Rating: 
Summary: To remember the best of ......
Review: Some people have vision, just as Jake Butcher did when he brought a successful World's Fair to this college town 25 yrs. ago. Another is Ted Turner who has done much for the South. A salute to Ted Turner for reminding us that war is Hell. At this time of impending war, we Americans need to remember the reality of the savagery war brings out. Beginning and ending scrolls are accompanied by beautifully sung patriotic pieces of that era. The music in this extravagant spectacle was marvelous! Throughout the music, you can absorb the spectacular vistas of Southern countrysides which are a feast to the eyes. I recognized Harper's Ferry, West VA as the location of much of the fighting. It is a unique place, not easily forgotten by an impressionable Southerner. Other scenes were enacted in MD and VA but some were closely resembling the great Smoky Mtns. of NC and East TN Mostly this version of an unfair war followed Stonewall Jackson's career. He was as strong as a "stone" wall but at times glorified as a diety. I thought "SJ can't be that weepy." He's portrayed as an extremely religious man, praying to God as we are inspired by the night sky. Astronomy is mentioned in George Eliot's opening quote. The cinematography was fantastic with picturesque sunrises, and the special effects in the night sky were something else. The pyro-technics on the field during the reenactment of the fall of 20th artillery division of Maine was quite something. Jackson also showed his human side, remarking about his dead mother and first wife. The last one was about twenty years younger than he. The climax of his humanity in this film occurs when he meets his baby daughter on the steam engine of the VT&T to the strains of a stirring version of DIXIE. The only funny part of this serious movie portraying our history was the scene in which Jackson tromped around pretending to be a horse, carrying the lovely 5-yr.-old Jane with whom he'd instantly fallen in love. She sadly dies of scarlet fever, but this rough (yet gentle) man made her last weeks on this earth very enjoyable. They used the Bible to write reports, calling the casualties and consequences "the will of God." Even the black woman pretending to be the mistress of the antebellum manor quoted the Bible. The Confederates believed their battles were comparable to those of the Phillistines in the Bible and to the conflict between David & Goliah. They had ragtag uniforms mismatched so as to be demeaning. They talked funny. Some had no uniforms at all, but they all proudly had that Confederate "fighting" flag and showed their Southern pride. Billy Yank may have been better clothed than Johnny Reb, but in no way could compare to the courage and tenanciousness of our Southern spirit. As Prof. Mike Lofano of Maine would describe the Knoxville men as being pugnacious. What joy it was to watch the bluecoats retreat on more than one encounter! Gen. Stuart was a dandy with that feather in his hat. Longstreet's cigar was his trademark. He perservered always with his trusty cigar. What a marvelous toast he gave to Southern womanhood at the Christmas gathering. In The Wilderness skirmish, we met Gen. Hooker of the famous anecdote, "Who's your father? "Oh yes, they used beautiful horses; Lee's white stallion was a standout. As a pre-Bob Hope entertainment for the troops, all you can say is "hooray" for the Irish singer and the costumed woman dancer. Jackson attempted to show that there's no blame in war -- we must all forgive. Jackson prophesized his own demise, never dreaming he'd be injured by his own men. What a sad circumstance when his brigate executed three of their own as deserters. We saw lots of generals in this 4+ hr. production but where were the gods? This version brought our heroes of that war to life. But what a disjointed war! As Lee command, "God will not take him (Jackson) from us when we need him so much," it made me wonder where was God during those tumultuous years. Jackson saw visions of glory as he died and at last is a man at peace. His casket in the cortege at VMI (two months before Gettysburg) had the beloved Confederate flag on top and was draped in bunting. He proved that the brutality of war justifies the cause, and all are changed by the horrors of it. It was a bloody mess.
Rating: 
Summary: Does this top Gettysburg?
Review: Does this top Gettysburg? Probably not in my opinion. For the person who doesn't have much knowledge of the Civil War this movie may seem confusing at times. I asked myself, "Is this a movie about Stonewall Jackson?" or "Is this a jab at Union leadership during 1861 to 1863?". Based on Shaara's novel, the movie does skip some interesting chapters in the book which may have helped build several characters confusingly added as history unfolded. Truly it is very hard to capture the years of the war without skipping key events such as Antietam or 2nd Manassas and fit it all in nearly four hours. The romantic and mythic feel of Lee and Jackson somewhat come to life though their aura rarely shines as compared to the novel. Maxwell has truly taken on more than moviegoers may be able to handle or understand in this wildly ever-changing film. For the non-Civil War buff, I would rate it 3 stars. Now for the Civil War buff rating: 1 star. For a Civil War Historian like myself it skips too many things, introduces unimportant individuals to timeline with important events. Over glorified characters are brought forward and Union leadership is horribly constructed to explain their motivations or history. The fighting is extremely clean (made for television someday) and confusingly demonstrated as to explain the battles. Large scale battles such as Fredericksburg and Manassas are near skirmishes on film which can make a novice think few were involved. Uniforms and grit are better conveyed compared to Gettysburg although some battlefield pyrotechnics are constructed on computers that look very fake and laughable. This leads me to say to Maxwell, does the movie "Glory" mean anything? If you want to demonstrate action, please watch the first 15 minutes of Glory to get a better feel of battle and put that same action into your movies! Maxwell's cleanliness unfortunately reappears and poorly defines Civil War fighting. The silly romances of Stonewall Jackson and his wife along with model-like actresses made this movie a poor representation of how people looked and lived in 1860. I hate to nitpick, but this movie just didn't have it.
