Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Tried to do too much
Review: Gods and Generals while not a great film wasn't as bad as its harshest critics would have us believe.The film fails on numerous fronts chief among these is the fact that it tried to do too much and too much of the story was focused around one man namely stonewall jackson,while i have no problem with his strong religious convictions the audience was beaten over the head with it and after the second prayer vigil it became downright overbearing infact i'm convinced that if he survived the war he would have blown his brains out because it would prove conclusively God didn't believe in the "Cause" G&G would have worked as a film if like its predecessor Gettysburg it focused on one pivotal battle which in this case would have been Chancellorsville which was without a doubt the highwater mark for the Confederacy and a showcase for the dynamic duo of Lee and Jackson.Men in battle and under constant fire gives more insight to their characters than how many times a day they pray.That said the battles scenes were ok though they failed to evoke the true carnage of a civil war battlefield and stephen lang turned in a fine performance , but if you have absolutely no interest in the civil war then you may as well skip this one , which is a shame because one of the hallmarks of a good movie is that it sparks your interest where before their was none.

Rating:
Summary: Gods and generals
Review: This was AWFUL....Embarrassing and awful. I walked out of this movie in the theater just after intermission when they started TALKING AND TALKING again. If I was a soldier in the 20th Maine standing behind Joshua L Chamberlain as we prepared to assault Maryee's Heights, and he ran off into a speech like that, I think I'd have shot him myself.
I thought I might take it better if I rented it so I could advance the video. But now my wife was even laughing at the dialogue. "Me espousa" Oh puhleeeze ! And Jackson's death was treated like the death of King Arthur.
The men on both sides in the awful conflict were valorous in the extreme. They deserve to be presented better. I'd love to see a REAL director handle this story,not some ego maniac who wrote AND directed it. I would've loved to see "The Angel of Maryee's Heights" a Confederate soldier who couldn't take the agonizing crys of the wounded Federals anymore so he filled up canteens and climbed over the wall and onto the battle field to give then drinks. The Federal troops cheered him. Now THAT represents the tragedy of the Civil War more to me than some BS Shakespearean
oration that probably never took place. Show some respect Ted.

Rating:
Summary: Finally...
Review: I eagerly awaited the prequel to Gettysburg, and was much gratified by the movie. It's very historically accurate and entertaining, though the dialogue gets to be a bit much at times. As an avid ACW buff, I'm often very critical of movies in that period but this succeeds admirably. While Gettysburg shows much of the reasons the North fought (espicially in the scene between Chamberlain and Kilrain) Gods and Generals provides a more Southern viewpoint. It also delves deeply into the rather enigmatic character of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who all-to-often is shown as a dogmatic and legalistic white supremacist. Stephen Lang brings an energetic spin to one of the greatest military leaders of all time. Robert Duvall's protrayal of Robert E. Lee leaves Martin Sheen sputtering in the dust. Still, Duvall looks way to old to be playing Lee early in the war, Lee was a still an vigorous, brown-haired man then. While he's still not what I think of when Lee is mentioned, Duvall does well. I do wish, however, that Longstreen/Berenger could have been involved. While the CG leaves much to be desired and the movie's complete ignoring the pivotal battle of Sharpsburg, I give the movie two thumbs up, for its willingness to go against the flow and show a viewpoint in the Civil War that is all to commonly ignored. Instead of showing the assumed and informed viewpoint that the war was solely about slavery.

Rating:
Summary: A sympathetic view of the South
Review: Contrary to how most Civil War movie portray the South as a confederacy of slave owners and oppressors, this movie focused on the more human side...the Generals who were torn between their duty to their country and their love for their home.
Though drawn out in parts, the battle scenes were excellent and the portrayal of Jackson's death...touching!

Rating:
Summary: One Great Movie!
Review: I watched this movie in theaters with my family almost as soon as it came out. We jumped at the chance to watch a film that wasn't littered with the filth emerging from Hollywood today, and I can enthusiastically say that I wasn't disappointed in the least!

Our family loved this movie, because it is the most historically accurate and unbiased portrayal of what really happened in the War Between The States that we have ever seen. Honestly, we never expected the unapologetic Christian overtone of the movie, or the truthful and touching portrayal of Southerners as real humans, rather than monsters; I don't think we have ever seen a movie that so completely and incredibly shook off the confines of political correctness!

Now, bear in mind that this movie will not be a favorite of the "fast food generation"; clocking in at over three hours in length, this is not a film for the faint-hearted! However, if you are sick of the same-old, same-old, and interested in seeing a great, truly amazing movie, watch Gods and Generals!

Rating:
Summary: Disappointed! I hoped for much more.
Review: Not nearly as good as "Gettysburg". Much of the movie was booooring ...... The battle scenes not nearly as good as say "Band of Brothers" or even "Gettysburg".

