Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals
Review: This movie is important for so many reasons as it tries to lay bare the troubles of the time and the reasons men fought. Without going deeply into the lives of the main characters it gives you just enough to become involved and care. One of the most touching moments of the movie is the fight between the Irish Battalion of the North and the Irish Battalion of the South. This battle scene literally makes you hold your breath and brings foreward the feeling of brother against brother without belaboring the point. As you watch one Irish soldier from the South break down, tears streaming down his face, as he holds his gun pointed at his Irish Breatheren you understand completely how this war truly divided a Nation. This an important film, beautifully done and worthy of much discussion.

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals: real history
Review: The movie 'Gods And Generals' is the second of a Civil War trilogy, based on the works of Jeff Shaara and his father Michael Shaara, and is a prequil to the movie 'Gettysburg.' This movie seemed to be either loved or hated by the public, and one person I talked to said his wife found the movie confusing. This is not surprising considering the general lack of knowledge
of American history. When Jay Leno goes 'Jaywalking' and asks people basic questions such as who was George Washington, many people do not know. But there may be another reason for the dislike of the movie. 'Gods and Generals' flies in the face of our drive to be politically correct. In an age when people try to regulate God to the sidelines, and make it seem as if people of faith are all extremists, here we have a film about a group of men and women whose references to God, faith, a heavenly confidence, the Savior, the Bible, etc., overflowed in their words and letters. In fact, it would be safe to say that letters from the Civil War era are often saturated with religious expression even in ways we are not familiar with, no matter how
strong our religious fervor. Such was the case back in the 1860s, and often less attention was given to the very battles that threatened to take their lives.

So imagine going to see this movie and expecting a nice Civil War tale, only to find its key figures quoting from the Bible, giving thanks to God for victories, encouraging each other to pray "if it be thy will," and having a confidence that in life or in death a person belongs to God. Surely, this cannot be, since we are told that we have a separation of church and state,
or we don't want to offend anyone with our beliefs, or that religious expression by past leaders is simply myth. The film is not pushing religion, but is simply expressing the nature of the main characters. This is in stark contrast to so many Hollywood historical films, where a 1990s era morality is imposed on characters from 1865, so that any married woman from that time
period will naturally take off her clothes and hop in bed with anyone she sees. According to Hollywood, there is not one chaste woman from the mid 19th Century. It seems it is better to be immoral than to be moral.

Perhaps another reason why a person might find this film confusing, is that these people were living in confusing times. Why would the South fight to defend their own freedom, while denying that right to others--their slaves? And did the North even have the right to force the South to stay in the Union when they wanted out? After all, our Declaration of Independence clearly says that, "....whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It also says, " But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." It would seem that the rights provided by our Founding Fathers were not the same rights applied to the South. In the end, the North wanted to preserve the Union, and the South wanted their States' Rights,
with no interference from Washington, let alone an invasion. To add to the confusion, there were families and relatives in both the North and The South who fought against each other. And what is an immigrant supposed to do when an Irish Brigade from the North is ordered to attack a Southern Irish Brigade?

To add to the confusion, Northern and Southern pickets, each guarding a side of the river, would often meet half way to trade coffee for tobacco. And how does a Union soldier explain to his commanding officer why he walked over to the Confederate side for an evening of card playing? That would be enough to get your hand and foot shot off. If these two sides were enemies, weren't
they supposed to hate each other?

For the rest of us, who may have a more balanced view of religion in American history, this film is refreshing. The battle sequences are very well done, and what is interesting here is how the leading characters have a social life outside of their army life. Unlike the movie 'Gettysburg,' where all of the attention was focused on either the battle or plans around a
campfire for the next day's battle, we see the tender side of these warriors, who can go from a tender husband and lover of children, to having an attitude of almost cold duty to deserters as well as the enemy. As a result, we see these people as being very human, and having to do often impossible jobs that they would look back as unbelievable.

And there is the human ineptness of some Generals--hardly gods--that got their men killed for no reason. The Union Forces were once on the outskirts of Fredericksburg unopposed. All they had to do was cross the river, take the town and high ground, and wait for Robert E. Lee. This should have been simple, but instead the Union Commander decided to wait for some boats to
arrive, and by the time the boats arrived, The Southern Army had fortified the city. Now the Union Forces had to build their bridges under enemy fire, fight in the town building to building and street to street, and then charge across an open field against Confederate soldiers protected by a stonewall. All of this is expertly handled on film. So much slaughter. Six hundred thousand men on both sides--about as many as the rest of our wars put together. No wonder soldiers were pinned down and
used the dead bodies of their comrades as protection from the incoming bullets. And yes, you do see and hear the bullets plunk into the dead bodies that are used for protection.

What is a great aid to this film is that all the scenes were filmed on location whenever possible. The town of Harper's Ferry served as Fredericksberg, and as a result the film makers had at their disposal an entire town with the original Civil War era buildings still in place. They even had empty lots upon which to add the buildings that would be blown up to show the results of a town being shelled.