Rating: 
Summary: A Great Film
Review: I was very impressed by 'Gods and Generals'. The theater I went to was packed and the people in the crowd were very appreciative. Everyone stayed until the end. Stephen Lang did a excellent job as Stonewall Jackson. Duvall, Daniels, and Mallon were very good in there roles. I wish there would have been more Lee, Chamberlain, and Hancock but I understood they were focusing on Jackson. The battle scenes were excellent. Fredericksburg with the street fighting and the charges against the stonewall at Marye's Heights were mesmerizing. The scenes of the Confederates coming out of the woods at Chancellorsville were also well done. The death of Stonewall was very moving. I'm glad to see a movie about the Civil War that is not afraid to portray both sides fairly. I can't wait for the extended DVD which will expand and enhance this excellent movie.
Rating:
Summary: Sloppy editing; overacting
Review: The movie was poorly edited. Several times we see the same shot over and over again. We see the Union soldiers carrying back the injured and you can tell it's the same actors again and again. They just repeated the scene. Panning across the stone wall you see every 5th person get hit. Each person dies with the most overdramatic movements I've seen, reaching to the camera. The plot is mild. The thought of making a proper civil war movie was nice, but you can't have the extras fooling around in the back of a shot. If they didn't repeat scenes they wouldn't need to have an intermission. Watch it on a rainy day rented from the local video store.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not as good as Gettysburg,
Review: The battle scenes were trememdous. Stephen Lang as General
Jackson was alright. Brian Mallon as General Hancock, was
overshadowed, this actors part was not only intregal but
important. The 12 minute intermission was needed. I would
rate the movie as 3 stars. There were however imperfections
historically only one attuned to this era would pick up.
I felt that Ron Maxwell's Gettysburg had more feeling. I do
however like the use of the actors, especially how Maxwell
was able to gather many from Gettysburg. I wish I could have seen the Antietem Battle, as this battle was pivotal. I understand it is part of a future DVD release.
Rating:
Summary: Very good, not great
Review: I went to see the movie on opening day. I have been looking forward to seeing this film for a couple of years. I am a big Shaara fan and his books are outstanding. I was disappointed right from the opening scene when I immediately recognized that about a third of the book had been left out of the movie. I don't feel that the movie lead us into Gettysburg very well. There was not enough about Hancock, Champerlain, and Lee in the movie. Leaving out the pre-war material and skiping so much that was in the book weakened the movie and kept it from having a good flow. The movie should have been called the Stonewall Jackson story. That would have made me enter the theater not knowing what to expect. I did enjoy the movie, but like I said, I was expecting a movie based on Jeff Shaara's book and in that sense I was disapointed.
Rating:
Summary: Insight to a Time Gone by
Review: Personally I thought the box office hit GETTYSBURG was not such a hit. I am a Civil War buff and living only a few miles from the town of Gettysburg I know the history well. When the movie was filmed it focused only on the the battle and not on the aftermath of the town or any of the major skirmishes that occured. I recently went to see GODS AND GENERALS hoping that it would be a better rendition of the war, and it was. Although it focuses more on the life of Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson it was very good. I did see some of the effects on the town of Fredericksburg, however I believe that including only three battles in the movie was a mistake. Robert Duvall made a more believable version of Gen. Lee than Martin Sheen, however, he did not have a very large part in the movie which was more of a surprise. GODS AND GENERALS focuses more on the Confederacy than anything and other than a clip or two of Gen. Burnside we really did not see how the Union was losing so many battles. The much Older Jeff Daniels does an equally wonderful job as Chamberlin again, but he gets a bit long winded and annoying at times. This movie is a wonderful insight to the war becuase of the script, the footage, the slaves, and the towns people. It gave a view that GETTYSBURG did not. This movie focused on everyone, not just a small portion of those who suffered and why. I made this a 4 star review because I think it could have been better and some if the times spent praying and talking could have been spent on the smaller stories and other battles. Other than that I feel that this is a must for a civil war buff, it is a fast four hours, but a silent one because it really does show the hard times of war and the people who suffered it.
