PDA

View Full Version : Wicked Spring critiques?



devildog
03-08-2007, 02:28 PM
Was wondering if anyone has seen this. was thinking of ordering it.

csuppelsa
03-08-2007, 02:51 PM
I liked it, you can probably get it at blockbuster.

Skip Arensmann
03-08-2007, 02:53 PM
dd:
Have it, like it, was drawn into it. At first I wondered if this was one of those DVDs with alternate endings.....................
Don't want to give anything away.
Some good special effects, all around I'd give it '2 thumbs up'.

Regards

John Legg
03-08-2007, 06:36 PM
Go for it. Its one of my favorite CW period Movies!

Cheers!

devildog
03-09-2007, 05:52 AM
I just saw it. I really liked it, the ending wasn't expected though.

bizzilizzit
03-09-2007, 12:11 PM
Was wondering if anyone has seen this. was thinking of ordering it.

It's worth the greenbacks! Storyline was good, acting ok, and it made me feel the CW was more of a human story instead of a piece of US history.
Elizabeth

MtVernon
03-09-2007, 03:47 PM
I guess I'm the lone man on this one, but I thought it was really, really amateurish, not in the good sense. I thought a better editor would have cut a lot more out of the 'ruminating while staring at the campfire' sequences. I don't know, maybe it was an off night for me and I should see it again. Or maybe my expectations were too high. Whatever it was, I didn't like it.

Memphis
03-09-2007, 04:09 PM
You are not alone. Wicked Spring has little plot, virtually no acting, lines as stiff as a starched shirt, and it appears to have been filmed in someone's backyard, but you will find yourself laughing to the point your sides hurt. Definitely worth seeing one time IF you view a friend's copy and bring some beer. It is less painful if you drink a couple of those beers before inserting the DVD into the player.

MtVernon
03-09-2007, 08:17 PM
You are not alone. Wicked Spring has little plot, virtually no acting, lines as stiff as a starched shirt, and it appears to have been filmed in someone's backyard, but you will find yourself laughing to the point your sides hurt. Definitely worth seeing one time IF you view a friend's copy and bring some beer. It is less painful if you drink a couple of those beers before inserting the DVD into the player.

Clearly I did not prepare myself for optimal viewing pleasure!

terry sorchy
03-09-2007, 08:40 PM
Gentlemen,
One thing we must remember, some of the actors in the movie were Living Historians. The movie was made on a limited budget and that accounts for sound and editing. That being said we are used to proffesional actors and all the drama those actors bring along to the screen. Real life is not as dramatic. I can see the attitudes of those in the movie being almost more true to life than the proffesional actors in GBurg. That was Hollywood, Wicked Spring tried to be more (just folks) if you know what I mean. As far as material authenticity goes, it was the Private Ryan of Civil War films.
I leave you on this note, acting is VERY difficult and if we cant do any better maybe we should not criticize very loudly.
Terry Sorchy

TParker
03-09-2007, 09:16 PM
I leave you on this note, acting is VERY difficult and if we cant do any better maybe we should not criticize very loudly.
Terry Sorchy

The only comment I can make to add to Terry's post is that the movie was very "dark" and therefore not everyone's liking. Personally, I thought it was well done for not having "name" actors, being shot on a shoestring, and not having major studio backing. Given that our modern day technology allows for aspiring directors to make pieces addressing very specific topics, I hope for more releases of movies of the same type, addressing real life situations faced by the men of the time, rather than the mega-bucks productions which gloss over the realities faced by the common soldier in favor of spectacular shots with historically incorrect or improbable scenes.

There will be good movies and bad movies made about the period in coming years. The quantity will increase as we approach the 150th anniversaries in 2011. As interested parties, we should encourage, rather than be critical of, attempts to portray the life of Civil War soldiers during the coming years, and encourage a portrayal that is historically accurate rather than one which is up to Hollywood standards.

MtVernon
03-10-2007, 12:31 AM
...acting is VERY difficult and if we cant do any better maybe we should not criticize very loudly.
Terry Sorchy

Mr. Sorchy,

I understand what you are trying to say, but I'm not sure of the soundness of your argument here. I can't do a lot of things that I am critical of but that doesn't necessarily affect my ability to critique it. Siskel & Ebert, et al., have made careers out of criticizing or praising movies, but I don't recall many of them starring in one. However, this thread is titled 'Wicked Spring critiques?" and as such, there are some critiques that cast it in an unfavorable light. As I said, maybe I ought to see it again. I know I really wanted to like it, but I just didn't think it was very good. Maybe it was really authentic, but I didn't find it compelling. Also, I didn't buy the notion that they couldn't tell North from South by light of the fire.

terry sorchy
03-10-2007, 01:08 AM
True that part was unsound and possibly some other parts were not very dramatic, but the scene after the battle of the man readiing the bible with bloody hands, the officer trying to write by candlelight, when the skinny bearded soldier pillaged the haversack were scenes you usually dont see in other films. I thought the begining even though there were no words was very well done and moving to.
I watch it in the winter when I cant get my event fix.
Cheers
Terry Sorchy

Memphis
03-10-2007, 03:29 AM
One thing we must remember, some of the actors in the movie were Living Historians.

You have a point, as Wicked Spring would have been far more dull utilizing dead historians. :rolleyes:

MtVernon
03-10-2007, 10:31 AM
True that part was unsound and possibly some other parts were not very dramatic, but the scene after the battle of the man readiing the bible with bloody hands, the officer trying to write by candlelight, when the skinny bearded soldier pillaged the haversack were scenes you usually dont see in other films. I thought the begining even though there were no words was very well done and moving to.
I watch it in the winter when I cant get my event fix.
Cheers
Terry Sorchy

Mr. Sorchy,

Now you're treading on thin ice. Your description sounds like you're talking about a food I didn't like in such a tantalizing way that I cannot help but try it again in the hopes that I'll experience what you did. You make the movie sound so good I have to second-guess myself. I will see the movie again at some point, BUT I'D BETTER LIKE IT!

