Description

They left the nightmare...and entered Hell. Captured Union soilders cope with life inside the Civil War's most notorious prisoner-of-war camp. A powerful, compeling tale of war and will, with Emmy Award-winning direction by John Frankenheimer and a cast including Frederic Forrest (Apocalypse Now) and William H. Macy (ER, Fargo) Year: 1996 Director: John Frankenheimer Starring: Jarrod Emick, Frederic Forrest, Ted Marcoux ... Read more

Reviews (30)

Humanity at it's worst
If you are looking for a feel good movie,well,this isn't it.This film shows the horrors and despair of one of the most infamous POW camps in the Civil War,Andersonville. Once again Ted Turner has the insight to bring the personalities of the soldiers into play. This is the same formula that made "Gettysburg" such a great film. If you want "light & breezy" don't watch this film. If you don't mind a hard dose of cruel reality that war brings,this flicks for you.

Puts chills in my spine
Another great Civil War movie. Andersonville is a great historical and factual piece of work. It reveals how cruel men were back in the 1860's. I believe that the acting done by the cast was the finest i have ever seen. They truely made it feel like you were there in the prison

Worst of the Worst.......
After watching most movies, you absorb it and a day later it is more or less forgotten. NOT ANDERSONVILLE! This movie stuck with me for a solid week after viewing. Very similar to the way I felt after watching Schindlers List......

However, I think this movie should be viewed as a look into what all of the Civil War camps were like. The Union obviously had prison war camps also. Such as Fort Jefferson, Fort Delaware & Camp Chase to name a few. Many of the conditions in these camps were just as bad.......

However, Andersonville was the worst of the worst of all prison camps North & South. And this movie depicts the conditions extremely well. Great movie!!!!!!

Excellent Civil War Drama
This fine movie focuses on one aspect of the war; namely, prisoners of war, and, therefore has considerably more substance than most Civil War dramas. The fact that I've viewed this more than once should speak for itself. The fine ensemble cast makes it work with support from hundreds of civil war re-enactors. As with any historical drama, it sometimes is loose with the facts as pointed out by other reviewers. If you want accuracy, you should consult as many sources as possible to negate bias. I do take issue with the idea that conditions at Andersonville were related to the southern war shortages. This same excuse has been used to explain away the treatment of allied POWs by the Japanese and also the holocaust. That part of Georgia had an abundance of corn and rice so there was no excuse for the starvation. As for Ted Turner's "yankee bias", in "Gettysburg" he was wearing a Confederate uniform.

Great Movie
This is a great movie for teachers to show for a U.S. History class. I am a student that has recently watched this movie and has thouroughly enjoied it. It was very informational and entertaining. It tugs at your heart a little bit too. By showing how Prisoners Of War had to live like animals really made me more thankful of the things I have today. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Loved It!
First of all, the movie was made in 1991 ( I know because I rented it in 1991 ) so I don't know why it says 1993 by the title but, anyway...

This is one of those multi-storyline gems that focus on several characters with different love interests and storylines. The film is like a " St. Elmo's Fire " for the nineties. You get a lot of realistic issues as well as some great acting rolled into one. All of the actors are wonderful but Rae Dawn Chong ( M.J. ) rules the show. Usually Rae plays innocent sweet characters but she showed she has range with this one. In this film you cannot help but take her seriously.

I'd give this a try if you haven't seen it. Of course, it's a little dated in terms of the 90's banter but is still one of the better date films you'll see in a while. The actors have amazing chemistry with one another. Unfortunately Rae Dawn Chong, Fisher Stevens and Sandra Bullock seem to be the only ones still working. The others ( who were quite impressive ) seemed to fall off the face of the earth. I agree that there are too many subplots towards the end of the film and yes the end was predictable. But hey nothing's perfect. It may not be anything to scream about but this is one of few films that will keep you balling, laughing and joking until the end.

Watch only for Sandra
After long and tedious credits, this 1992 film starts with characters speaking in relative darkness. It eventually turns out that this film is a series of flashbacks, leading up to the present day, which helpfully links each scene together.

Sandra Bullock is instantly recognisable, playing Amanda. Her natural wavy hair was either done for the film, or she uses straightners now. She does a bit of narrating throughout the film, although not much. She still has the same laugh, which she perfected in "Miss Congeniality". None of the other characters seem to have found fame & fortune, unlike Sandra. Everyone says "Demolition Man" (1993), started her career, but if enough people had seen this film, it would have made her. She's always smiling & quirky - you just have to ignore the bright blue eyeshadow, left over from the 1980s.

Amanda's younger brother crops up during this film, peppering his speeches with "wack" and "dude", sounding like he should have appeared in "Bill & Ted" a few years earlier.

The film starts with MJ's 25th birthday; she gets found in bed by her roommates with a strange man, and then crashes into some guy's car, who she instantly proceeds to flirt with. This sets the story for her, as she seems to do nothing but flirt during the film. Her character totally annoys me (although you feel slightly sorry for her in the end), but the rest of the characters don't really have any effect on me. She is everything I hate about women today: their unsubtle flirting with any old guy, and then they ditch them. I'm also sure she was in "Devil's Advocate", and her character annoyed me then too.

The male characters are very hard to distinguish from each other, not helping by the far away shots, and the fact that two of them look remarkably similar. The female characters all have different characteristics and looks, but the guys just blend into each other.

This film jumps back and forth from ongoing storylines, different characters and curious situations, leaving you lost as to what's going on. Being 114 minutes, this film is too long. I got bored and it wasn't even halfway through. It doesn't really have that much of a plot, and I consider it to be how "Friends: The Movie" would be. Not good. Can take in small doses, but not in a movie. There are a couple of good bits where the characters learn from mistakes they've made and the bitterness shows obvious cracks in relationships. Plus, the ending is predictable. A lot more could have been done with this film, but parts were neglected, and too much was focused on the one character. ... Read more