Rating:
Summary: Depicts not only battles but culture of era
Review: The movie is certainly different than Gettysburg which depicted one great epic battle in American history. Gods and Generals took on a little more ambitious project of trying to cover three battles. This of course leaves out such notable battles as Sharpsburg, the single bloodiest day of combat in American history and the Peninsula campaign which brought Robert E. Lee into command of the Army of Northern Virginia. As one on commentator also brought out, the movie just barely touched on the marvelous campaign of Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley which really catapulted his reputation as feared military commander. However, this movie portrayed an aspect of the Civil War not really covered in Gettysburg and which the critics seem to want to gloss over and that is the impact of the war on civilians. This was really brought out particularly in the Fredericksburg battle. It also imphasized the great influence on religion not only for Jackson but for all who fought in that day. This is not really brought out in most popular books on the Civil War, but a reading of the letters of soldiers to and from their families, really stresses the importance of God in their lives. So from this cultural standpoint, I felt Gods and Generals was excellent.
Rating: 
Summary: Two types of ratings for two types of people
Review: The rating above is for the historian. For the average filmgoer, 31/2 stars would do it. First off, the 1 star rating: this film is NOT a "true" story of the Civil War, nor even of Jeff Shaara's book. The plain fact of this film is that it is rife with historical inaccuracies. To go into all of them would take longer than watching the film. Most severe, however, is the portrayal of Thomas Jackson. Stephen Lang would be my first choice, though of course, he's an excellent actor. But Jackson was NEVER the man portrayed in this film. Not even in the book. It's almost laughable (but ultimately embarassing) what Ron Maxwell reduces him to. You Civil War buffs out there will know what I'm talking about. Another point definitely worth mentioning here is the absolute radical changes made from Jeff Shaara's novel. There were no minor dramatic liberties taken, this film is almost entirely different. Character's dropped and even added (what's with the 5-year-old girl from Fredricksburg?). Characters given MUCH less treatment in the film (Lee plays a much bigger, completely rounded part in the novel, as he did historically, and was never the father figure he's always made out to be).
I could go on, I really could, but this review only allows me 1000 words.
Now, just so I cover all bases and not get anybody completely mad at me, for the average filmgoer, this movie rates high. It takes a very broad story and moves it at a lightning pace (the four hours went by quite fast). It's very nicely edited within scenes and shot very well, also (which is the most striking difference from Gettysburg, which had the same crew). The musical score and the songs are great, adding much to the visuals.
But, there are problems I have with the film as a film, too. The CG work is WAY below par. Let's face it, Ted Turner's got more money than God and is the cheapest person alive. If New Line Cinema can create 10,000 Uruk Hai storming Helm's Deep in the Two Towers and do it so well, it looks absolutely seamless, then I would be inclined to think that the $4 billion Ted Turner could afford some better effects, not so here. If Maxwell were a more aggressive director, the film would have been better. There of course are many things to point out and nit pick at, I just need to rant about the main points. One last one is something I think a more able writer/director could do: subtlety. Why is it that EVERYTHING in this film has to be done with such fanfare? Maxwell didn't do it in Gettysburg, but it's done to death in this film. And it's not just the battle scenes (those deserve it more than anything), it's the dialogue, it's the movements, etc. I know people in the nineteenth century were more articulate and grandiose, but it's like these actors are performing Shakespeare, tone it down a bit.
This film is filled with could have's, should have's and would have's. It could have been the absolute blockbuster of 2003, I have been waiting for this film for years, but to no avail. Read the book and you will understand.
Anyway, Gettyburg this ain't. But I would still recommend this film to people and let them make their own opinions. If anyone is in dire need of a REALLY good Civil War film after seeing this, the obvios choice is to watch Gettysburg, but I cannot recommend Edward Zwick's film Glory enough (which in my opinion is the finest war film ever made). Watch Glory and be stunned, watch Gods and Generals and be glad you got it out of the way, then go read the book and be stunned.
Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals the Best
Review: In my first viewing I was startled to see what my genealogy research has proven to be so; An Accurate Southern Movie with a social science approach to the invasion of the Southern States, amazing. On my second viewing I now had presence of mind to assimilate more details - again just amazing! As to the slavery question - again social science discipline, although brief did show why slavery in the South was called: "Our Peculiar Institution" and was over 200 years old when the war started; Our Peculiar Institution was not understood or known by new foreign immigrants or peoples of the industrial NE. We believed and still believe that it was our soverign right to decide when and how all slaves would be freed so that they could be as fine a people as they could be. We are the ones that lived and worked side by side with them. In our "Peculiar Institution" even Frederick Douglas, ex-slave,and the NE abolisnist was treated with respect by his masters, and he learned the better and finer points of living as a child at their knee which is evidenced by the fact that he so much appreciated their culture that he patterned his home in the NE and his life style after theirs. I sincerely hope all will see this movie more than once and will further their studies to include Southern writers and points of view - for peace and harmony in this Nation nothing less will do.
| 
