Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: better than valium
Review: If I could have stayed awake to the end, I might have given it more stars.

Rating:
Summary: A disgrace to American history
Review: I really enjoy watching a lot of these war movies such as Tears of the Sun and such.. I decided to to watch this movie because I remember the one before they made this one wasn't bad. From what I've heard, this was originally a 6 hr film cut down to a 3 or 4 hr film. Maybe they should have cuttin it even more with with scenes added with fillers and this movie seeming to be more about God than the Generals. On top of that, it was based mainly on one general and seemed to take a more biased favor for the South centering on General Stonewall Jackson. The acting wasn't that great either. The only reason why I gave this movie 2 stars was for the fact that it was about American history, though this movie is a disgrace to American history. Especially to a friend of mine that was a descendent of a person who served in the Civil War.

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals-A Historian's Remarks
Review: I bought this DVD the first day of release after having read the books two years ago. I was pleased with it with two exceptions. The action sequences were very loud and the dialogue sequences were too low. I found myself adjusting the volume throughout the film. As a student of history, I would want to reccomend this film to young students as well as everyone elso who have no idea what went on during the Civil War. This film brings lets one see an accurate depiction of what the war was about.
This film was more about Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson than Robert E. Lee or Joshua Chamberlain. It brings to bare the subject of why the South seceded. It was not over slavery but over the rights of individual states. This film humanizes all the individuals and the stories/histories I had been raised with making them come alive. This is what a historical film should do. It must teach a lesson, that war is hell and this war was fought to make all men free which ever side they fought on. This film does just that.
Again I strongly reccomend this film for all students of history.

Rating:
Summary: This is no Gettysburg.
Review: After enjoying Gettysburg I was really looking forward to Gods and Generals. Unfortunately I was very disappointed in watching the DVD. This was actually the Stonewall Jackson and the freedom loving Confederates story. I got a little tired of this revisionist saga especially the Black cook as one of the good ole boys in the Rebel camp. While Gettysburg focused mainly on the Confederate side it did offer a balance of compelling Union soldiers also. Gods and Generals throws in a few scenes with Jeff Daniels and that's about it. Characterizations on both sides made Gettysburg the classic that it was. I cared about everyone in it. G & G is strictly Jackson. If you love the South and Stonewall Jackson this is for you. If not, stay away. Only the carnage and slaughter of the Union forces at Fredericksburg was noteworthy for it's depiction of war and why we should try to avoid it.

Rating:
Summary: stick with ken burns
Review: just finished watching G&G....i have to say that i was not very impressed. I think ken burn's Civil war is much better. the acting wasnt very good and the scenes were choppy. They tried way too hard and tried to cram too many historical quotes which gave the film a sense of corniness. They should have just centered on the life of stonewall jackson, in which stephen lang gave a descent performance. duvall's character was too stoic. if i had to summarize the movie in one word, it would be "cheesy". it definitely was a pro-south, pro-Christian film, but almost too much, i got the sense i was watching a movie directed by mormons....lol. All in all, stick with ken burns.

Rating:
Summary: Still an Awful Movie !!
Review: After seeing the theatrical release of Gods & Generals in February (and because I really do enjoy Civil War history) I made a second attempt to watch Gods and Generals on DVD. Sadly, nothing has changed, it is still a stunningly bad movie. Whenever I see a new Turner production has been released I think they can't get any worse than the others, but Gods and Generals has proven me wrong again, it approaches Ed Wood dimensions for plumbing the depths of dullness, tedium, and sloth. There are very few positive moments in Gods and Generals - Robert Duvall is always good (think how much he would have improved Gettysburg) and the scenes depicting Joshua & Fannie Chamberlain [Jeff Daniels/Mira Sorvino] are also very good, but after that you can stop watching this mess of a motion picture. Name any movie made about the Civil War - Glory, Red Badge of Courage, Shenandoah, The Birth of a Nation, Disney's Johnny Shiloh, and yes, even Gettysburg - they are all better productions than Gods and Generals.

Rating:
Summary: Good but not excellent, like Gettysburg
Review: I am rating this movie at four stars due to its comparison with Gettysburg. What is the difference? Gods and Generals is a good movie covering a fascinating era of history, but it is a very long movie with no real sense of pacing and rhythm. "Gettysburg" from the very beginning has a sense of urgency for troops to take and hold the high ground. I can remember wanting Robert Duvall to play Robert E. Lee for Gettysburg, and then being surprised by Martin Sheen, and one of his very best performances of his career. I can say the same think for Tom Berenger in the role of James Longstreet. This created a chemistry, interplay and conflict on the confederate side. I cannot say that there was any real chemistry created on the Confederate side in Gods and Generals. Robert Duvall's immense talents were not demonstrated here while Stephen Lang did a one actor show. Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain, C.Thomas Howell as his brother / Lieutenant and Kevin Conroy as a tough old veteran Mick sargeant were similarly in best performances and providing chemistry. Kevin has played this part for decades, since I was a kid. I now suspect he is an ageless, overgrown leprechaun sent to remind the descendants of Irish immigrants ( like myself) just how tough you had to be to survive those horrible years. Stephen Lang's Stonewall Jackson is indeed memorable. When presented in its formidable length, however, it feels overplayed. "Gettysburg" came from the main part of the Pulitzer Prize Winning Novel by Jeffrey Shaara, "Killer Angels," and is impeccable storytelling. "Gods and Generals" does not have this foundation.

It is my sincere hope that the third installment of this Civil War story, "The Last Full Measure," will include a director skilled at edits, creating a driving force to the story telling, maintaining a pace, and bring out the chemistry between different roles. It is a story that needs to be told and told well.

