Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals
Review: The latest movie epic about the American Civil War is really Part I of a trilogy that started with part II, "Gettysburg." As to cinematography goes, this part is very good. However, a more appropriate title could be "Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson: fearless warrior, Faithful knight." This is so as this good story totally centers in General Jackson's humanity, religious believes, and glorious deeds. Possibly, that is why the role of Robert E. Lee is very limited and the battles shown are limited to Fredericksburg and only part of Chancellorsville. Of note are the vignettes used to interject some of the non-battle aspects of the War like the feelings of the affected civilian population, and the southern slaves, also the briefly discussed Emancipation Proclamation.
As for the two major battles, Fredericksburg is well depicted and two things surface clearly. The imprudence of General Burnside in sending his troops to attack Lee's well fortified troops, and Lee's mastery in choosing the field and in enticing his enemy to attack. As for the common soldier, the viewer could get the impression that the combatants were Irish fighting Irish.
As for Chancellorsville, the presentation is one sided and limited to Jackson's flanking of the Union's Eleventh Corps. In fact, the Union top commander, Joseph Hooker is mentioned only once. The screenwriters certainly missed a great opportunity to show this battle as the High mark of the Confederate wave. Shining by his absence is General Hooker, no to mention his brilliant pincer movement across the Rappahannock River to flank the Army of Northern Virginia, while General Sedgwick's forces worked from the Confederate Rear trying to force its retreat. By not showing Lee's other two splitting of his outnumbered army, Lee's mastery is surely diminished, his intrepidity is missed, and the Union Army intactness is totally disregarded.
The overall writing appears to have a good amount of partiality towards the cause of the South. Hopefully, Part III gives equal attention to the efforts of both Armies and to the duel between the last great old fashioned General and the first great modern General. Hopefully, there will be a lot more than just the showing of military engagements, but a message as to of the horror of war, the positive results of longsuffering and endurance, valor, honor, discipline, and specially patriotism. Hopefully, the last part will close with Joshua Chamberlains' and the V Corps' noble welcoming of the defeated Army of Northern Virginia represented by Stonewall Jackson's old Corps. If that happens, watching the taking of the oat of allegiance to the Grand Old Flag is likely to revive that old flame of patriotism deemed by apathy and a lost of fundamental values.

Rating:
Summary: Too long, one-sided story of Stonewall Jackson
Review: Steven Lang did an excellent job of portraying Jackson and maybe they should have called the movie "Stonewall" to reflect it's basically about Stonewall Jackson and not an attempt to give a more complete history. The discussions about God & predestination; the explanation for why the South fought; and the discussions about when is it just to fight a war were all interesting, but much too one-sided (very pro-South). I thought the re-creations of the famous early Civil War battles were excellent (however I'm no expert), but they probably cut out much of the real blood & gore to keep its PG-13 rating. They realistically showed a lot of Virginia as it must have looked in the early 1860s. Finally, this movie was way too long!

Rating:
Summary: Stephen Lang is awesome!
Review: Thomas Jonathan Jackson is a relative of mine, and Stephen Lang did an outstanding job of bringing him to life. Those blue eyes are critical, but Lang is a also superb actor and nailed the the complex Jackson just right. I don't suppose folks without a keen interest in the Civil War or those battles detailed in Virginia will be much interested in this film. But try to watch it anyway. You will learn something from eye-witness accounts that aren't in most history books. Much of what the author, Jeff Shaara, used to create Jackson in the book was taken from memoirs written by his wife, Mary Anna Morrison Jackson for her daughter Julia and her grandchildren. This is a treat for anyone interested in learning about Thomas J. Jackson the person and not just the general. The emotion and kindness of the man as well as the steely nerves of the general are so well expressed.
In general, the viewer is placed with both sides of the conflict. Is either side right? Is either side wrong? The viewer feels the reasoning and emotions of both North and South, union and secession. Thank you Ron Maxwell for your writing and direction, and thank you Ted Turner for your financial support. Seeing Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee is extra special as he is related to Lee on his mother's side and looks so much like Lee in the film. The continuity of using many the same actors in the same roles they played in "Gettysburg" (such as Jeff Daniels, C. Thomas Howell, Patrick Stuart, and Brian Mallon) in key roles in "Gods and Generals" is much appreciated, as well. However, since Maxwell decided to concentrate on Jackson, I am thankful that Stephen Lang plays him rather than reprises Pickett! The heart and soul that Lang poured into the role is amazing and very much appreciated. History buffs should appreciate the hard work and painstaking details that went into producing the film. Yes, there will be nitpickers, but it wasn't their money or their writing or their producing that went into creating this work. I hope that those who are not familiar with the the characters and the battles depicted in "Gods and Generals" will want to learn more and see the film again and again. You will see something new and learn something new with each viewing. This film should be treasured both as a teaching tool as well as good cinema.

Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals - Not Politically Correct
Review: This is a very good movie. Ron Maxwell details more about the people within the civil war than focusing on the horrible brutality of the war. The New York and Los Angeles critics will be offended as they learn that slavery was not why the Civil War was started. Robert Duval and Jeff Daniels are great, but the real scene stealer is Stephen Lange. Should receive an Osca nomination! Excellent! The movie is almost four hours long, but it does move fast. The next one, Last Full Measure, should be another exceptional film. I highly recommend this film. It combined with Gettysburg should be used in all US History classes throughout the nation. Go see it.

Rating:
Summary: Who are these critics?
Review: After viewing this movie last night, I am again reminded why I question the alleged professional "critics", who blasted this film. Is it perhaps because of the politically incorrect subject?
I loved the movie "Gettysburg", and went to this one concerned about the negative reviews, but I, and my entire family, found this film touching, dramatic, and engaging.
It moved extremely fast for the extended length of it, and brought my wife to tears at two points. She cried like a baby when the Irish were killing the Irish at Fredricksburg, and of course, at the death of Jackson.
The battle scenes were riveting, more professionally done than even Gettysburg, and kudos for Duvall and Lang for their performances. If the critics are ripping this movie because of its reverence for Jackson, well ....excuse me....to the South, he WAS both "God and General". You cannot change the fact that these were men of their time.
Congratulations to Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner, and let me know when the longer DVD version becomes available for sale!!

Rating:
Summary: As sincere as can be, but not a good movie
Review: I mean no disrespect to the thousands of Civil War re-enactors and enthusiasts who put their all into this movie. I can tell it was a labor of love. You will want to see it if you are 'into' the Civil War, but it's not a good movie in any absolute sense. It had much the same effect on me as if I had seen a sixth-grade history class perform it: breathtaking in its sincerity but amateurish in its drama. Let me say why:

The cast: Many of the professionals have become far too long in the tooth for their parts in the 10 years since the filming of 'Gettysburg.' Jeff Daniels, 46, plays Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, age 33. General Hancock was 37 in the fall of 1861 but Brian Mallon, who plays the part, appears to be at least 10 years older... Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee is believable but underutilized. Only Steven Lang as Stonewall Jackson is believable.

Similar casting problems plague the smaller parts and the extras as well. The huge majority of the cast, including speaking parts, appear to be non-professionals. In scenes in which a group of enraptured adjutants are meant to be listening intently to some general, their eyes wander about the scene as though looking for someone in the audience. The average age of the typical soldier appears to be 45. White-bearded and paunchy, they are doing their very best to generate the spirit of the age, but their age is a constant reminder that we are only play-acting. It's not their fault.

The production. The computer-graphic shots of Fredericksburg, etc. look very fake. There are several major lapses in continuity: for example, in one shot, Lee appears to be overlooking Fredericksburg from the Union side of the river. Ted Turner appears in cameo in one scene seated a bit to the right of Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall), then in the next shots he is seated behind him.

The script. No wonder this movie is almost four hours long. Nothing is said once when there is an opportunity to say it twice or four times if possible ('You are the first brigade! Repeat ad infinitum). The borrowed phrase 'we who are about to die salute thee' appears twice.

For all that, however, if you are a war buff you will want to see it. I thought my 8-year-old fanatic would want to leave at the intermission, but he wasn't having it. Someday someone will make a movie that conveys the weight, drama, and emotion of the American Civil War, but this movie is not it.

Rating:
Summary: Gods & Generals
Review: Gods & Generals is a film of epic proportions, but this film proves that epic proportions does not equate to an epic film. I enjoyed the film and much of the acting was superb, but as a whole, it did not meet the mark set by its sequel of 1993, "Gettysburg."

The center-piece of this film is General Stonewall Jackson and the faith-filled romance with his wife, who he affectionately refers to as his "esposita."

Stephen Lang's performance as the devout Christian and fearless general is stupendous. You soon forget you're watching a performance and begin to think of yourself as a voyeur in his life. The film's greatest strength is the emotional bond the viewer develops with his character.

Sadly, this connection falters with the rest of the historic characters. They are interesting to be sure, but the film fails to create the bond with the viewer and these other historic figures.

Some scenes will be a total loss to those who are not students of history or the Civil War. Relationships are not explained between some soldiers and generals... you are told they "have their differences," but are never told why, making the mention of them inconsequential to the average movie goer.

The battle scenes are as close to non-violent as battlescenes can get. You hear the ripping of the wind as the musket balls fly through the air and you see body after body fall, but you don't see body parts explode... just explosions of dirt as cannon-balls fly and a body gets thrown in the air. The sound and music allow the viewer to be intensely involved in the battle, without the added gore. This is both a plus and a minus. It makes it a family-friendly film - no foul language and a modicum of violence. In reality, of course, the Civil War was a bloody, violent war and those seeking a "Saving Private Ryan" level of realism will not be satisfied in that department.

