Rating: 
Summary: Duvall and Lang "Are" the Generals
Review: Robert Duvall as General Lee and Stephen Lang as General Jackson were brilliant, fantastic. As much as any actors can, they not only looked the parts but captured the essence of the men's motivations, piety, compassion, toughness, humanity and military genius. This movie should be taught in schools to help people better understand the Civil War, why it was fought and the people who fought it.
Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee in "Gettysburg" was quite simply a "joke." Not only is Sheen not the President, he is not the General, either.
I would love to see Sheen's parts in "Gettysburg" reshot with Duvall as General Lee. And I look forward to seeing Duvall as Lee in the "The Last Full Measure." (Who should play General Grant? Not Sheen. General Grant is a person of integrity and courage, too, a true American hero.)
Finally, to that guy in Seattle who obviously did not get "Gods and Generals," just remember "...a Southern man don't need him around anyhow." No need for the South to rise again. We are all Americans. (smile)
Rating:
Summary: Four Hours Was Not Enough
Review: I have had an avid interest in the Civil War for a long time. When I first left the movie I was disappointed in the fact the movie left out the Seven Days, Secound Manassas and Anteitam. Also disappointing was the diminished character development of general Lee and Longstreet. Upon further reflection I realised this movie was about Jackson, all other characters revolve around his. This explains why certain battles were left out, Longstreet was the better general in those battles. This is the kind of movie that doesn't totally sink in all at once. The writers were trying to show the despair of the North and the general buildup of invincibility in the South. It takes time to let four hours of this to sink in. See the movie. If you don't feel the movie, see it again or buy it later. But always remember when viewing this movie, the war was about slavery and nobody was going to free their slaves without a fight. The lost cause is just a myth. The movie fails to convey this fact, it only aludes to it.
Rating: 
Summary: What I expected
Review: G&G was very much like I expected, a lot of history and some love and other subplots to make it a story and not a documentary; similar to Pearl Harbor or Titanic (Which were "Love Story' on a ship and in a war. It chronicled the life in the 1860's and what had to be one of the greatest group of Generals known to man, headed by Gen RE Lee, who should be a model for all men.
The acting was weak at times, but the slavery angle of "I jus wanna be free" was totally patronizing. "How can you be fighting for freedom and holding slaves." The men who were leading this war were sons of slave owners that founded this country....so to base the war on freeing the slaves (which to correct the film, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the Confederacy) is Hollywood speaking.
These men's fathers framed a Constitution that was based on States Rights. They revolted to be freed from a all powerful central government. The States elect a President and a vice President, not the populous. All powers not given to the Federal government is reserved by the States. This is what this War was all about.
What really sturck me as ironic, is that Ted Turner would make a movie which highlighted a group of God-fearing and God-loving leaders. I looked for a ending ridiculing or disparaging such a life. If it was there it escaped me.
Other than some poor acting at times, which I beleived was a result of poor direction, it was a great 3.5 hours. Waiting for the 3rd film. At least Lee did not come out as he did in Gettysburg as a worn out confused person, and the story being written by the accounts of Longstreet.
The theater my 28 year old son and I went to was full of post 40 moviegoers.
Rating: 
Summary: ONE OF THE WORST FILMS EVER MADE
Review: As a history buff in general, Civil war student in particular, and big fan of Maxwell's "Gettysburg", I did not walk, I ran to see this film when it opened. Good God almighty. . .This is a great film if you're Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, being that a good third of its running time consists of insufferably pious Southerners rolling their eyes toward Heaven and droning scripture. But in all fairness, the secular speeches are every bit as bloated and boring, as personified by Jeff Daniels' leaden rendering of a particularly thrilling slice of Roman history. The depiction of the fanatical, maniacal Stonewall Jackson--the Confederacy's equivalent to John Brown-- as the Very Soul of Christian Benevolence was grimly laughable. (One of my favorite reviews of the film depicts him as a cross between a Pentacostal preacher and a member of ZZ Top). The film's depictions of slaves makes GONE WITH THE WIND look positively enlightened. There wasn't a shred--not one iota--of humor in this four-hour film, the only thing even resembling a chuckle coming from a Union grunt's offer to trade General Burnside for a lame horse. The acting was straight out of community theater, the screenplay like something Norma Desmond would have written. And where in bloody hell was the film editor? Perhaps the most unforgivable of Maxwell's transgressions came in the battle scenes. As majestic and sweeping as the battle scenes in GETTYSBURG were, that is how flat and static they are in GODS AND GENERALS. And to completely skip over--to not even MENTION--the battle of Antietam is simply unfathomable. (Yes, I know, it'll be in the director's cut. Oh boy, I can't wait.) As horrible as I found this film, I'm looking forward to the third part of Maxwell's Civil war trilogy. I hope he learns from the mistakes of GODS AND GENERALS and becomes once again the Ronald F. Maxwell of GETTYSBURG. The subject matter certainly deserves Mr. Maxwell's full measure of devotion.