Having lived in Virginia, I can remember ploughing fields that yeilded belt buckles and bullets from the war. This is more than simple historical fact to me, as I had to calculate the number of dead that littered those fields that left so many metal artifacts behind. In terms of numbers, more Americans died in this war than all other wars America has been involved in altogether. I have seen the night lights over those fields when it was misty, hot and humid. Maybe if people on both sides would have stopped quoting scripture long enough to really look and listen, the killing would have stopped. The tragic end of this movie is Stonewall Jackson's death just inches short of encircling the Union Army of the Potomac after a devastating flanking maneuver. If that had happened, a peace treaty probably would have been signed to end the war.

Rating:
Summary: Another Ron Maxwell masterpeice!
Review: This super duper. See it!

Rating:
Summary: Are You Kidding?
Review: I cannot imagine anyone giving this movie a bunch of stars. It may be historically accurate, it is definitely visually stunning, but...for God's sake, make these actors shut up already!

Here's Stonewall Jackson addressing his troops: Blah, blah, blah, blah, righteous cause, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Yankee invaders, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, defending our homes.

Cut to, Stonewall and Mrs. Jackson's intimate "afterglow" conversation: Blah, blah, blah, blah, righteous cause, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Yankee invaders, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, defending our homes.

Cut to, Stonewall talking to the free black guy: Blah, blah, blah, blah, righteous cause, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Yankee invaders, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, defending our homes.

On top of the mind-numbing dialog, throw in a couple of piano recitals (I'm not kidding), and there you have it, over three hours of endless pretentious dialog...or, actually, five minutes of pretentious dialog that's repeated 36 times.

I enjoyed the book, thought the DVD would never end.

Rating:
Summary: Sins of Omission
Review: Note: the run time of the DVD is that of the theatrical release. Ron Maxwell (the director) had promised that the Battle of Antietam would be in a 6 hour version of the DVD. Either the lackluster box office returns prevented it, or there will be a special edition later.

As a Civil War enthusiast and amateur historian, I really wanted to like this movie. Instead I was disappointed. There are major story telling problems, and the vaunted "accuracy" of the film is debatable.

The Southern viewpoint is not as incorrect as some have suggested. The people portrayed as fighting for states rights historically _were_ fighting for states rights. Conveniently left out, though, is any pro-slavery viewpoint. Deliberately or not, _Gods and Generals_ is a shining example of "Lost Cause" orthodoxy.

Slavery itself is not well depicted. Only two African-American characters have speaking parts. One is fiercely loyal to her mistress, the other is Stonewall Jackson's cook (who shared an uncommonly close relationship with the general in real life). Both portrayals are accurate in themselves, but the picture they paint is far from complete. Nowhere do we see the legions of slave labor that followed Confederate armies, or the brutal living conditions endured by most slaves. The female slave loyally protects her mistress' home from Union looters in Fredericksburg. Missing are the slaves who openly helped the Yankees loot _their_ masters' houses.

If the Southern viewpoint is sanitized, so is the Northern. Nowhere does Maxwell mention the near mutinies in the Union armies over the Emancipation Proclamation. Unionists are all seen as anti-slavery. This was not the case. The U.S. of the 19th century, like most other countries at the time, was deeply racist. All of the Union characters appear as abolitionists, though abolitionists formed a small minority amongst Northern soldiers.

Maxwell's sins are mostly of omission, not commission. Individual surface details are accurate but only if they don't get in the way of the story.

The inaccuracies that do exist jar against the parts that are correct. Some inaccuracies are relatively minor (Jackson addressing his troops as the 2nd Corps well before the Confederacy could legally create corps). Others are far worse (Jackson learning of Hooker's movements at the beginning of the Chancellorsville campaign). Jackson's dying words don't include his call for A.P. Hill (one of my favourite bits of Civil War trivia, as Robert E. Lee called for Hill when he was dying, too). Am I being picky? Perhaps, but if Maxwell spent the time to get the cap badges and buttons correct, why did he play around with the more important elements? Like most Hollywood directors he was happy throwing accuracy out the window if it got in the way of the story.

This wouldn't be so bad if the story was well told. It's not. There are huge gaps in time and space. We jump from the spring of 1862 to December of that year, completely ignoring the bloody spring and summer campaigns. The battle of Antietam was filmed, but cut from the finished version (and left out of this DVD). Stonewall Jackson is the major character of the film, yet his valley campaign and his role at Fredericksburg are completely ignored. The Chancellorsville sequence ignores the first and third days of the battle. There are a lot of long speeches, a deliberate nod to _The Killer Angels_/_Gettysburg_, but they are overly long and terribly repetitive. At least half an hour of talking could have been cut easily without affecting the story.

Maxwell did get some things right. Jackson's passionate love life with his wife is brilliantly shown. The battles looked like they involved vast numbers of men (though they are not altogether accurate; don't expect a realistic depiction of gore and suffering, ala _Saving Private Ryan_). The period costumes are wonderful. I loved the shots of Harper's Ferry, Fredericksburg and some of the other lanscape shots (in spite of what some reviewers have said about them). This was the first film I have ever seen that gave me a true sense of what the Civil War would have looked like. For this reason I recommend seeing the film, but I can't recommend it as a good movie.

Maxwell tried to cover too much time and too many people. If he had focused on one or two battles, or just on Jackson, it could have been a superior film. Instead, it suffers badly from having to act as _Gettysburg_'s prequel, a more satisfying movie due to its focus and better source material.