Rating: 
Summary: This movie was so boring
Review: This was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. I actually walked out and left during the intermission. There is no plot, or if there is, it is very thinly constructed. It is basically scenes of the Civil War battles. There are no main characters that the movie focuses on. For example, in BAND OF BROTHERS, the movie is about World War II, but there were main characters that the film is about. This one had no main characters I could see. It was a poorly made movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Best Civil War film.
Review: This is the best film to date about the Civil War because it shows the South's view about the war without compomising the North. I disagree with the critics of this film who say that you would not know that the Civil War was fought over slavery by watching this film. Although the slavery issue is not portrayed as the only reason for the war (it wasn't) it is portrayed very well in several scenes. The DVD version has a special section with commentary that explains how they did the research for this film which accounts for its accuracy. I found this film to be better than Gettysburg in showing both the battles and the people involved. Some critics have stated that there is too much dialog. I disagree. For people that do not have a lot of knowledge about the reasons other than slavery that led to the Civil War, it is needed. I truly hope that the video for this film sells because in our area the film was only one theater for less than two weeks and received negative reviews. I believe that the reason for this is that this version, unlike so many others, is not "politically correct" in portraying the South as the bad guys and the North as the good guys. In this film both sides are shown as human beings who believe in God and are fighting for what they believe is right. Every person who has any interest in the history of the United States and the Civil War should see this film.
Rating:
Summary: Banal, Pontificating, Civil War Claptrap
Review: I walked out of a "sneak preview" of this movie and still felt cheated even though admission was free. I was followed by several others whose pysches were under attack by the posturing words of the Southerners. Egad! Stay away from this one, or else wear a gas mask if you insist on watching it.
Rating:
Summary: Painfully bad
Review: As is obvious, the only people who like this movie are reenactors and Lost cause enthusiasts. The movie itself has absolutely no connection with history. It is filled with scenes that never happened, invented by the moviemakers in an attempt to re-write history. No matter what some of these reviewers say, the moviemakers editted the rather large mention of slavery from Virginia's secession declaration, again in an attempt to portray secession as something it wasn't. As a movie, it is a complete failure, a series of bloated, neo-Victorian speeches wrapped up in a gauze of self-importance. The moviemakers claimed that it failed in the theaters because of a liberal conspiracy. Yeah, liberal as in an appreciation for good movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Poorly focused cinema but wonderful history
Review: "Gods and Generals" is good history (I think this was the filmmaker's goal) but it lacked from the story telling aspect. My feeling is that the directer did not know exactly what he was going for. Was it a film about Stonewall Jackson, or civil war leadership in general? Because the directer did not know, the film lacks focus. If it is about military leadership in the Virginia theater, it did a poor job: too much Jackson, not enough Lee, Longstreet, Hooker, or Burnside, AND NO McClellan???? If it was only about Jackson (which I think it was)than I have two questions:1) Why is Jeff Daniels's "Joshua Chamberlain" even in this movie? Chamberlain only becomes inportant to the war at Gettysburg. It seems to me that he's only in there so PC-Hollywood would not cry too hard about a "pro-Confederate" story. If the film highlighted McClellan, Hooker, or Burnside, failures all, than the Yankees would have looked bad, instead noble but inconsequential Joshua Chamberlain was used. Critics trashed the "pro-South" nature of the film anyway, so why damge the story arc by adding Chamberlain. 2) How come the film jumps from First Manassas in the summer of 1861 alway to Fredericksburg in Dec. 1862 without so much as a mention of what happened inbetween? Alot of important things happened to the main characters during that time. The story arc of a better film would have revolved around Stonewall Jackson and left out Chamberlain. (Chamberlain is not really relevent to a story about Jackson) A better story of Jackson would include (at least in referance or as montage) the much-heralded Shanandoah Campaign and the ensuing forced march to Richmond where Jackson was criticized after the Battle of the Seven Days. Antitam is also pretty important to Jackson's story, more so than Fredericksburg. I like the story of Jackson's reaction to the loss at Antitam; it would have made a great scene. I have heard that a longer 6-hour DVD will be released later in the year or next. Perhaps two extra hours would solve the questions of Shanandoah, Seven Days, and Antitam? I do not expect to see these battles to the detail of the ones already in the film, but a mention would at least be nice. I'll wait until it comes out, maybe I'll buy it. That all being said, I found the movie to be interesting, having close ties to Fredericksburg myself and being a big civil war buff. The attention to detail and accuracy with regards to the recreation of the battles is wonderfull. The movie is great for fans of history, but I'm not sure other people would like it. I would love to see a well made biopic of Lee, Jackson, Sherman, Grant, or McClellan. Unfortunately, "Gods and Generals" is not it.