With such a stellar cast and a beautiful backdrop, the producers really dropped the ball in the CGI department. The computer graphics used to simulate the towns and battlescenes were simply awful, especially by today's standards.

The bird's eye views of villages/towns looked like blurry (very blurry) Thomas Kinkaid paintings... to add "realism" they added painted animated flocking birds that looked as though they were cut from a 1930's Bela Lagosi "Dracula" movie. Very, very, very crude animation that was unnecessary and distracting. The explosions from afar on the battlefields were also very sub-par. They looked like the default explosion effect available in Adobe After Effects version 1.0. Just crude and unbelievable - they were not the same shade, color or tone of the surrounding scenes and no attempt was made to blend the effects w/ the previously filmed action.

In addition to the very poor CGI effects, the use and re-use of the same scenes was obvious to the viewer. In one part of the movie, you would see villagers fleeing down a d particular path. Thirty minutes later, you'd meet a new character and then see them for the second time running down the same path in the same scene. Because the camera angle had not changed, it was very obvious they were identical scenes. This happened a number of times during battle scenes as well where the same exact canon would cause the same exact explosion where the same unknown actor would fly through the air to his death.

These goof-ups not-withstanding, this is a truly enjoyable film and safe for families to view. Civil War buffs will be swept away by the historic accuracy, on-location filming and historic buildings and uniforms.

Non-historians who view the film will probably be distracted by the wooden acting of "Seventh Heaven" star Jeremy London or the cheesy animation previously cited, but should still find the overall movie-going experience to be a positive one.

Rating:
Summary: A SUPERB FILM!
Review: A beautiful and excellent telling of the first half of the War Between the States in the East. Dr. James I. "Bud" Robertson, who was the historical consultant on the film, has said that Stephen Lang should get the academy award for his portrayal of Stonewall Jackson and I agree. His is a superb performance. All of the performances are excellent although Robert Duvall as Lee seems a little subdued. He looks much more Like Lee than does Martin Sheen and certainly has more of his bearing, Sheen being too short and not erect enough. It is too bad Robert Duvall was not available to portray Lee in in the film "Gettysburg". And Jeff Daniels again does his excellent portrayal of Chamberlain. But the film really belongs to Stonewall Jackson with a very sympathetic portrayal by Stephen Lang. In fact, I cannot recall Jackson ever being portrayed in a movie. This is definitely NOT a boring movie.

Thanks to the reenactment community and the Shaara novels and the labor of love given them by Ronald Maxwell, two films portraying the War between the States as it ought to be portrayed have been produced. Dr. Robertson has told me the DVD will be over six hours so many of the scenes in the theatrical release should be tied more closely together helping fill in the historical record more completely. I eagerly anticipate it's release.

There are a few discrepancies in the film such as the first scene showing Lee with his beard and white hair which he did not have at that time but these are for the most part minor inaccuracies so I will not nitpick. Just as there is no perfect book so there is no perfect movie but Mr. Maxwell's films are by far the best feature films ever done on this subject. I eagerly anticipate the third film of this trilogy, "The Last Full Measure".

Rating:
Summary: The WBTS about medium rare
Review: Most every thing done about the War Between the States to date has been done about medium well to the Yankees' tastes. Gettysburg was almost realistic except for the tubby bearded guys and the hardcore re-enactors' obsession with the ragged rebel image. Well, it probably wasn't violent enough, but they really couldn't blow up the hallowed ground, could they?
G&G looks into the minds and manners of nineteenth century Americans in a way that government-school orthodoxy just doesn't countenance. There are honor, duty, courtliness, literacy, and religion; all strange to Britney Spears and Snoop Dog's world. For the serious student of the war there are technical errors, but they're mostly minor. There's a certain amount of political correctness: they changed the words to the first verse of Bonny Blue Flag. If you noticed it, you read too much or were brought up in the waning days of the old South. If you know your history go see it, check your nitpicking at the door, and enjoy the best WBTS movie to date. If all you have is the government school version, check your "education" at the door and learn something.

Rating:
Summary: One Of The Finest War Films Ever Made
Review: I had anticipated this film's release for several weeks. Generally, when a film is so praised in advance of debut I experience a sense of disappointment after I've actually seen it. Gods and Generals was in no way a disappointment. Quite the contrary, I believe it to be one of, if not the best, historical films ever made. Stephen Lang does a masterful job in his interpretation of Gen. Jackson, the central figure in the movie. Robert Duvall's Gen. Lee was memorable. Jeff Daniels made the role of Col. Chamberlain poignant. For a movie of almost 4 hours duration I felt no impatient uneasyness but was thoroughly engrossed in the passions, values and courage of these extraordinary men living their ordinary lives. I found it also remarkable these days to view a war film with virtually no obscenities. These were men of honor and dignity and, without a doubt, Gods and Generals tells their stories with all due respect. I've taken my kids (teenagers) to see it. I will encourage as many as possible to see it. I know I will see it again to remind myself that honor and duty are not just words.