Rating:
Summary: One Bad Movie
Review: Major disappointment. How anyone affiliated with this let this through the screening process is amazing. What the heck happened?
How could anyone even remotely interested in making a movie about the Civil War, a subject so interesting, so cinematic, butcher it so???
The marquee poster of "Gods and Generals" makes this film look intriguing and classy- as if this might receive a "Lord of the Rings" treatment of the Civil War. Sadly, this is not the
The script fails, the direction fails, the soundtrack totally fails (except for the "Green Mountain" song over the credits. But most people have fled the theatre already.) Examples of soundtrack falures include the sickingly appropriate 'Celtic' score during the Union Irish versus Confederate Irish at Marye's Heights, and the thuddingly awful chorus during the Confederate charge at Chancellorsville. Bad.
Even the battle scenes-the primary reason people will come to see this-fail miserably. The reason? The director doesn't prepare the viewer for the purpose of the battle or the importance. The Battle of Fredericksburg just 'appears' - there is no buildup, no explanation of why it is being fought-nothing.
And the battle scenes include some of the poorest CGI for a multi-million dollar film I have ever seen- Inexcusable. The CGI scenes for Fredericksburg are repeated over and over, and are blurry and unrealistic-the cannon smoke look like smudges, the backdrop like a matte in a 50's sci film.
The real life combatants clearly look like weekend reeanactors- in the movie "Gettysburg" this was obvious also- but at least that film maintained some pace and resolution of events. Here you see guys you see at work or in the cubicle next to you-only they have a few days facial stuble and a kepi. They do not look like 1862.
This movie is just plain shabby.
There are sequences in this sorry thing that are just plain awful- the "Bonnie Blue Flag" musical sequence, Jackson's relationship with the doomed 5 year old girl (unbearably saccharine and totally out of place), the Chamberlain and wife scene in Maine, the pronouncement scenes of the two slaves, Chamberlains oratory prior to crossing over to Fredericksburg, the lemonade scene, the list goes on and on. These are so obviously bad they shout 'Removal'.
For now, "Glory" remains the best film re: the Civil War.
The crew involved with "Gods and Generals" just aren't up to the task.
Rating:
Summary: Refreshing view of the south
Review: Hollywood producers often caricature Civil War southerners as greedy two dimensional racists. Not here. They show that southerners were people of thoughful character who saw the federal government's actions as an invasion of their respective country (i.e., each state is their country and not blind loyalty to the monolithic confederacy). It is shown that southerners knew that slavery would end, yet it was their right to decide when and how. Slaves are shown as multi-dimensional people who yearned for freedom, but did not resent or hate the whites. Southern women are shown as people of great strength and character. More than anything, it shows that at the start of the war, the South had the best, most experienced Generals. That the Christian religion helped to build positive character in people. Thank you Ted Turner for producing a film that is not always politically correct!
Rating: 
Summary: 4 hours of preaching.
