[RobbyS]

Cutting, it needed. The film should have focused on Jackson, which would have meant that the Valley campaign, the Peninsula campaign, and 2nd Bull Run, and Antietam would hsve had to be worked in, requiring much more compression. Also his relations with other commanders. And how does one make a film about the war in Virginia while ignoring Jefferson Davis and Johnston?

[Sans-Culotte]

Cutting, it needed. The film should have focused on Jackson, which would have meant that the Valley campaign, the Peninsula campaign, and 2nd Bull Run, and Antietam would hsve had to be worked in, requiring much more compression. Also his relations with other commanders. And how does one make a film about the war in Virginia while ignoring Jefferson Davis and Johnston?

Remeber that the movie was based on a novel, and the novel did not include much of those things. Because the novel concentrated on two Union and two Confederate characters in the main, the story was advanced in other ways.

[LS]

Well, you raise good points. How do you skip Antietam?

But I do think there is a reason NOT to metion Jeff Davis: you can tell the story of the Confederacy without him, but you cannot tell the story of the Union without Lincoln, and I think that is what was missing from this picture. The Confed/Rebel viewpoint was well done, and fairly presented. I don't really think the Union perspective was---Daniels was not as good in this movie as in Gettysburg, but I guess he'll have another shot in "Last Full Measure."