Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: History according to Hollywood
Review: My greatest fear of films like "Gods and Generals" is that there is a history teacher out there somewhere showing their students this movie and telling them that this is what the Civil War was like.

Creative liberties asside, This movie is way too long. It probably could have been about an hour long if they would have cut out all the irrelevant Hollywood mumbo jumbo. Scene after scene tries to get you to identify with characters and understand their reasons for entering the war. I get it already. I don't have to see Stonewall Jackson spout out another ten minute prayer to understand that he's religious.

Part of the problem with this movie is that it tries to make everyone look like they were fighting this war for all the right reasons. That way you'll feel really bad when they die. It don't think that the Civil War was always that heroic and simple.

Now maybe they toned the violence down to get a PG-13 rating, but a movie about the Civil War is not a place to do that. Every time someone gets shot in this movie, they die instantly and painlessly. It wasn't that painless in reality and I think showing it that way takes away from the horror of the war that claimed more americans than any other.

My final criticism is that the fake beards used in this movie were absolutely terrible. There were scenes where I couldn't pay attention to what the characters were saying because I was too busy stareing at the aweful beards on the actors faces. Some of them actually looked like they were coming off. The actors have these smooth, young faces and a beard that would take five years to grow. It just looks bad.

The only good thing is the cinematography. The film does look beautiful, even during the most pointless scenes. But there's plenty of other great looking films out there with much better stories.

Rating:
Summary: It Doesn't Get much Worse Than This..
Review: There's a very good reason why this movie (a) made a fraction of its cost (B) was UNIVERSALLY panned by critics everywhere and (c)has now become the "poster child" for how NOT to make a film.

Simply put, it's one of the worst films ever made.

I won't even make an effort to address the problems with this movie. There are simply too many reasons why this film failed so miserably.

If you're a civil war re-enactor, it's inevitable that you're going to enjoy this film.

For the rest of us, however, sitting through this bloated monstrosity is painful.

Do yourself a favour - pass on this movie...!!!

Rating:
Summary: Falling in Love all over again!
Review: I saw this movie four times in the theaters and it is even better now that it is on DVD. If you loved Gettysburg and Glory you have to have this movie!

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Who?
Review: This movie does not even come close to the movie; Gettysburg. The music was horrible and it spent too much time on "Stonewall" Jackson," and not enough on Generals Robert E. Lee and Longstreet. The battle of Fredericksburg was close to the battle at Little Round Top at Gettysburg in detail and entertainment. But little or no mention was made of Gen. Lee's imput and ideas into this major battle.

I did enjoy the book and gathered a great understanding of how the war got started and how Gen. Lee became commander of the CSA's army. A timeline of the battles fought between the North and South was of great benefit in the book.

I think a book and movie should be written about the Northern Generals and how they struggled to gain control of the Union Army that were so divided into so many "famous" volunteer units.

I wasted my money and about 4 hours of my time watching this movie.

To think that had the South won the war, blacks and possibly other minorities might have ended up as slaves in our country.

Rating:
Summary: Where and Why?
Review: I loved Gettysburg. I loved the books these films were based on but after trying to sit through this movie a second time I find myself asking the same questions over and over again

Where and why?

Where is the rumored 6-hour version of this film?
Where are the other important battles?
Why are Lee, Chamberlain and Hancock turned into a supporting cast for Jackson?
Where is the dialogue between characters?
Why so many speeches and quotations?
Why cut out battles but leave in long scenes of Ted Turner singing?
Why so one sided? I can't remember Gettysburg so blatantly taking a side.
Why ignore history and just plop Lee into command of the Army like that?

I could go on but I won't. Its not an awful movie and is worth a viewing if you are interested in the Civil War or more particularly Stonewall Jackson but it could have been so much more. I can only hope that a longer cut of this film surfaces at some point because I believe it would fix many of the items I questioned above.

Of all the things that killed my enthusiasm for this film I would say the two biggest ones are the never-ending speeches and the lack of development of the other major characters. To be honest I fell asleep watching this DVD the first time after the first hour because it was 45 minutes of preaching and speeches. In regards to the other main characters I feel that Lee, Chamberlain or Hancock would have made even more compelling main characters than Jackson. Why get Duvall and Daniels and then underutilize them so much?

Rating:
Summary: Talk like that
Review: To those fans of Gettysburg, be prepared. Part of the reason that I liked Gettysburg was the way the filmmakers presented the characters, yes, I know they are real people, speaking in a plain speak. In Gods and Generals, all the characters are speaking as if a reporter were sitting in the corner or a tape recorder on the table. Every dialog was constructed as a soliloqy delivered upon a stage. I know these events were life changing and history making, but when you befuddle the actions with words dripping with life and death sincerity the message is lost. The watcher is forced to endure language rather than the display of war. The battle scenes were great I admit, but this was ruined by the tone. Shakespeare can do this, but this screenwriter(s) were trying to deliver a message that the bloody war did a fine job of doing all by itself.

