Rating: 
Summary: I Went to See if for the Dylan Song, Loved the Movie
Review: I am a super huge Dylan fan. I'm only twenty-four years old, but I grew up listening to Mr D. So when I heard there was a Dylan song in the movie, I could hardly wait to see it. I loved the movie, even though it was a little too long. And I adored the music, all of it and was pleased to discover Mary Fahl, who also does a song on the soundtrack. I'd never heard of her before.As for Mr. D, his eight minute song is outstanding and the video of him singing "Cross The Green Mountain," on the CD is, in my opinion, even better than the movie. It's eight minutes of the horror of war and it gets it's point across the way Dylan did with his song "Masters of Wars," so many years ago. My opinion, get the DVD, get the CD too. Reviewed by Stephanie Sane
Rating: 
Summary: Not nearly as good as Gettysburg
Review: I bought Gods and Generals thinking it was going to be similar to Gettysburg - historically accurate, full of realistic battle scenes, and a wide and even spread of characters from both sides, with characters deep enough to understand their motivations, and the motivations of either side in the Civil War. With the same producers, director and many of the same actors, Gods and Generals promised to be similar. While the movie was historically accurate and the battle scenes quite realistic (though not to the point of Saving Private Ryan, say, ie it avoiding being gory), the characters were not evenly spread, mainly concentrating on Southern generals, and in particular "Stonewall" Jackson. The movie seemed more like a Stonewall Jackson biography than a recounting of the first 2 years of the war, up to Chancellorsville, which it pertains to be. Yet, if it is a movie about Stonewall Jackson, why not include Jackson's Shenandoah campaign, surely, after Chancellorsville, his greatest contribution to the Southern cause? The other problem I had with concentrating on Jackson was that Stephen Lang was probably not the best choice of actor for the role of Jackson. His acting seemed wooden and forced, like many of the actors in the movie, and I could not stop myself from thinking of him as Major General George Pickett, the character he played in Gettysburg. Pickett was a very different character to Jackson, and to think of Jackson as Pickett does Jackson no favours. Clearly the producers wanted to retain as many of the Gettyburg cast as possible, an admirable idea when they are playing the same characters as before (eg Jeff Daniels as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, the same actors for Gen Hancock and the 20th Maine sergeant), as one recognises them immediately and can fathom how their characters fit in the time-line of the war. Yet having Stephen Lang play Pickett in Gettysburg and Jackson in Gods and Generals makes no sense, for the reasons outlined above. Maybe they wanted to reward him for his role in Gettysburg, and he couldn't play Pickett here, as Pickett was not a significant figure in this part of the war. Another miscasting was Jason London as Jackson's adjutant, Captain Pendleton. He was not believable as a military character, especially one in authority. As Jackson was the central figure, there seemed not enough time, or inclination, to develop the other characters involved. Jeff Daniels probably has the 2nd most screen-time and does a good job of showing us Chamberlain's motivations and philosophies. Nobody else really appears for long enough for us to get a handle on what they're about. I thought Robert E Lee would be explored significantly, as he was a more important figure than Jackson or Chamberlain, especially in the context of the entire war, and especially as a he was played by a major actor, Robert Duvall, but we just scratch the surface of his character. Robert Duvall did an excellent job in the role, though. The most irritating aspect of the entire film is the amount of grandiose speeches. Hardly a scene goes by without someone waxing lyrical about what the war is all about, and means to them, all with accompanying stirring music. It all becomes so predictable after a while - the movie starts starts to resemble a musical, with every scene geared towards leading into a speech/song. While each sides motivations for fighting the war need to be explored, there are more subtle and less pretentious ways of going about it. The producers clearly wanted to fit in as many of the famous quotes of the period too, sometimes they seem to appear in dialogue for no rhyme or reason, and, like the speeches, whole scenes are geared toward just being a platform for the quote. This all said, there is a lot of good to be said about the movie too. As mentioned, it was historically very accurate and it does stay pretty much on track as regards the flow of events, only wandering off for the inevitable speech-scenes. The battle scenes are very well re-enacted and do give you a good insight into the battles of First Manassas/Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Fredericksburg was especially good, as one got to really experience how futile, pointless and courageous the Union attack was, and see how the topography of the area played a major role. The confrontation between the two Irish brigades was an especially emotional moment. The movie certainly did add to my knowledge of the Civil War, and should do so for anyone but the most expert of civil war buffs. Overall, a good attempt, but it could have been better. By spending less time on speeches and more time on the battles (maybe adding Jackson's Shenandoah campaign, to show where he really made a name for himself, and Antietam, the ultimate demonstration of callous death and destruction) and the major characters involved, and getting the right actors for the parts, the producers would have had a great movie on their hands. Cynically, I think the producers rattled this off in a hurry to cash in on the world's current war fever, the success of Gettysburg and the current trend of movie series (like Lord of the Rings), as there is a third movie planned.
