Rating: 
Summary: An Entertaining Prelude
Review: Once you remember that movies are made to entertain, you can put the content and presentation into perspective. The movie focuses on a narrow subset of events/battles involving the Confederate general Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson. In particular the battles presented in the movie are First Manassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. The battles happened from July 1861 to May 1863. The feel I got from the movie was that these battles took place over a much shorter period of time (even though the movie includes a little date stamp at the bottom of the screen prior to each battle). Historically, the movie provides an adequate rendering of the events in question. Consider that Gods and Generals presents three battles and an attempted wartime biography of Thomas Jackson in a period of about 4 hours, whereas Gettysburg presents a single battle in about the same time. Details had to be cut and liberties taken, but aside from a somewhat choppy feeling at times, the movie comes off fairly well. The picture and sound are well done. The acting is believable and well cast. For further reading on Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson - Stonewall Jackson: The Man, the Soldier, the Legend by James Robertson. P-)
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent movie, but not Gettysburg
Review: Gods and Generals tells the story of the first two years of the Civil War leading up to the battle of Gettysburg. Based on the novel by Jeff Shaara, the film shows both sides of the war although overall it is probably tipped more to the south. Stephen Lang, who played General Pickett in Gettysburg, is excellent here as General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, the famous Confederate leader. Jeff Daniels returns as Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. His role is not nearly as large as the previous film although his scenes are well played. Robert E. Lee is now portrayed by Robert Duvall rather than Martin Sheen. Duvall is much more believable as Lee than Sheen was. Gods and Generals does have its holes but overall it is an excellent picture. The battle scenes are beautifully put together with some computer generated scenes inserted, especially at the battle of Fredericksburg. The surprise attack on the Federal camp at Chancellorsville is one of the best scenes in the whole movie. People who have seen Gettysburg will recognize many faces who return in their roles as well as many returnees who take different parts. Ted Turner makes another appearance as a Confederate colonel during a sing along for the leaders of the Confederate army. Kevin Conway and C. Thomas Howell return as Buster Kilrain and Tom Chamberlain in excellent performances. Gods and Generals is an excellent historical epic that keeps the audience interested. A downfall of the movie may be that it tries to do to much. Unlike Gettysburg where only four days had to be covered, Generals has to cover over two years of material leaving some things by the wayside. However the movie is still excellent with great battle scenes, performances and also a good musical score. If you haven't seen it yet go out and rent Gettysburg too.
Rating: 
Summary: Horrible film!
Review: A bloodless reenactment with substandard acting, writing, etc! Too many speaches and not enough acting! Much worse than the first installment Gettysburg.
Rating:
Summary: Editing Can't Win A War But It Might Improve This Movie
Review: In the film "Gettysburg" Colonel Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels) utters "there's nothing so much like a god on earth as a general on a battlefield." Based on Jeff Shaara's novel of the same title "Gods and Generals" is the prequel to "Gettysburg," which itself was based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel, "The Killer Angels," written by Shaara's father, Michael. Directed and adapted for the screen by Ron Maxwell (as was its predecessor) "Gods and Generals" presents the first two years of the American Civil War as the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia struggle against each other in the battles of First Bull Run, Fredricksburg and Chancelorsville. Much has been made of the film's historical accuracy but, little of the gore and carnage of war can been seen in its sanitized battle scenes filled with smoke, explosions, and men falling to the ground. Though the battle scenes themselves are expertly choreographed, hardly any thought seems to have gone into the cinematography of these scenes as they lack imagination in their framing and execution. Yet, I found the battle scenes alone worth the price of admission. I cannot say the same for Maxwell's bloated screenplay which is filled with flowery dialogue, long-winded speeches, and droning soliloquies. Yes, citizens of the nineteenth century spoke differently than we do today, but the dialogue is so jarring to the modern ear that it is nearly impossible for an audience to maintain a willingness to suspend its disbelief. The narrative in Mr. Shaara's novel is nearly equally split between four major characters: Colonel Joshua Chamberlain and General Winfield Scott Hancock on the side of the Union and Generals Robert E. Lee and Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson on the Confederate side, while Mr. Maxwell's adaptation can nearly be considered as a Stonewall Jackson bio-pic with the other characters merely as supporting players. Shaara's book maintains a balance of viewpoints of both North and South but, Maxwell's film tilts the majority of screen time to the Confederate side. Stephen Lang does an admirable job as the highly religious Stonewall Jackson. Indeed, the film's shining glory is that Maxwell's screenplay and Lang's performance come closest to capturing the man that Jonathan Jackson was in reality as anything yet set forth on film. Though it is hard to separate Lang from his earlier portrayal of General George Picket in "Gettysburg." Jeff Daniels competently reprises his role as Chamberlain, though he lacks screen time and is saddled with reciting Lucanus' "The Crossing of the Rubicon" as he watches elements the Union Army crossing the Rappahanock River into Fredericksburg, Virginia. The films greatest disappointment was Robert Duvall in his lackluster performance as General Robert E. Lee. Randy Edelman's sentimental score is adequate to the task at hand, and though pleasurable to listen to it does not rise to meet the challenge of the material presented. Mary Fahl's contribution, "Going Home," played over the opening credits of windblown battle flags, in a movie which the director well knows is going to come in at 3 ½ hours, should have fallen to the cutting room floor, though I love every note of it. And Bob Dylan is as raspy as ever in his "Cross the Green Mountain" played over the end credits. Is "Gods and Generals" the greatest movie ever made about the American Civil War? No. Is it the most accurate movie about the Civil War? Quite possibly. But accuracy could not save this movie. Editing could. Edit the screenplay. Edit the dialogue and speeches. Edit the opening credits. Edit. Edit. Edit.