Review: Yikes! What happened to the dialogue writers for Gods and Generals (Episode I of three part trilogy)? It seemed like that every word spoken in this film is part of some speech or church sermon. Even when the characters are in casual conversations do they go off and recite some verse in a book or poem or give a speech. Unlike Gettysburg (Episode II), the dialogue just did not feel very natural. On the bright side however, the battle sequences shared the same feel as Gettysburg. What I thought was cool, though, happens write before a battle when units are positioning themselves and subtitles identify the unit and the commanding officer. A nice touch! Fans of Gettysburg will also be pleasantly surprised to see that many of the actors from Gettysburg have reprised their roles for Gods and Generals no matter how minor their roles are in either film. Just don't scratch your head wondering why they look 10 years older when this movie takes place before Gettysburg. Would I recommend this film? For the average moviegoer, I would not. For Civil War buffs and anyone with the slightest interest in the Civil War, I would recommend it IF you can survive 4 hours of [bad] dialogue.
Rating:
Summary: An incredible movie
Review: If you are going to see a 3 hour + movie this year, skip those dreadfully boring "Lord of the Rings" movies and see this instant classic. The actor who portrays Stonewall Jackson should win an academy award, he (I'm sorry I don't know his name) is nothing short of amazing in his portrayal of a complex and highly intelligent man. The cinematography is breathtaking and as good as "Gettysburg" was, this is MUCH better as I think they found a way to balance the story of the war with the stories of the men and women who fought in it and or lived in the midst of it. If you are even slightly interested in the history of the American Civil War, you will not regret having taken the time to see this wonderful film. I'm not generally a huge fan of Ted Turner's, but I salute him for risking a lot of money to make this film that isn't aimed squarely at 12 year olds, a rarity these days. Thank you Mr. Turner, this film is great!!!
Rating:
Summary: Somewhat uninspired....
Review: I went in to this movie with high hopes that Gods and Generals would turn out to be a movie in the same vein as Gettysburg, which I rather enjoyed and in fact turned me into something of a Civil War buff. Unfortunately, Gods and Generals, while a moderately good film, falls far short of Gettysburg in nearly every respect. The film focuses on two overlapping subjects - Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and his role in the first two years of the American Cival War. One of the worst problems with the film, for those of us who saw the film Gettysburg, is the casting, which is similar enough to Gettysburg (Jeff Danials, C. Thomas Howell, Brian Malloy, Tim Conway all reprise their roles, as do several other more minor characters) to make it feel like a prequel to the earlier film, but different enough to be distracting. Many of the major characters from the earlier film are now played by different actors, including Stephen Lang's character from Gettysburg, George Pickett, played by another actor so that Lang could play the more major role of Jackson, James Longstreet now played by Bruce Boxleitner rather than Tom Beringer, and Robert E. Lee by Robert Duval rather than Martin Sheen - in fact, I dare say that despite Sheen's shortcomings as Lee in Gettysburg, his performance outdoes Duval by a considerable margin. Gettysburg was criticized far and wide for the fake looking beards that were used. Gods and Generals really does not overcome this flaw - while a few of the actors appear to have actually grown their own beards for this film (Robert Duval and Jeff Daniels in particular), some of the other beards are simply attrocious. Stephen Lang's Jackson looks as if there is a dark brown Chia Pet growning from his chin, and the first time C. Thomas Howell's Tom Chamberlein appears on screen, we can actually see gaps between the skin of his face and the fake beard - inexcusable(!) The film's length is as epic as the events it tries to portray. There is nothing wrong with making a four hour movie if the film is interesting and good for the entire four hours. Gods and Generals is not - there are a lot of scenes that are either entirely unnecessary or simply unnecessarily long. The strong points of the film are Jackson and Stephen Lang's portrayal of him, as well as the battle scenes which themselves never quite seem to capture the majesty of the battles in Gettysburg. Three battles are the focus of the film - First Manassas / the first battle of Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorville. At Manassas, where Jackson earns the name Stonewall, we see Jackson's supreme confidence in both himself and God, as he rides his horse unflinching through a hail of bullets and shrapnel. He maintains discipline over his men and this leads them to victory, even as other Confederate commanders allow impulse to overtake them. At Fredericksburg, the Federal troops are ordered to make a hopeless attack against a very well defended Confederate position, despite the misgivings of some Federal generals. The carnage the Federals suffer is astonishingly well captured, as the Confederates pratically set up assembly lines to fire and reload their muskettes at the Federals as they fight behind the protection offerend them by a stone wall at the top of a hill. At Chancellorville, we again see Jackson's confidence, conviction, and discipline over his men as they stage a silent march and then ambush the Federals. Unfortunately, the film tends to loose focus in between the battles, spending time on often ineffective character development. While the focus is on Jackson, the film goes off on several tangents in order to temporarily focus on other minor players and bystanders. These tangents are, for the most part, too short to really develop well, but at the same time are too long to not distract from the main plot thread of the film, Jackson. I think the film suffered from a rather lackluster screenplay. Whereas Gettysburg followed the novel on which it was based, "The Killer Angeles" by Michael Shaara, nearly scene for scene, the film takes a lot more liberty with Jeff Shaara (Michael's son's) "Gods and Generals" novel, adding and deleting scenes at will.