John Legg
03-10-2007, 02:59 PM
Gentlemen,
One thing we must remember, some of the actors in the movie were Living Historians.


Brian "Speedy" merrick from Corner Clothiers was in it.

GaWildcat
03-10-2007, 04:49 PM
Went in knowing it was not a huge production, and while there were a few moments that caught me odd, I was impressed. It was refreshing to see soldiers being soldiers.... and human. I was really impressed by the authenticity.. In short... I loved it.

huntdaw
03-11-2007, 04:55 PM
Not a bad tale I suppose. I agree with some of the other mentions of shortcomings but it is a small independent film and all in all was done pretty well I think.

I did think the beginning dragged out a bit much but I enjoyed the settings and the clothing.

But the main thing was I just couldn't stop asking myself while watching: How can they not tell they're on opposite sides? I could maybe see it if it was a cold camp and a dark night but there's a nice fire going on there. I can see pretty well by a nice fire so why couldn't they? If you can read letters by a fire's light you can sure tell sky blue trousers from grey jean. Plus, one of the Federals let's something slip that tells they are from the North but it just seems to be disregarded. That nagging question about why they couldn't tell whose side they were on took some of the enjoyment away for me.

I also wondered why in the world seasoned soldiers didn't lie down when they realized they were in between two firing lines.

reddcorp
03-11-2007, 06:20 PM
Uniforms, equipment.....spot on. Horror of war....so-so.
"The Saving Private Ryan" of Civil War films? Hardly.
"Ride with the Devil" is far more interesting. Yep, it had "real" actors and a bigger budget...but, if you're gonna make a film, do it right.
My $.02 worth.
A.W.Redd

No_Know_Nothings
03-12-2007, 08:35 AM
A film should be critiqued based on it's merits as a film, not on whether the actors are Living Historians, it's budget limitations, or how hard acting may or may not be. One need only look at films like "Clerks" and "Primer" to see that low budgets and inexperienced actors or non-actors can indeed succeed when the material is right. And that's the problem with "Wicked Spring." The material reeks. A lame story leads to a lame movie. Pedestrian film techniques lead to a pedestiran film. "Wicked Spring" is a dull, clunky and corny movie. It is a film that has no sense of style and consequently no sense of time or place. It is pretentious, taking itself too seriously, straining very hard to be a "serious" war film and failing miserably at it. It asks the audience to believe these bozos can sit around a campfire all night long and have not idea they are on opposite sides. Audiences are willing and able to suspend disbelief for a logical premise, but not for something that is as spectacularly silly as this.

Memphis
03-12-2007, 03:24 PM
Wicked Spring made by Smith would have been a thing of great artistry, instead of a great waste. Excellent observation! :cool:

D'Epineuil Zouave
03-13-2007, 08:51 AM
I agree with those who think Wicked Spring reeked. Peeeeee-uuuhhhhhhh!

sbl
03-13-2007, 11:22 AM
I agree with those who think Wicked Spring reeked. Peeeeee-uuuhhhhhhh!


..but it didn't reek. I'll support a film about the CW/WBTS, or by CW/WBTS people by seeing the film but I won't say it's good just to support it if it isn't. Wicked Spring just isn't that great a story even with the authentic ambitions. I will say keep trying.

bill watson
03-13-2007, 01:17 PM
“Also, I didn't buy the notion that they couldn't tell North from South by light of the fire.”

“True that part was unsound”’

-----------------------------------------------------
If that part was unsound, then the whole shebang comes down, because that’s the operational premise of the entire thing: brothers separated by artificial barriers, can’t tell friend from enemy when the superficial things like uniforms are taken out of the equation. The movie explores that premise.

If you want to keep it on track, measure it’s success in its own terms, as another poster suggested: Was this a compelling story about interesting people who are, in some way that resonates with you, changed by the experiences they undergo?

If you’re instead saying you enjoyed the authenticity of the set, that’s another thing. But usually critiques are targeted at how well a work meets the overall standards set for such a work. “Glory,” for instance, had quite a few inaccuracies, including putting the words of a real abolitionist in Col. Shaw’s mouth. But as a literary work – rather than an action movie – it “succeeded” because most people couldn’t help but be affected by the profound changes the various characters went through as the premise that “those who would be treated like men have to act like men” played out its course.

sbl
03-13-2007, 02:19 PM
...Glory is watchable more than once. It has remorable and quotable tag lines. It has an ending that is it "OK" for men to cry about.

Wicked Spring is a one time watch. Again...I think the film makers of Wicked Spring should keep trying.

Army30th
03-18-2007, 03:53 PM
Guys,

When you critique a movie, especially one that the original poster has not seen, please make sure you don't tell anything that gives the ending away. That has been done, in this thread I might add.

Just sign me,
Concerned

bill watson
03-18-2007, 04:32 PM
Generally true, Will, but when the execution or implementation of the surprise is one of the criticisms, it's kind of hard to avoid discussing it.

Army30th
03-18-2007, 10:31 PM
Yeah, that's true.

sbl
03-19-2007, 05:47 AM
Will,

"Rosebud" was Charles Foster Kane's sled.

tompritchett
03-19-2007, 09:48 AM
"Rosebud" was Charles Foster Kane's sled.

Oh, that who Rosebud was. :D

sbl
03-19-2007, 01:01 PM
"Rosebud....."


http://www.totalmedia.com/images/rosebud.jpg