johndunbar-580-920543 What those who trash this film fail to point out is that the film was one of the earliest attempt to make a movie about an historical event. As such, it can be forgiven minor inaccuracies but overall it was an accurate and informative movie. For those movie goers that didn't read history books, this was their first introduction to the topic and they couldn't help but learn something about that event in history.The film makers did a pretty good job of touching upon all the important issues (such as the confusion about what to do about the encroachment of threatening secessionists against the Gosport Naval Yard) that affected the eventual clash of ironclads. And generally, despite the aesthetic flaws that reviewers point out, it was in important movie in the history of film.Worth a look.

MartinHafer Without a doubt, this movie has among the worst dialog I have ever heard in a film--and I have reviewed well over 11,000 films! So much of what the people say actually sounds as if the script was written by a 12 year-old! It's filled with platitudes, schmaltz and clichés--all of which make NONE of the film seem the least bit real. It's a shame, really, as the idea of the film is great. After all, how many films have celebrated the most amazing naval battle of the Civil War--the fight between the CSS Virginia and the USS Merrimack. Unfortunately, while it is great that the film is about this battle, it also is jam-packed full of historical inaccuracies--not the least of which is that every time they talk about the Virginia, they call it the Merrimack--the name given to the ship originally when it was a Union ship. But, after having been burned and sunk, the hull was used to create the Virginia--and its crew certainly would NOT keep referring to her as the Merrimack! But this isn't all, so much of the story is pure hogwash--and about as much is right about the film as is wrong--including the whole silly back story about the court martial.The bottom line is that aside from the theme, it is a cringe-worthy film. Not only is the dialog dumb, but at the end of the film good 'ol Abe Lincoln himself stops by to have a nice little chat with the hero and his conflicted girlfriend. I HATE when films toss in Abe Lincoln as a cheap plot device--another reason I also hated "Of Human Hearts"--another dopey Civil War film hindered by schmaltzy dialog and a complete waste of good actors.By the way, this film was directed by Lew Ayers--the actor. Now we can see why he's know to us as an actor and not a director!

Spuzzlightyear Although I'm not really too sure how much of this is true or not, this Civil War drama tells of how of course, the war Tour Friendships Apart and the building of the Monitor, a huge bulking ship. Although the document about how the Montor came about and the building and the actual deployment is quite interesting, the whole love story and the dilemma one lady has when two women she has, her brother, and her boyfriend are on two sides and going to war against each other is a bit silly. Again, I'm sure some of it is fictionalized, as Abe Lincoln is in there talking to the main characters about lives lost etc. But all in all, this is a competent, if somewhat dragging effort from Lew Ayres, who should know something about war films, what after being blown to smithereens in All Quiet on the Western Front.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre 'Hearts in Bondage' is a Civil War drama placing fictional characters at the centre of real events. First, some background: in the first month of the American Civil War (April 1861), the Confederate navy attacked some Union ships at Gosport shipyard (near Norfolk, Virginia). The Union steam frigate USS Merrimac was sunk in this engagement. The Confederates later raised the hull and refitted it as an armourclad. Meanwhile - at Greenpoint, Brooklyn - US naval engineer John Ericsson was building an ironclad warship, the USS Monitor. On 9th March 1862, these two vessels squared off in an engagement that has been known ever since as 'the Monitor and the Merrimac'. In strict accuracy, the refitted Merrimac had been christened the CSS Virginia. But, among the other spoils of war, the winning side gets to pick the nomenclature. So, the Virginia is still known as the Merrimac, just as a certain Civil War battleground is now known as Bull Run (the name the Union favoured) rather than Manassas (the Confederates' name).SPOILERS THROUGHOUT. James Dunn and Mae Clarke (badly miscast) portray lovers circa 1861 who meet for trysts on the banks of the Potomac near Washington. As the nation gins up for the Civil War, their relationship is threatened because he's a US Navy officer but her brother is sympathetic to the Confederate cause. The brother is played by David Manners, a Canadian actor who was very British in his on-screen demeanour (Manners claimed to be a descendant of William the Conqueror!), so it's distressing to see him here as a son of the South, y'all.Dunn serves aboard the Merrimac during the battle of Norfolk. When the battle goes in the Confederates' favour, Dunn is ordered to set fire to his own ship so she doesn't fall into Confederate hands. Instead, Dunn sinks the ship so that (he hopes) the Union can raise her later. (The movie gets its facts slightly wrong here: in reality, the Merrimac *was* fired, and she burnt to her waterline. When the Confederate navy raised her hull, the Merrimac's ammunition - in watertight casings - was intact and undamaged, and was promptly added to the Confederacy's ordnance.) When the Confederates raise the Merrimack, Dunn is disgraced for having disobeyed a direct order.The fictional character played by Dunn is the nephew of (real-life) naval engineer John Ericsson. To get back into the navy's good graces, Dunn goes to Brooklyn and assists his uncle in the construction of the Monitor. And Dunn is aboard the Monitor during her historic battle with the Merrimac. Meanwhile, guess who's aboard the Merrimac: yes, David Manners. After Manners gets killed, Dunn (his reputation restored) meets with Clarke once again. Their tryst is interrupted by none other than Abraham Lincoln, played by Frank McGlynn (who specialised in playing Lincoln). I found it slightly ludicrous that Lincoln would be walking about in wartime with no Secret Service escort - especially on the banks of the Potomac - but I guess it's possible. He offers a few encouraging words to the lovers, then saunters off while the soundtrack plays 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'.The most intriguing thing about 'Hearts in Bondage' is that it's directed by Lew Ayres, an actor who (in real life) was extremely antipathetic towards warfare. (He was a conscientious objector during World War Two.) Ayres's direction of this material is workmanlike but not in any way distinctive. The scenes of naval warfare are staged with miniatures, but look quite convincing. The USS Monitor was famously described as 'a cheesebox on a raft', so the miniature ship here (a rotating turret on a flat platform) is crude but strongly resembles the crude design of the actual Monitor. Fritz Lieber gives a dignified performance as the real-life John Ericsson. (Full disclosure: Lieber's son Fritz Jnr was a friend of mine.) Gabby Hayes and Charlotte Henry do not do well in their roles, and Irving Pichel is a bit too wild-eyed. James Dunn is quite good in his role here; notwithstanding his Academy Award, Dunn is a very underrated actor. Overall, I'll rate this movie 8 out of 10. It's hokum, but enjoyable hokum.