factor in Andersonville being such a great production was the fact that you had no real "name" people involved. Fredric Forrest may have been the biggest name in the film and is a career role actor - but WHAT an actor! These guys busted their balls for this film and it really shows. I heard one reenactor complain that the characters seemed "cartoonish," and I don't buy it. I bet he was refering to Jan Triska who played Wirz. Well, read up on Wirz. I think they got it pretty close.
Forgive me, my reenacting brethern, but alhough Gettysburg was a tolerable film (I got to be an extra in that) and Gods and Generals was a disaster, the problem with these productions was the fact that they relied way too heavily on reenactors. Reenactors are NOT actors! They were used most effectively in Glory, not so well in Gettysburg, and Gods and Generals? Don't want to even go there. Andersonville followed Glory's success formula in using reenactors as background with small parts filled in by them (my buddy Martin Leibschner playing the banjo in the Raider camp was a good use of the talent reenactors can bring to film).
Frankenheimer must be given a lot of credit, as should the writer. The script did get a little cheesy here and there, but not enough again to trash the overall production. Jarrod Emick (sp?) as Josiah Day did a nice job, but until that point he had been a stage actor mostly, and his voice inflections projected that. Still, he did a great job. Peter Murnik as Limber Jim added that "mystery character" to the film well (as the real Limber Jim who was at Andersonville is a mystery to history). Again, I can't think of one lame performance by any of the key actors here. They put 110% into the job and I commend them for it. And whoever was involved in the set design was on the ball too. To try and recreate that place was no small task.
I remember a reenactor bitching because for the "filling" of the stockade for the wide shots, they had to use women and even cardboard figures. Big frekin deal! When they are dots on the screen, did it REALLY matter?
I can't see this movie being topped in terms of a Civil War period piece. Hollywierd is always bent on turning just about every period piece into some type of romance for the younger target audience. Andersonville is certainly a refreshing change of pace to that drill.
A Civil War Morality Tale...
Quinn-510 December 1998
"Andersonville" is John Frankenheimer's most pivotal step in his quest to regain a perch on Hollywood's "A" list of directors, and he is in true Frankenheimer form in this latest of TNT, Civil War-oriented mini-series. Quite simply, it's about a group of Union soldiers and their span of a year doing hard time in the most infamous of Southern prison camps, and one of the most infamous of prison camps in recorded history, Andersonville, Georgia. Andersonville the prison is literally a fenced-in cesspool of humanity: it's grossly overcrowded, there's not enough food to go around, there's no shelter from the heat or cold, the creek used for drinking water is the same used as a latrine by the camp's entire population, and, on top of all this, there's a vicious gang of marauding prisoner's that prey on their weaker counterparts, taking their clothing and what little food they may have for themselves. I began watching this film expecting a smaller, tamer, less original version of "The Shawshank Redemption", and at several points you'll think likewise: we witness acts of both harsh brutality and stirring compassion, and follow our hero's as they decline physically and struggle to succeed morally. But the period setting and the freshness of the subject make it appealing more often than not. What's interesting about this big-budget, well-hyped production, though, is that the entire cast are relative unknowns, the lead role being held by a young Broadway actor named Jarrod Emick, who's acting demonstrates he is just that: a Broadway actor. He projects his voice and over-emphasizes words as though onstage, and when a dramatic monologue is in order, his facial contortions rival the worst case of constipation one can imagine. The length of "Andersonville" is a problem, as after awhile it just runs out of stuff to say, and appears to be chipping away at the minutes until the conclusion. After all, how many scenes can one sit through of watching deteriorating men rot away in sheets of rain or stifling holes in the ground . . . look for a deliciously vicious role by Frederick Coffin as the evil prison gang's leader, and William Sanderson as his cowardly right hand man. There's also a small role by William H. Macy as a Confederate prison inspector who discovers the camp's horrors and condemns it . . . great score by Gary Chang.
One of those little-known stories
lou-24227 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film when it first came out 1996, and for all its flaws it's always had a special place with me - especially among the more romantic / heroic Civil War stories - for telling a story few of us have heard. I've recently watched the film again having just returned from a trip that included a visit to the actual site near Americus, GA. There is nothing of the original camp there except - perhaps fittingly - the cemetery (still active) and the creek which was the source of more miser than relief. Two small sections of the stockade (one with gate) have been re-created and the location of the stockade / dead line has been outlined by white stakes. Read the real history of this camp and the history of the Union equivalent in Elmira, New York. SPOILER: in the cemetery, with its rows upon rows of markers where the dead were buried in trenches shoulder-to-shoulder, are six lone headstones together but apart from the rest of the markers...these are the six Raider ringleaders who were tried and hanged...though buried in ignominy who still got better than they deserved, if you ask me.