Depicts the southern actors as having a moral blind spot to the whole issue of slavery - hardly ever mentioned in the movie.

Rent before you buy. Seeing it once will probably be enough.

Rating:
Summary: Historically accurate but overlong
Review: History buffs, no doubt, will love this film. I am not meaning that armchair variety which enjoys its history in leather-bound illustrated volumes accompanied by a nice cup of tea, but those arguably insane fanatics who re-enact every footstep and skirmish of the Civil War forces and seem to enjoy camping in dripping tents on soggy ground, reminiscing of better days.

I think this film would have worked better as a mini-series for television, seeing as TV viewers seem more willing to put up with a very, very long film if it's split up into segments (witness the behemoth, North and South). As it is (9 minutes shy of four hours) not even the DVD format can save one from inevitable yawning.

However, this aside, it is an interesting summary (that hardly seems the right word) of Stonewall Jackson's career. The film is somewhat flowery (the principal characters, of which there are many, all speak in dialogue that resembles a combination of history textbooks and Byronic style) and rather glosses over the hideous injustices of the war (all of the slaves shown, of which there are few, seem very much to love their masters, something which doesn't strike me as realistic) but the battles are portrayed in vivid, painstakingly precise detail - even down to the labelling onscreen of the participating parties. (Perhaps the re-enactors at work here?)

It focuses more on the South's perspective, as seen through General Stonewall Jackson's point of view (the film could very nearly be a biopic of his career), but the scenes with Colonel Chamberlain of Maine and his brother are touching in their familiarity and sincerity. I wish they had included more of this; Chamberlain as portrayed by Jeff Daniels in "Gettysburg" (1993) was my favourite character and he is not given enough room to work here.

Robert Duvall is properly crusty as Robert E. Lee, a better choice in resemblance (and, surprisingly, performance) than Martin Sheen was in "Gettysburg." He is not onscreen often but his scenes are well-acted.

All-in-all, this film is nice for history buffs with an afternoon to kill, but not one to watch repeatedly. Much more enjoyable and superior to its "prequel" is the 1993 "Gettysburg", which features much of the same cast but is better balanced on the whole.

~Reviewed by Megan Stoner

Rating:
Summary: Call me Politically Correct
Review: As a high school U.S. History teacher I wanted to respond to an earlier post by saying that I would NEVER show this movie to a class of mine. The fact that the movie is painfully dull is reason enough. As a Southerner and decendent of Confenderate veterans I think this movie is disgraceful in the way that it tries to promote the old southern myth that the Civil War had little to do with slavery. I know that makes me "politically correct" but that is something I will have to live with. Slavery, racism and segregation were evil and we as southerners should try to admit it rather than trying to deny that it ever happened. I loved Gettysburg but perhaps that was because it did not seem to have such an agenda to it. Hopefully, the last movie in this series will be better. I felt like I had to rent this movie because I knew someone would ask me about it sooner or later. My advice to the rest of you is to avoid this movie and instead buy a book like "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson or any other good history on the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Love the movie....hate the format!
Review: I had anxiously awaited the release of this dvd...only to be disappointed when I could not access the 'extras'....I own a dvd player...but don't own a dvd-rom. All of the little extras that I had hoped to view are not mine.....because of a technical detail which I didn't know about until I had the dvd in my hand.

The movie is great!!!! I am sure that I will watch it over and over again......but...until I purchase a dvd-rom drive...will not be able to enjoy the 'extras'.

Rating:
Summary: Book was much better
Review: This along with Gettysburg were excellent movies, two of my favorites but although I love the movies...I love the books more. Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara was much more detailed and much more moving than the movie that seemed to drag at points. Sometimes it seems as though it took longer to watch the movie than read the book. The books starts out with the John Brown raid at Harper's Ferry which helped develop the characters of Lee, Stuart and Jackson. The book also developed Chamberline's character early while he was a professor being penalized by the administration of Bowden college for speaking out against the rebellion and supporting the many students who joined the army. Also the scene where he tells his wife that he joined the army was much more moving and detailed in the book than in the movie. The build up to the war, was very important to get people to understand what was going on. I believe th

The movie was good in its description of the battles, but they forgot one major battle, the Battle of Antietam Creek. This was more bloody than Gettysburg and it was a union victory. I also wished that the end of the movie showed Lee and Longstreet planning the invastion of the North like in the book. A much better ending than Jackson's funeral march.

I did like the addition of the cook though, he was a powerful character and the book only showed one black character, Nate, one of Robert E Lee's former slaves.

I hope that if Ted Turner goes through with putting together the financing for "Last Full Measure" Ron Maxwell uses more of the book.

Anyway, that is just my opinion.