Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

[YT Edit] Cold Mountain (2003) (Patreon)

Published:
2025-03-27 21:56:33
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Videos

  • 442333732.mp4

Downloads

Content

Hey guys! Here is the YT edit for "Cold Mountain" which will premiere shortly!

Files

Comments

The Neo/Fate show

I know it’s a awful civil war battle.. that’s about it

Gray

fantastic film even the soundtrack is great

Stan the Man

I knew this would be a good watch. Every now and again I see another reactor but then I come back here and I’m reminded who the GOAT reactor is(wait maybe goat is the wrong term after this movie). Bravo. So this movie came out in 2003 and was NOT nominated for best picture. Though Rene Zellewgger won for best supporting actress. 2003 is the year Lord of the Rings Return of the King won all the non acting Oscar’s. Personally I think it deserved a best picture nomination. The book is a very good read too.

Ria Grix

Yes I remember this being one of those stories that is just relentless. You just keep thinking, for crying out loud just give us a break!

TheSingulatarian

Well, I remember now why I turned this off. Lost cause nonsense. The actual Battle of the crater was a massacre of U.S. Colored Troops. The explosion did take the Confederates completely by surprise but there was a lack of coordination and communication on the Union side and the colored trooped were sent in long after the explosion when the Confederates were able to organize a defense. The black soldiers were slaughtered. A fact the movie seems to ignore. Easy to see why most American actors wouldn't touch this with a ten-foot pool. British Director, Australian lead, Israeli supporting player. These people have only cursory understanding of the Civil War. You of course have Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Rene Zellweger. Maybe the fee was large enough or they thought it was a good part. A movie about the South during the Civil War with no black people or slaves. A whitewash. Remember, the South was mostly fighting for the right to enslave black people and to expand that practice into the West. Thumbs way down.

Thoko

I think you have oversimplified things, and I say this as a black man (though not American). Firstly, as a former actor myself, actors do not tend to do a deep dive into history before deciding to accept a script. It is known that almost 100% of big budget historical films are imperfect when it comes to accuracy. So all an actor can do is refuse all historical film roles or just accept the reality that we live in. Also, the actor usually is not informed of the minor casting choices before they accept the film. Hoffman would not have known what race the soldiers were going to be until they had started filming. Also, the race of the director and the actors has nothing to do with the writing of the script or the casting choices. Please use relevant evidence only, such as the background of the writer/s and casting director/s, otherwise it sounds like racism. Secondly, the film does have slaves. Its just that the slaves were released and then hunted down rather than depicted as working fields. And lastly, most American households did not have slaves, even in the south. They mention this in the film, criticising that they are fighting to allow the rich people to keep their slaves. The movie does not focus on those rich people for the most part. It is not a whitewash at all. I get that people like yourself have a desire to stand up for oppressed people, but there's a time and a place. It benefits no one if we attack the people who do not deserve it.

JULIE

It’s a great book.

TheSingulatarian

The complexities of America's "Peculiar Institution" could fill a library of books. Granted, I only watched the edit so there may have been more there but certainly the depiction of the Battle of the Crater is wholly inaccurate. He never encountered more than a few slaves on his journey home, free or otherwise which strikes me a very odd. He would have been moving through the Virgina and North Carolina countryside. No black people or at least very few? Really? Studios have certainly woven historical narratives out of whole cloth in the past. It just seems that ignoring slavery as an issue in this film in the early 21st Century is an egregious error. The approximate timeline of when this takes place is a little muddy. Even if it took place after the Emancipation Proclamation this did not cause Sothern slave holders to exclaim "I guess that's that and you are all free" rather Union troops showed up and made it clear after the Confederates had surrendered that slave holding days were over. The emancipation proclamation only applied to those states that were in rebellion. Slave states that remained loyal to the Union such as Maryland and Delaware got to keep their slaves, and they were not freed until much later. It was made primarily to sew chaos in the rebellious state as well as was for moral reasons. Reconstruction lasted another 10 years and 100 years of Jim Crow after that. A long arduous and still not completely resolved issue. Actors are I will agree are pretty stupid and many of them are poorly educated. You just have to reference "The Woman King" from a couple of years ago. To see that everyone from the actors to the white ladies who wrote the script to the studio executives who greenlit it had a hard time understanding that yes, they were African woman warriors, but they were also brutal slavers and glorifying them was probably not a good idea. Harvey Weinsteins involvement in the film makes women taking the roles an even thornier issue. I stand by my opinion.

Damien beatty

This is mostly a reply to THOKO. As, to his excuse that most Americans did not have slaves, is in itself a major oversimplification. Wherein of course. The reality includes the people in the North did not have slaves, true, and most of the population in America at the time was in the North. Where you go wrong is in the South. There were some people in the South who did not have slaves, also true, but firstly these non-slaveholding Southerners were pro slavery and extremely complicit to the deaths and torture of the millions of Africans, and Native Americans and Hispanics in what we call Texas from the previous 200 years and afterward. Many of these deaths were by their own hand. Also to say that only rich people in the South had slaves is incorrect as well. Thousands of southerners with very small farms of a couple of acres had slaves not just in the field, but in the household.