Rating: 
Summary: Falls Far Short of "Gettysburg"
Review: In Ted Turner's "Gods and Generals," Confederate general Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is an impeccably noble Southern Cavalier who loves his wife and little children, and in turn is loved by his soldiers and black servants. Unlike Turner's last Civil War epic, "Gettysburg," which attempted some semblance of balance, "Gods and Generals" is the most unabashedly pro-Southern Civil War epic since "Gone with the Wind," or even "Birth of a Nation." Southern commanders (and for that matter, nearly every Southern character in this exasperatingly long-winded movie) are portrayed as Bible-quoting speech mongers . The Southern blacks are, every one of them, loyal to their masters. This is not history, but a misguided crusade to canonize Jackson and the "Lost Cause," which manages to both bore and offend. As a Civil War buff, and having appreciated Turner's willingness to stick to the script of Shaara's wonderful book "Killer Angels" in the movie "Gettysburg," I was willing to give "Gods and Generals" a try. But by the time the Disneyland minstrel show arrives to sing the "Bonnie Blue Flag" to Lee, Jackson and assembled officers including the grinning Ted Turner, it was hard to fight the urge to smash the DVD player. A heathy dose of Rhett Butler's cynicism from "Gone With The Wind" was badly needed here. Without it, we are subjected to sonorous lectures about "protecting the Southern way of life", which never mention the dreaded "s" word - slavery. Sorry to say, "Gods and Generals" is a mediocre film and a poor biopic. "Stonewall" Jackson was not a saint, but a brilliant general (mostly) whose religious fanaticism, notable even by 1861 standards, and disregard for the lives of his soldiers, were legendary. Most historians agree that he was respected by his "foot cavalry" for his victories but not loved. He was a ruthless, cold-blooded killer and had no compulsion regarding executing deserters. His students at V.M.I. thought he was a weirdo. Unlike "Patton," we don't get a feel for Jackson's well-documented faults. The film is doubly-bad history because it doesn't even explain why Jackson was considered the South's best general. This elephantine movie leaps from First Bull Run to Fredericksburg in late 1862, skipping over Jackson's classic Shanandoah Valley campaign, and his heroic defensive efforts at Antetiam and Second Bull Run. If just one of these battles had been substituted for the endless speeches or languid scenes of Jackson cuddling with his wife, we'd having something to measure Stephen Lang's Jackson with. Needless to say, Jackson's lethargic performance in the Seven Days' battles outside Richmond in 1862 (where is McClellan in this movie?) are not mentioned. The film only hints at his chronic petty warfare with other Southern commanders such as A.P. Hill. Jackson's surprise attack at Chancellorsville is well-presented, but when Jackson is accidently shot by his own troops, the movie goes AWOL and instead devotes itself, accompanied by soaring heavenly choirs, to the slow death of the Christ-like Jackson. What saves "Gods and Generals" from a single-star is Robert Duvall, as General Robert E. Lee, and the choreographed battle of Fredericksburg, which should have been the movie's sole object. Duvall's Lee, with a twinkle in the corner of his eyes, is superior to the zombie-like performance of Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg," and hints at the complexity and worldliness of the real Lee. Better yet is the Fredericksburg battle itself, which captures the indescribable bravery and terror of Union troops senselessly marched up and knocked down the shallow hills where Lee's troops blasted cannon and rifles from behind stone walls. The experience of the surviving Union soldiers (including Jeff Daniels' Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine regiment) left exposed overnight on the chilly slopes before the Confederate lines is heartrending, as is the emotional confrontation between Union and Confederate Irish brigades facing each other across the stone wall. Turner's use of Civil War reenactors and attention to detail such as uniforms is to be commended, especially in the early scenes where Confederate troops are depicted wearing everything from Union blue to brown, red and white. For die-hard Civil War buffs, I recommend skipping the hours of pious Southern "if the Lord wills" pontificating and head directly for the Fredericksburg scenes and the first day of Chancellorsville. For anyone else, stick with "Gettysburg", "Glory," or for good history, Ken Burns' "Civil War" epic documentary.
Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals
Review: The movie was interesting (to see maybe once) but there were lots of sub-plots that didn't make sense. It seems as though they couldn't decide between making it a mini-series or a movie and the end project is pretty scrambled. All and all it was an hour and a half movie crammed in to 4 hours.
Rating: 
Summary: This Was a BAD MOVIE!