In the end, the stronger book lead to the stronger movie. Also, "Gods and Generals" was meant to refer (in Michael Shaara's original book) to the quote that "there's nothing quite so like a God on earth as a general on a battlefield". In this movie, however, the phrase seems to refer more towards the deep religious convictions of many of the players, especially many of the Confederate generals, and their beleif in "God's will".
Rating:
Summary: War interrupts Stonewall Jackson's prayers
Review: A couple of years back, a spectacular war epic had the Japanese launching a sneak attack on a love triangle and PEARL HARBOR just happened to get caught in the collateral damage. In GODS AND GENERALS, several Civil War battles serve to interrupt the idyllic home life and prayers of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. There's a core of usefulness to this film, which is its reputedly and apparently accurate rendering - such as they are - of the battles of First Bull Run (1861), Fredericksburg (1862) and Chancellorsville (1863). For the historical knowledge to be gained, I would rather that today's young generation watch this than the steady diet of silly, albeit spectacular, fairy tales served up on the Silver Screen. Unfortunately, the combat footage is interspersed with too much overwritten and pretentious dialogue played to the tune of an overly melodramatic soundtrack. And since they're almost carnage-free compared to such recent war epics as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BAND OF BROTHERS, the battle sequences have been criticized as glossing over the horrors of war. But how else does the studio get the film a PG-13 rating that will allow younger audiences in to see it? To be sure, its 3 hour and 40 minute run time could have been slashed by an hour, at least. GODS AND GENERALS makes GETTYSBURG (1993) seem like a great film in comparison. Stephen Lang (General Pickett in GETTYSBURG) does a creditable job as the screenwriter's vision of Jackson, though I'm not convinced that this and the "real" Stonewall resemble each other. Unfortunately, much of the General's career and reputation was established by his brilliant Shenandoah Valley campaign of early 1862, events outside the scope of this epic. From reading, my impression of Jackson is that he was an austere, aloof, brilliant and eccentric commander who drove his men to the breaking point, and won their devotion in the process. The Jackson played by Lang comes across as almost warm and fuzzy. I don't know which version is more accurate, but this relatively pallid cinematic one isn't what I expected. Robert Duvall plays General Robert E. Lee in GODS AND GENERALS, and his rendition is much more robust and believable than Martin Sheen's in GETTYSBURG. Jeff Daniels, a little chunkier and nearly a decade older, pretty much reprises the Joshua Chamberlain character of the 20th Maine Regiment, although he occasionally falls victim to windy monologs about the sanctity of the Union and the evils of slavery. In GODS AND GENERALS, unfortunately, there's no Little Round Top to valiantly defend to the last minie ball. The best Chamberlain can do is get pinned down by Confederate fire below Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg Civil war buffs such as myself will certainly enjoy this film while fidgeting between battles. First Bull Run comes across rather stiff and awkward, but the troops are fully into it by Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. It also helps if the viewer has some pre-knowledge of the battlefields and the locations of the opposing lines because there's too little elucidation provided by the on-screen tacticians. Those who've seen GETTYSBURG will recognize many of the actors who reprise their roles from the earlier sequel. See GODS AND GENERALS and appreciate it for what it's worth. But don't expect a profoundly moving or satisfying experience.
|
