Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

thegulls1 After reading, on Kindle, Jimmy Stewart's bio, I ran out & got a few movie titles on DVD, some of which I saw in their early release so many years ago. Shenandoah offers Jimmy as firm, but kind Patriarch, Charlie, to a large, grown family in 'neutral' Virginia. The story begins just before a historical Civil War battle in 1864. He resists pressure to see his boys conscripted by the Confederate side, and physically fights Rebel agents who attempt to 'acquire' his horses.Pressure begins to mount, however, and the youngest lad (gruffly called 'boy') is arrested by Union Soldiers, forcing Charlie & family to mount up & find the 16-year old amongst thousands of P.O.W.s being shipped North to internment camps. There are some great battle scenes, all with the same sobering theme: the war is lost. Young lives are being ruined for nothing other than the unwillingness of the South to quit. Tragedy befalls, and Charlie loses some family members. There is a positive turn at the end, however.I saw similarities between Shenandoah and Gone With the Wind. The Civil war brings unhappy consequences, esp. to the South, and there are villains on both sides. Is Shenandoah an anti-war film? No more so than Gone with the Wind. It is, perhaps, anti-Civil war, in that peaceful, productive folks like Jimmy's family would not be left alone to pursue their own livelihood, which, Charlie points out, his family cultivated with hard work and no handouts from the Authorities.I was surprised to note that this was released in 1965, same year as 'Flight of the Phoenix', making that a good year for Stewart. However, Shenandoah strikes me as more suited to the era of Westerns made 10 years earlier. I liked it, but rate it 8/10 (I rated Winchester 73 a 9).

Wuchak Released in 1965 and directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, "Shenandoah" is a Civil War drama/western starring James Stewart as a curmudgeonly widower in Shenandoah Valley, Virginia, trying to keep his sons out of the war because (1.) his big farm needs them since they have no slaves and don't believe in slavery, and (2.) he feels the war isn't his concern; at least, not until his youngest boy (Phillip Alford) is captured by the Yanks. Glenn Corbett and Patrick Wayne are on hand as his other sons while Rosemary Forsyth and Katharine Ross play his daughter and daughter-in-law respectively. The former is romanced by a Confederate soldier, played by Doug McClure. Mel Gibson & Roland Emmerich took the basic plot of "Shenandoah" to forge 2000's "The Patriot," which is okay because they changed more than enough to make it stand on its own. The only problem I have with "Shenandoah" is that it substitutes California & Oregon for Virginia and you can always discern the difference when the movie shows the decidedly coniferous hills in the background. Other than that, they do a pretty good job of making the locations look like the Shenandoah Valley.The movie was released during the Centennial of the war's end. It doesn't focus on conventional Civil War-type battles, but is dramatically-driven within the war's context and effectively so. Stewart easily carries the movie. Unfortunately, there are some dubious or eye-rolling elements, like the kid wearing a Confederate cap he finds and his dad & brothers not objecting to the folly of this with Yanks operating 5-12 miles away. There are other obvious examples, but the film accomplishes what it sets out to do: It entertainingly brings the viewer into the midst of the conflict and the inherent challenges thereof. But the movie will likely drive erudite sticklers nuts. The film runs 105 minutes. GRADE: B

grantss A mildly interesting take on the American Civil War, and its effect on the civilian population. Poses some good questions on the morality and reasons for the war, and picking sides. More particularly, not picking sides, and the consequences thereof. Problem is, it doesn't really answer these questions. Maybe that is the answer, that there is no solution, but some degree of attempting an answer would be good.So-so plot. Historically inaccurate at times, and many of the battle scenes seem quite contrived and/or flawed. Could also have been grittier - sometimes felt overly folksy and idealistic. Being made in 1965, however, I guess the producers couldn't be too graphic or tough-minded.Decent performance by James Stewart in the lead role. However, hardly anyone else gets a word in...

alexandre michel liberman (tmwest) Shenandoah has excellent actors, cinematography and screenplay. Its the story of a man, Charlie (James Stewart) who does not want to get involved in a war which is not in agreement with his reasoning. since besides his distaste for slavery, he and family always did all the farm work themselves and never needed any help. But the motivation to fight will arise out of unexpected circumstances. Since this film came out during the Vietnam war it is obvious that the comparison is intentional, also,it can be compared to any war. James Stewart gives one of his best performances, also Doug McLure and Phillip Alford. The direction, by Andrew McLaglen is almost without flaws, but a slight tendency at certain scenes, involving many people, to come close to a musical number in its artificiality.