Rating:
Summary: How about No Stars
Review: Poorly written, historically inept, and boring to boot, this movie focuses mainly upon the career of Stonewall Jackson (an aging, pudgy Joshua Chamberlain is a distraction)and features just about every cliche that the director could fit in about the Lost Cause. The Marble Man, Happy Darkies, God is a Southerner, Southern Rights, Yankee Vandals, the ironies of Irish killing the Irish Brigade, what tripe. Even the battle scenes could not hold my attention. I could easily put this in a worst ten list of movies ever made. The characters are wooden, there is NO historical insight, the actors walk through their roles. Blah.
Rating:
Summary: awful
Review: I have to agree with everything that "How About No Stars" wrote. This movie was so bad on every level. The acting was horrible. Everyone in the movie made at least three long speeches and just droned on and on. I guess it was supposed to be "deep" and "dramatic" The attempt to portray slaves as on the side of the south was truly tastless. I can't say enough bad things about this movie. Some reviewers who didn't like this movie also didn't like "Gettysburg" I have to disagree there. I did like "Gettysburg" which just makes my disapointment in this movie so much more.
Rating:
Summary: A great film that is historically accurate
Review: Don't be fooled by ignorant people such as "how about no stars", and "awful" Gods and Generals is a great film that is historically accurate in almost every way. Many black men fought for the South of their own free will. According to one Union office in Winchester, VA. Jackson's army consisted of more than 3,000 armed black soldiers. Yes the movie is long, and yes they did skip over Jackson's valley campaign (which is where he showed his true leader ship qualities.) The worst part of the entire film is where Jeff Daniels give his little speech of how the south is not fighting for states rights. If you listen to what he say he is being a bigot. As the north was trying to keep the south in the union at the point of a bloody bayonet. The other bad part is when the Yankee soldiers are looting Fredricksburg, but stop at one house because they think a black woman owns it. The truth is they would have rapped her, looted the house, and burned it down as many Yankee soldiers thought that no black person could own property in the South.
Rating:
Summary: encore for the shmo
Review: (gods and generals was an absolute...well, i defer to the averageshmo from boston, for the shmo nailed it quite squarely.) -averageshmo, boston-
This wonderful film did away with the following misconceptions I had about the civil war(among others): 1. Slaves disliked both slave masters and slavery as a whole. 2. Southerner confederates were pro-slavery. 3. The civil war was, at its roots, perpetuated by the Southern states' desire to maintain slavery as an institution. I had it all wrong. I now know that slaves were perfectly happy with their enslavement, so much so that even when they were freed they still stuck around to fight for their former slave-masters' rights to own slaves. I am a little confused as to how slavery existed at the time despite virtually all southerners objecting to it (even the Confederate leaders themselves, which really baffles me). No, this war was for states' rights! To do what I can only guess, but certainly not to enslave blacks, since no confederates had any interest in doing so. Enough of the sarcasm. The point is that just because this movie is presented from some other viewpoint besides that of the "liberal hollywood revisionist elite", DOESN'T mean you God-fearin' simple-folk need to take it as fact. Sure, I can have an open mind - I can envision a white confederate, with a black man at his side (on a rare, paradoxical occasion or two) praying TO END SLAVERY. But the fact is that the confederates wanted slavery so bad, wanted to dehumanize blacks so bad that they chose to die for it. The confederate cause was wrong and dispicable, as were all those who tried to propagate it. Few times has a movie so enraged me - and I loved "Gettysburg".
Rating:
Summary: History off and speeches extended
Review: First of all, the plot of this film is based on Ted Turner's Georgian roots stressing that the south only fought for states rights and independence, which is bogus. But the film does show how the slavery issue divided individuals and families. Remember Lee had no slaves and abhorred the practice but joined the south purely out of loyalty to Virginia. Still the movie paints a pro southern plot. Lang and Duvall are great as their characters although some battle shots stunk (clearly computer made). Gettysburg had FAR BETTER MUSIC. The only reason for the three stars was due to the hilarity of some of these actors (Jeremy London, etc) to mimic southern accents and for the Chancellorsville battle (the Bonny Blue Flag song was also well done). Still this movie is SO FREAKIN LONG. At the intermission, half, could you imagine, half the theater left and NEVER CAME BACK< and I DONT THINK IT WAS THE POPCORN!!
Rating:
Summary: Clarified many preconcieved notions
Review: This wonderful film did away with the following misconceptions I had about the civil war(among others): 1. Slaves disliked both slave masters and slavery as a whole. 2. Southerner confederates were pro-slavery. 3. The civil war was, at its roots, perpetuated by the Southern states' desire to maintain slavery as an institution. I had it all wrong. I now know that slaves were perfectly happy with their enslavement, so much so that even when they were freed they still stuck around to fight for their former slave-masters' rights to own slaves. I am a little confused as to how slavery existed at the time despite virtually all southerners objecting to it (even the Confederate leaders themselves, which really baffles me). No, this war was for states' rights! To do what I can only guess, but certainly not to enslave blacks, since no confederates had any interest in doing so. Enough of the sarcasm. The point is that just because this movie is presented from some other viewpoint besides that of the "liberal hollywood revisionist elite", DOESN'T mean you God-fearin' simple-folk need to take it as fact. Sure, I can have an open mind - I can envision a white confederate, with a black man at his side (on a rare, paradoxical occasion or two) praying TO END SLAVERY. But the fact is that the confederates wanted slavery so bad, wanted to dehumanize blacks so bad that they chose to die for it. The confederate cause was wrong and dispicable, as were all those who tried to propagate it. Few times has a movie so enraged me - and I loved "Gettysburg".
| 