Rating:
Summary: Gettysburg was better!
Review: This film was very hard to follow, 3 years of the civil war covered in the movie was too much, I often didn't know which battle was being fought, character development was poor except for Stonewall Jackson. It seemed the movie was more about him than the Civil War and I was very disappointed with how little screen time Robert Duvall got portraying Robert E. Lee which he did a fantastic job of. If you knew nothing of American History, you would never know there was such a thing as slavery watching this film except where Stonewall "interviews" a black man to be his personal chef. After watching this black man have midnight talks with Stonewall under a starring night, sit in on battle plan meetings with other generals, and march with the cadets at VMI at his funeral one would of thought that racial equality had reached a pinnacle during the civil war. The southern blacks were even actively helping the confederates. If any one was portrayed as racist it was the union sgt calling them "darkies". Gettysburg on the other hand I came away knowing more about the Civil War than when I first started watching it. I was emotionally attached to both the characters from the North and the South expecially when Lee sent his troops across the battlefield and the knew they were going to be slaughtered but went any way. It's worth a watch but I probably wouldn't watch it over and over like Gettysburg.
Rating:
Summary: American Taliban
Review: Warning! Spoilers ahead! The acting: Reverential. Embalmed. The dialogue: Portentous. Humorless. The best scene: The vaudeville turn (or "Ted's Cameo"). The battles: Bloodless--this looks like fun! After all the talk about bayonets as weapons of choice for Gawd's chosen rebels, none onscreen. (Preserve your MPAA ratings.) The plot: Talk, talk, talk, talk, pray, talk, pray, pray, pray, fight, talk, pray, talk, talk, pray, pray, pray, talk, fight, pray, talk, talk, talk, pray, pray, talk. Pray. The disappointment: Immense. With several years' living history under my belt, I can enjoy this movie only if I'm willing to make allowances and puff up the cause of re-enacting. But I'm not.
Rating:
Summary: "Springtime for Stonewall?"
Review: As a student of American History, especially the War for Southern Independence/Civil war, I was thoroughly bored and dismayed by this love letter to Major Gen. Thomas Jackson. Showing his imagined "softer side" was revisionist history in the highest. Jackson was a hard man, a religious mystic and fanatic, with Napoleonic ideas of battle that were debunked once and for all after his death by Lee's ill-advised frontal assault at Gettysburg known as "Pickett's Charge." Stephen Lang is an excellent actor, but Jeff Shaara's Jackson and the historical Jackson are two completely different animals. Jeff Daniels did a yeoman job, but his restricted role would have co-starred him in any other film: I see this as a concession to the Northern Contingent, as they were not remotely given equal time on screen.
I am so very glad I rented this instead of running out to buy it as planned. If the novel is anything like the film, I shall be certain to avoid it; Jeff Shaara is certainly not the author his late more famous and Pulitzer Prize winning relative was. I am sorry if our Southern Brethren wish to preach about "The Cause," but it should be remembered that when they speak of their "rights," they are largely talking about their PROPERTY rights, in that they saw Lincoln as an Abolitionist. Anyone doubting this should simply look up the archives of the Charleston Mercury, and they can be disabused of their illusions.
I count Lt. Gen. James Longstreet as a personal hero, I was more than disappointed at the one-sided, and often silly portrayal of the first years of the war. Let us only hope that the last episode ("The Last Full Measure") does not follow the same treatment. I thought Ted Turner would do better than this.
Rating:
Summary: A living history on DVD...
Review: Gods and Generals, like its predecessor (and 'sequel', yes you read that right) Gettysburg, brings the Civil War to life on the silver screen. Through a combination of great cinematography, authentic sets, costumes (many living historians were involved in the making of this film) and incredible acting you will feel as if you are there on the battlefields and homefronts of this country's most divisive time. The most notable asset of this movie is the masterful acting job done by Stephen Lang, who plays "Stonewall" Jackson. In an Oscar caliber performance (the Academy I hope will award Mr. Lang for his efforts), Lang gives us a great view of a very complex man. Lang obviously did his homework well, the strength of his acting job is clear in the fact that you forget it's Lang and believe it's Jackson on the screen. Very well done... Overall, a great Civil War movie even with some errors and omissions. One not to be missed!
Rating:
Summary: Truth in History
Review: Gods and Generals is a breath of fresh air. At last a movie that's not slanted to favor the northern side. This is as close as it gets to historical accuracy in the motion picture industry. If you have any interest in the War Between the States, you should see this movie. This is an epic motion picture.
|