Excellent Civil War movie.
dcrumlis30 March 2010
This is one of my favorite Civil War movies ever. Ted Turner must be given much credit for bringing these entertaining and educational movies to the screen. Set in Andersonville prison in the last years of the Civil War, this movie follows the fate of a group of prisoners captured at Cold Harbor. Superbly directed by John Frankenheimer, this movie was very well done, and all the actors involved did a great job. I thought that Frederick Coffin and William Sanderson really brought the villainous 'Raiders' to life. Also special mention to Frederic Forrest and Jan Triska. Having recently visited Andersonville prison site, thoughts of this movie ran thru my head as I walked the grounds of the old stockade. Movies like this help us remember the great sacrifices made by both the Blue and the Gray during our nations Civil War.
Awesome - The Title For That Great Movie Should Also read War Is All Hell
denis88812 November 2012
For a long time, I was rather suspicious about this movie, despite my lifelong interest in the US Civil War theme. The movie seemed to be bland, long, vapid, without stellar cast, or rather grim. Than, I watched it. It lasts for almost 3 hours, and yet, it is one of The best movies I have ever seen for along, long time. This movie must be shown to all those who like to think that was is fun and action. Nope. War is all hell. it is dirt, deprivation, hunger, blood, suffering, angst, death, despair, pain and mud. Thus yellow, think, fat stick yellow mud is a great symbol of the movie and a great reminder of the ultimate destination of all warheads - soil. Grave. Death. The movie is long, but never wastes a second of a precious time. The brilliantly made casting, with such greats as Willaim Macy or Mr. Forrester among many, helps to build a great tension and produce a lasting impression - war is all hell. The terrible fate of Andersonville prison camp inmates is shown so brutally vivid, so real, so true to life that nothing of an illusion remains whatsoever. War is all hell. This is a decent portrayal of sheer pain and tragedy of more than 12 000 Union soldiers who dies there. And those who survived, Who fought and survived. I like this tremendous film, it is Highly Recommended
Some actors deserve to wait tables
spikeneil-84-83695214 July 2017
I'm laughing a lot. Not because the film is funny in any way but at the lack of acting in this film. I'm not an actor, I am a musician...But quite honestly, if I played my guitar as badly as these actors play their roles then I would expect to starve to death!! I think the director must have been working in the porn industry at some point as the level of direction is strangely similar!! I will persevere to the end though.....Cos I like a laugh
Perhaps the best of the TNT films.
yenlo8 December 1999
Generally these TNT original productions are nothing what one could call spectacular. This film from John Frankenheimer however is one of the better ones. A tale of imprisonment and survival inside the notorious Confederate POW camp known as Andersonville. Civil War historians would probably with certainty find various historical inaccuracies but it is worth viewing although a tad on the long side. Good performances from many of the cast but it seems Frederick Coffin and William Sanderson do the best job as two of the ring leaders of the camps vicious "Raiders" gang. A must see for any Civil War fan.
Andersonville
heritage71617 April 2007
I have a 2nd cousin buried there. He only lasted there 3 months. I am trying to find out more info on him, but it seems the family just isn't interested. I took pictures when we were there, but they never came out! One night, on a genealogy chat, there was a man who had an Andersonville user name, so I asked him questions about it-he happened to work there, and was also a re-enactor. I asked him, if he would take pictures for me. He sent me 6 gorgeous pictures of my cousin's grave, of the whole cemetery, the dead house, and the 6 buried off to the side. He also sent my son a book. I never knew, that someone had a baby there. If we ever go back, and I hope we do, we will get a personal tour! We visited Andersonville yrs ago--what a humbling place! I cannot even describe how we felt. But we found his marker. I would have never known about the place, if my brother didn't tell me about it. Ironically, we were 2 weeks away from adopting a former foster child- He enjoyed re-enacting after he came to live with us. When we showed him the movie, and Cliff De Young tells one of the soldiers to be quiet, because of the tunnel? He shouted out; TOBIAS! Our son turned around, and told me how much he loved that name, and when he was adopted, he not only changed his last name, but also his first name! It was fine to me, because my great great great grandmother's maiden name was Tobias.
The hell that was Andersonville
bkoganbing27 October 2014
To this day Andersonville will connote unspeakable barbarism and suffering in a prisoner of war camp. Yet one has to note that part of the problem was the lack of resources the Confederacy had to maintain prison facilities like Andersonville or Libby.
Before Ulysses S. Grant took command of the overall Union Army the Union and Confederacy had regular prisoner exchanges. It was shown however that prisoners never obeyed the terms of their parole, but got back into the fight. Grant changed all that when he stopped prisoner exchanges. With the north having so much more population it was only a matter of attrition before the south had to give up.
The south had not the resources to maintain prison facilities, civilian or military. The south could barely feed its own population. Note the adolescent prison guards on the stockade wall. Kids that young were in the Confederate Army in the end and not just drummer boys.