The dvd is also loaded with extras, and once you are done watching this nearly four hour movie, you can easily spend another 90 minutes if not more watching some of the dvd documentaries.

So why did the South loose the war? Perhaps it was because of their mistaken assumption that the South was on the same par as the Kingdom of God, and to fight for one was to fight for the other. Then there is the fact that the cream of Southern leadership were killed in battle. Then there are the lack
of resources. After nearly two years of fighting, you would think an army would be adequately supplied by that time, but still soldiers were marching without shoes. Then there is the chaos of the Confederacy. How does a government order a war draft, while at the same time not interfering in state's rights?

Perhaps the bottom line is that the South never really had a
chance. They had no cannon factories, and largely relied on older technology for firepower. It was really a question of who would outlast each other--the North that suffered defeat after defeat after defeat in the first couple of years of the war, or the South, which was always lacking anything needed to fight a war--except spirit.

'Gods and Generals' takes the viewer through these opening years of the war when fighting a battle was more of a guessing game by untried and untrained troops. Who would ever guess that as much of a slaughter as these opening years of the war were, they would only get worse, as the North would go on to lose 50,000 men in 1864 alone. That will be the subject of the next Civil
War film, 'The Last Full Measure." Both sides gave it all they had, and 'Gods and Generals' does about a good a job as one could hope for in getting the story right. This is a rarity in Hollywood, which tends to print legends over facts. Still, the movie is four hours long, and even then it skips over details.

Rating:
Summary: Worst Movie of the Year
Review: I am an avid Civil War buff and I looked forward to seeing this movie having read the book. This movie totally destroys a great book by an amazing author. Gods and Generals is too long, has too few battle scenes, and glorifies the Confederate cause. I am ashamed to have viewed this movie and I hope that no one else will be subjed to its tedium.

Rating:
Summary: The best Civil War movie ever !
Review: I heard the critics about Gods & Generals, and I expected the worste !
But those critics are really false ! This movie is really awesome ! All the views, battle scenes, ideas of the director are really wonderful. The dialogs are not boring at all, IF you see this movie with intelligence and not in expectation of big battles all the time with plenty of dead soldiers, explosions and screams ! If so, you are loosing your time with G&G, go and see Terminator !
But if you are open minded, you can understand this movie and then Gods and Generals will appear to you as the major envent it should be. The battles sequences are dramatic, you have never see the Civil War like that, with the point of view of the soldiers, the sorrow of the civilians, the drama of the period, very well brought to the screen by Ron Maxwell, who has made his best movie.
All the noise about this movie was made by stupid people, who have no idea about their own history, who believed uncorrectly that the movie was only for the South and ignored the slave problem (although the North has plenty of scenes and the black actors speak about becoming free) or were hoping of epic battles, which don't represent the real war at all.
A really good movie, I recommend it to all open minded persons.

Rating:
Summary: What is up with all of the religious pontification?
Review: I live in the Capital of the Confederacy so naturally I awaited with great anticipation the release of Gods and Generals. What a waste of over 3 1/2 hours. The battle scenes were good, but the story lines never get developed nor do the characters. Rather I am left with the feeling that I watched Thomas Jackson lead sermon and quote scripture for two hours of the movie. Not what I expected at all. Jackson may have been an EXTREMELY pious man and have been compelled to feel as though he were serving God's will by casting out the invading horde (the Federals), but the movie gets lost in the constant dialogue to this end. Truly lost unfortunately. Do yourselves a favor and pick up the book instead.

Rating:
Summary: Best Laid Plans of Film Directors and Men
Review: The road to historical accuracy is paved with good intentions. Yet Ronald F. Maxwell's prequel to his award winning "Gettysburg," proves that the best laid intentions of film makers to depict historical events, sometimes go astray. Gods and Generals is a valiant effort and enjoyable film. The obstacles that presented themselves to Maxwell, however, result from the length and breath of the events he has transposed to the screen. Whereas "Gettysburg" occupied a time window of three-days, Gods and Generals covers most, but not all the events within a two year span. This longer historical time frame leaves what Maxwell brought to the screen, and what he omitted, open to more scrutiny than his previous effort. Maxwell treads a tightrope between a chivalrous southern perspective and a "Lost Cause" interpretation. The only two African-American characters in the film, Jackson's loyal cook Jim Lewis ( Frankie Faison) and a housekeeper of a well-to-do Fredericksburg family, have their own motives for survival. Yet clearly Maxwell had not even scratched the surface of the complex issue of slavery. In addition, the focal character of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (Stephen Lang) adds to the multitude of choices the film maker must decide concerning the opposing forces of myth versus the "human face" approach to this well known historical figure. Recruiting Civil War historian and Jackson scholar James I. Robertson, Jr. as a consultant to the film, Maxwell chose to dispel the common myths of Jackson and convey the human side of this complex man. Absent are the eccentricities and foibles that have become all too familiar: the constant eating of lemons, even in the heat of battle, is strangely replaced by a symbolic penchant for lemon-aid. Jackson's hypochondriac obsession with his own body (particularly concerning his arms and hands) is replaced by wounds suffered in battle. Amplified are his deep religious zeal; his devotion as a loving husband and caring father. Absent too is the full impact of Jackson's military genius. Along with not more than a hint of America's bloodiest day, the battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg, is the complete omitting of the campaign that sealed Jackson's place as a great captain-the Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Perhaps a mere montage to suggest the process of Jackson's string of military victories between First Manasas and Fredericksburg would have benefited this film greatly. The team work between Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall) and Jackson, that culminated in the famous council of war between these two great military tacticians at Chancellorsville, likewise, did not come across as it could have in the film. The focus on Jackson as the film's central character, consequently regulated Lee to a backseat role. Even the outstanding acting talents of Duvall, (one of my all-time favorite actors) could not rectify this position bestowed upon him by Maxwell. On the plus side, the battle scenes are spectacular. The film's climax, the battle of Fredericksburg, is depicted accurately from beginning to end. The hand full of actors that return to their characters from "Gettysburg" lend a welcome continuity to what should emerge as one of the epic film trilogies of recent times. The DVD's many extras reveal the film maker's noble intentions for historical accuracy. Unfortunately, in four hours of film, some of these good intentions fell short. In spite of its shortcomings, Gods and Generals deserves a place in any history and film lover's library. It is hoped we do not have to wait another ten years for The Last Full Measure.

