Rating: 
Summary: A Better Mini-Series than a Movie
Review: I really don't understand some of the negative criticism this movie has received. First, people like to throw the term "Lost Cause" around. As someone who has spent a good amount of time studying the Confederacy and "Lost Cause" writings, I don't see it in this film. Essentially, the "Lost Cause" theory, advanced by Jubal Early and others, was that the South fought bravely for its independence from an opporessive North, but despite the valor of its generals and soldiers, it was overwhelmed by Northern resources and manpower. It generally slights Union valor and generalship, and expresses pro-slavery and racist sentiments. Now, how is that directly present in this movie? Northern soldiers are portrayed equally as valiantly as Southern. Union generalship in the moive is portrayed as it was in 1861-3--bad. I also don't think the movie in any way depicts the Union's victory as inevitable. The movie ends with the greatest of Lee's victories--Chancellorsville. Some have criticized for downplaying the role of slavery as a cause of the war. I defy anyone to find one single pro-slavery element in this film. Well, neither Lee nor Jackson fought for slavery. Their characters are accuratly portrayed for the most part. Jackson, if anything, could be been played as even more eccentric. But the filmakers capture the great contrast of his being a fanatically religious man, and yet a cold-blooded killer in war at the same time. It is, however, disappointing Antietam and the major outcome of the battle (the Emancipation Proclamation) were not at all included in film. In that sense, the movie does fail to deal with the transformation of the war from one for the old union to one for a new union. In any case this is not a work of history. It is historical fiction and essentially the stories of three men: Lee, Jackson, and Chamberlain.Is the movie flawed? Certainly. First, the subject matter is just too large for a 3.5 hour treatment. We jump from Manassas to Fredericksburg, with virtually no reference to what happens in the mean time. A lot of time is wasted with sappy, and poorly acted scenes involving several Virginia families. Why we need Ted Turner and Robert Byrd cameos is utterly beyond me. It was probably a mistake to turn this into a theatrical movie, and would have made a much better miniseries. I would say its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses though. Despite some poor acting, the main cast is quite good, with Stephen Lang's Jackson being the highlight. The only problem I have with his performance is that I can, at times, see his General Pickett from "Gettysburg" coming through. The look of the movie is very good, and the battle scenes are quite stunning (though a bit sanitized). Personally, I also really enjoyed the score. The DVD itself is a major let-down. The special features range from moderatly interesting to utterly pointless. No deleted scenes. I sense Turner is going to at some point release an extended version of this ala Lord of the Rings. So, give this film a chance and accept it for what it is: A mostly accurate piece of historical fiction that would have made a better mini-series than a movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Wake me when we get to Appomattox
Review: The Civil War lasted four years, and if you watch "Gods and Generals" you'll swear it does, too. Odd, "Gettysburg" was just as long, but held my interest from beginning to end, and I've watched it three times. I couldn't sit through one showing of this mess. Hard to believe it was made by the same people, with many of the same actors. I give it one star, because apparently I have to give it something, but I would rather watch paint dry than sit through this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Lost Opportunity for the Lost Cause
Review: I'm a lover of Civil War history and could barely sit through this one - to say there was poor editing would be an understatement. The surrender of Harper's Ferry to Jackson right before Sharpsburg, the last minute arrivial of A.P. Hill could have been done with excellent effect instead of the overly long Fredericksburg episode, which as a battle was inconclusive to both sides. Very unfortunate - a lost opportunity to tell a great story.
Rating:
Summary: Better left on the shelf
Review: Gods and Generals is the worst Civil War Film I have ever seen. The film has many major flaws, but by far the worst is the dialog. The characters do not interact with each other; they make long, contrived, speeches. Joshua Chamberlain tells his wife that he is going off to war; he does so in a twenty minute speech. She, chagrined by his decision and worried for his safety, responds with a twenty minute speech of her own. The actors do their best, but it appears on screen as if they are being used as talking statues, the dialog is so stilted and contrived that there is no opportunity for them to actually act. The film's best sequence, the attack on Fredericksburg, is marred by bad model work in its opening scene; the train and town are unconvincing, but it bounces back with an excellent depiction of the bridging and street fighting in the town. Then, just as it's about to reach its climax, time for a speech! The action stops and we are treated to Joshua Chamberlain reflecting on war. Then they march off to the stone wall. It has to be remembered that ten years separate the making of Gettysburg and Gods and Generals, and the most of the lead actors in this movie look ten years older. Jeff Daniels and C. Thomas Howell, look oddly out of place when compared to Gettysburg because of this. Stephen Lang does a credible job as Stonewall Jackson but this film does not portray Jackson as he was. He was the prototypical religious warrior who thrived on battle. They called him "Old Blue Light" because it was said he actually glowed during combat. He was full of eccentricities that were a key part of his character. The film barely brushes these critical traits, instead demonstrating his religious fervor through a series of impromptu prayers, including one while he is in bed with his wife! Finally the soundtrack fails to enhance this movie at all. It does not compliment the action or the time period. It's almost like Bob Dylan is sitting behind you humming off-key though the whole film.
In summary, buy Gettysburg and enjoy it, no film portrays the Civil War more accurately or in a more entertaining way. Leave Gods and Generals on the store shelf, unless you suffer from insomnia, which this film will cure instantly.
Rating:
Summary: God Awful!
Review: This movie should be re-named God Awful! First of all I'm from Texas so I'm not a yankee...even as a true southern I was disappointed by the delieverance of Gods and Generals- I read the book loved it but, hated the movie first of all the acting done in this is like watching a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY bad high school performance-frankly it-
SUCKS...
it so over-dramatic...