Thoko

Look guys: you are both ignoring the elephant in the room. A film is not presented in real time. There are cuts so that we only see small selections of the story. And in those selections the proportion between how many individual slaves the main character encounters vs how many individual white people he encounters is actually quite balanced. At any given moment on his journey which covers vast farm land he is unlikely to be in a group of 100 slaves. The depiction makes total sense. Most of the time he will be either by himself with nobody around, or being pursued by white people. Slaves would want to avoid him out of fear. Which is what we see in the movie. What more do you want? Its not like he is going to a shopping mall that is full of people. There is hardly anyone in the surrounding area where the main character is. Are you going to complain that there was so few white people that he encounters? There are a lot of white people in America too! Also Damien, the number of southern families who has slaves was about 25%. And the main character actually encounters only a handful of households on his way back and all of them were very impoverished except for one who seemed to own a cow. And the main character meets a guy who is with his slave! This perfectly matches the expected statistics for one household out of 4 or 5 households to own a slave. Also, since the story focuses mostly on poorer households that rate of 25% ownership of slaves should actually drop to an even lower likelihood of owning slaves. So it makes total sense for the main character to encounter a low number of slaves. Also, the main character and his friends did not own farms. They were just workers, so it explains why these main characters did not own slaves. Its super disrespectful to throw abuse at a movie that you (Singulatarian) haven't even seen

Thoko

And by the way, calling actors stupid for not knowing the intimate details of a specific battle 200 years ago is pretty rough because I am certain most people in this comment section would be in the same boat: having no idea about such details of individual battles in ANY war, let alone a war from 200 years ago. I love to study history but I cannot remember the specifics about even the battles that I spent the most time reading about! So you're kinda insulting all (or most) of us. And its definitely rude to say that about actors after I just told you I used to be one. Its like you're calling me stupid. Tone it down dude.

Mark White

Well done Cassie, that was a tough watch. It’s one of those movies where it’s hard to say I enjoyed that. But it’s ultimately rewarding i think, for the great story, script and Stella cast and great acting. Great reaction.

Above Average Dave

Actually. you're wrong about "people in the North did not have slaves," Damien Beatty. In fact, the best-seller I wrote in 1997, "Amistad" was in part about the wide-spread modern misperceptions of slave laws, racism, "property" rights and their implications on 53 African lives in that good old "free state" that wasn't—Connecticut. You couldn't purchase slaves in Connecticut in 1839 when the Amistad was towed into New London harbor, but you sure could own them by state law. Also, don't forget that non-secession states Maryland, Delaware and Kentucky were all slave states in 1861 and slavery contiued in all 3 throughout the war. In fact, it was Lincoln's artful crafting of the Emancipation Proclamation that only ended slaver in the states that were in rebellion. Oh, and Delaware was the last state, North or South, to abolish slavery. And during reconstruction and beyond, the population they did a very good impression of the Southern state stereotype in terms of the their treatment of freed slaves. Ditto Maryland and Kentucky. FInally. in the mountains of Virginia and North Carolina—where Inman makes his journey and lived (in NC) before the war—there were very, very few slave holding families, so seeing slaves in those locations would be a low percentage opportunity. In fact, in the NC mountains, communities had active discussions about sitting the war out like the Quakers were doing in Pennsylvania or even declaring for the Union side. As TheSingulatarian said, you could fill a (very large) library about the slavery issue, secession and reasons for the rebellion by the South in 1861. However, perhaps the best summation the motivations by Inman and many others who did not hold slaves or aspire to do so yet fought for the South is best summed up by an incident Shelby Foote recounts in his unparalleled 3-volume history of the US Civil War. Specifically, a poor Southern soldier is caputred after a battle and is being interrogated by a Union officer. The officer, noting that the man is poor and owns no slaves, asks: "Then why are you fighting for the South?" Without hesitating, the soldier says: "Because you're down here." As we said, complex.

Troy Silvester

As I was watching I realized that I was confusing this movie with one from 10 years earlier "Sommersby". It is also of that period and well worth your reaction. But Zellweger's performance in Cold Mountain, was so great! The others are not bad, but she was amazing. Really a tough watch during a terrible time in history, but I took is a story about survival and adapting to the reality of events.

Chris Thom

Always got the sense that this movie and book was meant to be more of a fable set during the Civil War, more than an accurate retelling of the time period. But really interesting movie. Had a feeling it would be a tough watch.

Above Average Dave

I think the author, Charles Frazier, admitted at one point that the whole story was loosely based on The Odyssey, but transposed on the Civil War. Obviously a different outcome than the Odyssey for the protagonists, but the similarities are very much there. t's also important to note that "The South" has been portrayed throughout the years as a stereotype with very clear beliefs. However, as others noted, it was much more complex, as was that war. The monolithic narratives ingore stark differences and levels of extremes that existed among the people in South, and the North for that matter. For example: there was at least one regiment—and often several—from each Southern state in the Union Army. THE FREE STATE OF JONES speaks to some of the other realites of the war directly, and there were several counties that declared themselves "Free States."

Chris Thom

Yeah true. My dad is from Tennessee but he moved to California at 17, so it's always interesting to see the different stereotypes. It's definitely a complicated place...and a lot of it kind of gets papered over with politeness and charm. Which is sort of what this movie does in its own way. I do vaguely remember the quote about The Odyssey.

Clay F

I have nostalgia for the Civil War era "Sommersby" (1993). Drama, Romance. Richard Gere. Jodie Foster

Canadianant

Hopefully city slickers and the Blues Brothers can reappear at another time . Always a bridesmaid never a bride. I will say I'm glad those that love this got their chance and the reaction actually went better than I thought I might.

VirtuallyVeronicka

I knew this would be a hard watch and emotional but the soundtrack alone is worth it. I had forgotten how many amazing actors are in this movie. Great reaction, I cried right along with ya Cassie!

Clay F

Glad you reacted to this. Watched this movie a few times over the years.

Clay F

City Slickers is not high on my list, but I would enjoy reactions to The Blues Brothers and Children of Men.