However the German emigrant colonel played by Jan Triska employed some barbarism of his own. He encouraged 'The Raiders' a group of some of the lowest low lives you'll ever see to form among the prisoners, to rob them, to terrorize them, to inform on them when necessary. That was a particular Andersonville touch in penal discipline.
No big names are in Andersonville, but that added to the realism. John Frankenheimer got an ensemble performance second to none and an Emmy to boot. Standing out are Frederic Forrest as the Massachusetts sergeant who sees his men the best he could, William Coffin as the head of the 'Raiders', and his second in command William Sanderson the last word in bottom feeders and young Blake Heron as a drummer boy prisoner.
One thing that producer Ted Turner did not do was get too explicit as to just what young Heron might have had to deal with among a bunch of isolated and starving men. Then again this was a made for TV movie, on the big screen prison rape might have been dealt with.
Andersonville is an excellent production, a must see film for anyone even mildly interested in the American Civil War.
Before Ulysses S. Grant took command of the overall Union Army the Union and Confederacy had regular prisoner exchanges. It was shown however that prisoners never obeyed the terms of their parole, but got back into the fight. Grant changed all that when he stopped prisoner exchanges. With the north having so much more population it was only a matter of attrition before the south had to give up.
The south had not the resources to maintain prison facilities, civilian or military. The south could barely feed its own population. Note the adolescent prison guards on the stockade wall. Kids that young were in the Confederate Army in the end and not just drummer boys.
However the German emigrant colonel played by Jan Triska employed some barbarism of his own. He encouraged 'The Raiders' a group of some of the lowest low lives you'll ever see to form among the prisoners, to rob them, to terrorize them, to inform on them when necessary. That was a particular Andersonville touch in penal discipline.
No big names are in Andersonville, but that added to the realism. John Frankenheimer got an ensemble performance second to none and an Emmy to boot. Standing out are Frederic Forrest as the Massachusetts sergeant who sees his men the best he could, William Coffin as the head of the 'Raiders', and his second in command William Sanderson the last word in bottom feeders and young Blake Heron as a drummer boy prisoner.
One thing that producer Ted Turner did not do was get too explicit as to just what young Heron might have had to deal with among a bunch of isolated and starving men. Then again this was a made for TV movie, on the big screen prison rape might have been dealt with.
Andersonville is an excellent production, a must see film for anyone even mildly interested in the American Civil War.
Riveting
beorhouse3 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Big fan of American Civil War era films here, and this one is close to perfect. It's brutal, riveting, horrifying, and enlightening all at the same time. That it's actual history instead of speculative makes it that much more shocking to watch, and is only topped by the story of Nat Turner as told in Birth Of A Nation (not the original version which supported the Ku Klux Klan and was responsible for their revival). This is the "Nazi concentration camp" story of the American Civil War. Be ready for lots of sadness at the utter inhumanity displayed.
Civil War POWs survive war inside camp
dcheek5613 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I believe this is one of the best and most fair-minded Civil War movies ever made. The actors all give a first-rate performance, and the director keeps the movie focused and on track, without laying blame to either side. Most of the movies facts are historically accurate and the dialog reproduces (in my opinion) the attitudes of the times.
The Raiders were a historical reality, and the trial and subsequent execution were unique during the Civil War.
While many parts of the movie are memorable, the most poignant scene is at the end when one of the major characters is buried in the cemetery. The camera zooms in on the white-painted headboard with his name, and then pans back to show you the real, present-day cemetery - with this particular headstone name in the center. Seeing nearly 13,000 headstones of real-life prisoners who died at Andersonville really puts the film in perspective.
The Raiders were a historical reality, and the trial and subsequent execution were unique during the Civil War.
While many parts of the movie are memorable, the most poignant scene is at the end when one of the major characters is buried in the cemetery. The camera zooms in on the white-painted headboard with his name, and then pans back to show you the real, present-day cemetery - with this particular headstone name in the center. Seeing nearly 13,000 headstones of real-life prisoners who died at Andersonville really puts the film in perspective.
An excellent, serious film exhibiting high standards.
nz man7 July 2001
This film won three awards and was nominated for several others. The directing, acting, editing, script and cinematography are all of a high standard. It seemed quite authentic, and this is confirmed by the comment below. Even if you do not normally like 'films of this type', this film is worth watching or even studying, because of the overall excellence.
An admiration of the quality of this film is probably the reason that the brutal story that it portrays did not place a heavy or negative feeling upon me. Lesser films would contaminate the story with adding romance, light comedy or bright flashbacks. This film powerfully gives the viewer a strong sense of realism.
An admiration of the quality of this film is probably the reason that the brutal story that it portrays did not place a heavy or negative feeling upon me. Lesser films would contaminate the story with adding romance, light comedy or bright flashbacks. This film powerfully gives the viewer a strong sense of realism.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