Not to mention the epic long battle scenes that go on and on by the end of the first battle you won't care about who won the war anymore...
Their is alot of religious stuff involved in this movie so if your not a very religious person you will not enjoy this movie...
The only thing that I found remotely interesting about Gods and Genrals is the fact that it finally depicted the South's view of the war which I would'nt say is biasis so much as "new look" which was refreshing to see...so if your interested in seeing what the South has to say then see the movie or read the book...
But warning you will see little to no info on the North's view in this film...You'll end up wondering who the hell the South is fighting anyway....
All in all this movie is increadiabely long(longer then the Illaid), boring, and waste of money.
Rating: 
Summary: Extraordinary
Review: This is an amazing film. It is like a trip back in time. It feels authentic. It is a mature and respectful treatment, astonishingly free of modern political currents. It looks at events largely through the eyes of the Confederacy, which was a bit of a shock, and it spends most of its time focusing on General Stonewall Jackson, another shock. It reveals the religious faith of the period in all its fullness: more shocking still! And it shows a black siding with the South and Southerners talking about discarding slavery. Can this be? How refreshing to see a movie with such integrity which is able to portray in such a human terms the tragic drama of the Civil War era.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but historically inaccurate
Review: As a historian from a major university I had big expectations for this movie. I had read the book by Jeff Shaara, a nice read even if he exaggerates the truth too much, and therefore thought this movie would be good for Civil War historians because it could reach out to the public. I believe Ron Maxwell tried too hard making this movie "great". He focused on the wrong people. Chamberlain was a small piece of the puzzle at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and his quoting of Caesar before his charge at Fredericksburg was too much for me. Maxwell should have focused more on Hancock or perhaps Meade who were directly involved with the fighting at Fredericksburg. Maxwell also gave important people such as Robert E. Lee, Burnside, Hooker, Longstreet, and others little or no screen time. In doing so he fails to tell the whole story and therefore is historically inaccurate. Also, it seemed to me that every time a person spoke the impression was a speech was being delievred,no matter if it was two friends doing small chatter. The dialogue at times was too careful to detail. Its no wonder the movie did so poorly for not many historians I know went to see it and the public caught on very quickly that this was not worth 3-4 hours of their time. I do give Maxwell credit for making good battle scenes and presenting Stonewall Jackson mostly accurately. Maybe in the future new Civil War films will focus on being historically accurate and being shorter in length. I wasn't thrilled with sitting in a theater for 4 hours and neither was the rest of America.
Rating:
Summary: alright
Review: This movie is okay. The battle scene of Fredericksburg is pretty good. Just watch that and move of with life.
Rating:
Summary: This isn't really helpful, but.....
Review: I did not really like this movie even though I enjoy studying the Civil War. The battle scene of Fredericksburg was great but the movie was an overall let-down, not great but not aweful - just boring. On DVD, watch the Fredericksburg scene and get on with life. But to the point about why I'm writing this. Many reviewers have commented with disgust about the slaves being happy in this film, with the emphasis on the plural slaves. There was only ONE slave speaking-role in this film. The character of "Jim Lewis" was NOT a slave; he was, however, a real person who walked this earth and served the Confederacy - as a paid employee of Stonewall Jackson. He was a close companion of Jackson and even held a position of honor in Jackson's funeral! Jackson, as a religious man, hated slavery and even risked arrest by teaching black children how to read. There is even a predomently black church in Roanoke with a mural dedicated to Jackson's charity. I thought it was very brave to include the actual historical figure of Jim Lewis in this film about Stonewall Jackson because it is so outside the common line of thought. However, as is obvious from this and many other review sites, Jim Lewis's relationship was not depicted very clearly - even though the film shows him being HIRED by Jackson.
People should familiarize themselves with the historical record before they critize this particular character.
Rating:
Summary: Finally! No Confederate Bashing, Yankee Inspired Propaganda!
Review: As I reviewed the so-called reviews I couldn't help but notice that all but 1 of the 'low-ratings' stemmed from those persons located outside of the Confederate States of America. As many know, to the victors belong the spoils (i.e. - Winners write history the way THEY wnat to) that is why former Confederates used the Pen instead of the Sword to retaliate against the Yankee Propaganda machine. Notice the Southern Historical Society Papers (52 Vols); Confederate Military History (12 Vols); The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by President Jefferson Davis (2 Vols); The Coming of the Glory and Facts the Historians Leave Out by John S. Tilley (ca. 1940s). I could continue about the scores of supressed books out of print today like: United States "History" as the Yankee Takes and Makes It (pub. 1900); Things the South Didn't Fight For (pub 1917 by UDC). Thus we see from those who lived through it that the conflict was instigated by the United States when they Invaded another nation called the Confederate States of America. Over what? Taxes, Revenue, and Land Posession. Only after numerous defeats and possible European Recognition of the CSA did Lincoln throw out the Race Card (Emancipation Proclamation) which freed no slaves at all. Thus it is the beautiful thing about Gods and Generals, we are allowed to re-live 1861-1863 through the eyes of Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, and too keep people happy Through Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlin's eyes. Jackson and Lee were fierecly devoted Christian men (not fanatics) and led their men into battle expecting the Lord's Will to be accomplished. Even the tragic wounding of Gen Jackson is portrayed accurately if compared with Dr. Hunter Holmes McGuire's attestment of the situation as seen in the Southern Historical Society Papers. Without Yankee Propaganda and 21st Century Commentary the movie Gods and Generals presents one of those rare opportunities to see things as they really are. As a Pastor, SCV commander, and descendant of brave Confederate soldiers I HIGHLY recommend this movie. For more info about saving our heritage see: www.scv.org or call 1-800-My-DIXIE.
|