Rating:
Summary: Loved it...need I say anymore?
Review: Although the movie was a bit long, I still enjoyed every minute of it. I love history and this movie was wonderfully done. Yes, it's a shame that it basically surrounds the life of Jackson, and calling it "Gods & Generals" was a bit off, but overall it's a well-made movie. I have not seen "Glory" or "Gettysburg" yet to compare this to, but in due time I will. I really don't care if this movie was historically correct or not, just as long as it suits it's purpose to entertain, and put some point across about the war to people who don't know. I am a music historian, and I am used to having real history twisted around for movies (ex. "Amadues" and "Immortal Beloved"). You deal with it, and those movies won Oscars and are just as entertaining as this. I highly recommend the soundtrack to G&G's! Very well done!

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals - Unvarnished truth
Review: Would you like to see American history researched, and told as it was, instead of the politically corrected version? Are you concerned that the facts surrounding American history, and especially the facts surrounding the greatest struggle in US history, the Civil War, are being so corrupted so as to be unrecognizable? If so, than Gods and Generals is definitely for you.

A word of caution; If you want black and white history neatly trimmed to fit into the paradigm of modern PC thought, this movie is not for you. If you are concerned you might be shocked to see things like Southern General Stonewall Jackson befriending and caring for blacks, or Union Generals bloody incompetence, or our much revered icon Abraham Lincoln, unwittingly help provoke the American civil war, then this movie is not for you.

My wife and I were so happy, so moved, so struck by this movie, that we will recommend it to almost anyone (see above for exclusions).

Rating:
Summary: Syrupy pap not for the diabetic
Review: Oh dear god deliver thy viewers from the great and momentous schlock that is this painfully embarrassing multi-million dollar debacle! It is rare that I find a movie so unwatchable that I have to augment it with more appealing pastimes such as balancing my checkbook or chewing on aluminum foil. The writing is a clicheed amalgam of every soap opera known to mom, the soundtrack a cheesy sendoff to every far superior period film, and the acting lends new meaning to the term honey-glazed Virginia ham. I can understand why so many of the characters sported gargantuan facial hair. If they need to find work in commercials after this elaborately failed opus, they would do better to conceal their identities. Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of Robert "napalm in the morning" Duvall and Mira Sorvino was a brief respite from the 25 other shameful deliveries, but on the most part, I am convinced that poor direction can make any seasoned artist look like a novice. I got the impression that all of the actors were told to deliver their lines in a cadence more bombastic than bombs and with such monosyllabic and quavering emphasis that even Arnold Schwarzenegger could laugh his way into the California governor's mansion. I'd be hard pressed to imagine even the most ardent civil war scholar to be satisfied with the emoting in such lines as "Look! There is Jack-son! Stand-ing like a stone wall!" Vomit! Never mind that the film has the historical integrity of a revisionist clansman or that the few African Americans portrayed "was jess damn happy to haves a job workin fo dey nice massah," because the pitiful affectations of all the perpetrators on the screen renders that more sinister subtext practically innocuous. You figure at least with period films shot mostly on picturesque landscapes that the cinematography could be an occasional distraction from the events in the foreground, but even that had an uninspired, made-for-television superficiality that makes me think fondly of the old Ponderosa. I will say that the costumes were passable and the parlor scenes good for a laugh, but on the most part I didn't think the Civil War was supposed to be that funny. Yes, they don't make films like this any more. But the B melodramas of the 30s run circles around this fanciful waste. Come back, Keanu! All is forgiven!!!

Rating:
Summary: what i learned from the movie "Gods and Generals"
Review: i learned that Abraham Lincoln was an evil dark lord of the north. and that the union soldiers were as bad as the stormtroopers. i learned that General Jackson was the luke skywalker of that time considering he lost his arm at the end. and his mentor Obi...err i mean General Lee was there too but he didnt die at the end though. jackson did. that was a great little twist they added. and who can forget the lovely "Esposita"(princess lea) and general jackson's slave friend(im not even going to say who they tried to parallel him with). oh and the most important thing i learned was that the confederates were the good guys! who knew!? at the end of the movie, it says that this movie is part of a trilogy with Gettysburg being the 2nd part, so i'm going to rent Gettysburg today and i expect it to be somewhat similiar to the Empire Strikes Back. ;p