Rating:
Summary: Great!
Review: This part of the series is much better than the first: better cinemetography, more historically accurate, etc. The movie is about soldiers and the war that they fought. I was again sickened to hear a few people lament that it didn't talk much about "the cause" in their mind, i.e., slavery, etc. Why don't they say such things about any other war movie? Did Private Ryan sit there with a solilique on why he fought? Did you hear it in the Band of Brothers? Here it was done well and in the right measure. When my cavalry squadron was deployed to Bosnia, I can tell you for sure that we didn't talk about "the cause"; that's up to the politicians. We talked about our families,home, each other, and "the enemy." For those of you who have never been in the military and still hang on to the fallacy that Civil War soldiers all sat around the camp fire discussing "the cause" through glasses 150 years later really need to get a grip. And for all those that worship at the Glory alter, albiet a great flick, it was less historically accurate in my view and was not representative of the war. The 54th Mass was the exception and not the rule. Here, in Gods and Generals, both sides are viewed; the majority is viewed. Granted, it does mostly revolve around Stonewall Jackson, but that is a good thing. I thank Ron Maxwell and all of those who made this historically important film a reality. I can't wait to see part three!

Rating:
Summary: Maxwell Captures an Era
Review: I find this film to be an excellent, detailed, highly accurate portrayal of the spirit of the time in which it took place. People tended to speak in flowery phrases and religious convictions were central to many, if not most, lives. Ron Maxwell and cast deliver the goods when it comes to these issues. I strongly feel that the central irony of the Civil War (there were many) was captured in this film - that people of good will and strong moral certainty, motivated by concepts such as honor, loyalty, courage and devotion to home and family find themselves committing the ultimate sin of murdering one's fellow human beings in the name of those values. Was this film too long? In my opinion, it was not long enough.

Rating:
Summary: A great film
Review: This is an excellent film, superbly done, the only film to portray "Stonewall" Jackson in more than a cameo role. Of course, no film is for everyone. And one or two of the negative reviews here lack credibility. It doesn't make sense that anyone who has such hatred for it would spend the time to watch it to the end. Someone even complained about the weight of the actors, a truly bizarre comment.

Rating:
Summary: Falls Short of Gettysburg
Review: I do not want to dwell on what other reviewers have already stated. Yes, there was just too much talking and not enough action. Yes, Ted Turner's camio was just plain bad. But, what really disappointed me about this movie is that, besides Stephen Lang's Stonewall Jackson, the viewer has no connection with the other characters. Yes, you see Hannock on a horse at Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville, but thats about it. Chamberlain is always spouting speaches that are too long. But, what about the other characters? What about Longstreet, Early, A.P.Hill, Greg, Hood, Trimble, and, yes, Lee? These important figures are given only bit parts as opposed to Gettysburg where Ron Maxwell developed these characters a little bit more to give the audience a better appreciation of how historical figures complemented each other. It was difficult to determine who some of them were. What is truly missing is Jackson's Shennadoah Campaign where the legend and man were truly merged together by the legendary marches of his "foot cavalry". Had Ron Maxwell added this to the film (by eliminating a parlor sceen or two) this would have added greatly to this film. I do recognized that besides all of my comments, this is still a well made film. Those who critized the reenactors for being too "pudgy" should try to do better than these gentlemen who bring some true realism to this film I do recommend watching it. I have just two hopes....1)That the editors do take the film on the cutting room floor and develop another addition (even if it is 6 hours long) and 2) That when they make "The Last Full Measure" that the director and editors remember the mistakes of this movie.