Review: This was a bad movie...bottom line! I really don't understand why they even bothered to portray an important piece of American history so badly. I can explain the movie in three sentances: 1. More like a play, with old men (bad actors) talking and deciding and then going off onto a battle won by one side or another, persistantly, throughout the movie. 2. FOUR HOURS! 3. There is no bad side or good side, because...God is on both sides, therefore canceling the point. I don't exactly know how to explain it fully within one review, but all I can say is that if you want to see a movie that's about two sides battling it out, with the movie makers trying to film it from both perspectives in a way that makes it confusing, pointless and boring, and a movie that's four hours long (including the intermission) then go ahead, watch this. But if not, be glad because then you can watch actually good movies like, say, "Good Will Hunting!" Bottom Line: FOUR HOURS!!! (I give it an F)
Rating:
Summary: Exceptional
Review: If this movie has a fault it is that it lacks many of the usual Hollywood romanticisms. It is neither about the Civil War in its entirety (not even getting to the pivotal 1862 battle of Antietam, let alone the far better known Gettysburg), nor is about Southern politics - spending little time exploring the politics of the antebellum South. Although Duvall, as Robert E. Lee (Duvall is a distant relative of General Lee) figures into the story (as he surely must), Lee is not really even the central character in this story. What "Gods and Generals" is about is Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and the first three major battles in Virginia. This was an era when the Union army was still poorly commanded and making major, almost comical (if they hadn't been so costly in human life) errors on the battle field - errors they eventually corrected. Although I am not usually a Ted Turner fan, my hat is off to him for helping to bank-roll the telling of this story. This movie is (probably) less for the casual movie-goer, and much more for the student of 19th century American history. Expect to be entertained, as "Gods and Generals" is a good movie with the usual cast of thousands in the battle scenes and street scenes from Fredericksburg (actually shot in the real village of Harpers Ferry, which has a lively Civil War history in its own right), but also expect to be educated. As a prelude to viewing the movie "Gettysburg," this movie is essential, as one can then get the feeling of how devastating the untimely loss of General Jackson was to General Lee.
Rating:
Summary: Best Civil War movie since Gettysburg!
Review: THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME. Do I really need anything else? The costumes are authentic down to the coat buttons, the people are historically acurate, the battles are great. The endings a cliffhanger but who cares? If you really can't wait consider buying Gettysburg. Okay I'll admit it isn't the greatest family film. The graphic nature of some of the battles may not be okay for some kids. For those of you that think the violence may have been a teensie bit over-done I have only three words. War isn't polite! Sorry, I really like this movie and some times I get a little carried away. No, my parents didn't make me write that. All and all I give Gods and Generals the biggest thumbs-up I can give it.
Rating:
Summary: Would be One Star if not for Robert Duvall
Review: I have never understood the American obsession with the Civil War. I live in Louisiana, and have always been perplexed by how southern people still use the words "us" and "them" to describe this national tragedy. Furthermore, there is a wierd mythology surrouding the participants of our countries biggest bloodbath. General Lee and General Grant have always been canonized as American Heroes, and their battles have been endlessly romanticized. All of this hullabaloo is perhaps to gloss over the fact that this war involved pointless mass death. Had the war been avoided, our country would be largely the same today. But millions would not have been slaughtered. Gods and Generals is rife with this same romanticism, and doesn't do the war justice. When a movie about America's bloodiest war earns a PG-13 rating, you know you are in trouble. Given how this film bombed at the box office, its doubtful that an "R" rating could have made things financially worse. Most people who will flock to see this kind of thing are college graduates anyway, so what gives? The soliloquies in this film are agonizing. The battle scenes look like a civil war re-enactment, with no blood or even broken skin. If you want good battle scenes, without the stupid dialogue, you're better off taking a trip to one of the Southern States and checking out a civil war dramatization. Robert Duvall, as usual, gives a good performance as General Lee. I've always been biased when it comes to Duvall, and that is what saves this film from the dreaded one star.
Rating:
Summary: What a disappointment!
Review: I waited oh-so anxiously for the release of "Gods and Generals" - anticipating a movie as good as - if not better than - "Gettysburg"... but, left the theater wondering, "What the ---- was THAT rubbish?!" A title such as "Gods and Generals" woud lead one to believe that there would have been more focus on the various commanders during the early part of The War Between The States. Maybe a little more character development and relationship building amongst the commanders and their regiments - after all, it WAS supposed to be a "prequel" to the previous film. But, I soon realized what the movie was turning into: "God and Stonewall Jackson". A completely one-sided view of the war, it made Jackson out to be like Christ, and the Union army of the Potomac a bunch of sad, mislead (ideologically speaking - they WERE mislead militarily speaking) bafoons. It had potential at the beginning. I felt it had captured the atmosphere surrounding the prelude to war quite well. But, after the First Bull Run segment was over, it collpased into a mess. How can you leave out the Battle of Antietam - completely - while dealing with the first half of the war? So many great vignettes were lost in favor of such rubbish as a friendship being built between Stonewall Jackson and a little 6-year old (?) Virginia girl... ("All the daddys will come home...") GET ME A BUCKET!!!! I am the biggest Civil War buff I know. I'm not some old grouch, either who likes giving negative reviews on Amazon.com. I really wanted to love this movie and own in on DVD the first day it was released. But, I'm not wasting my money. For a movie that had such potential, "Gods and Generals" falls flat in nearly every respect. "Gettysburg" remains Ron Maxwell's best effort yet..... Can't wait to see how "Last Full Measure" turns out.... but, I'm looking forward to "Cold Mountain" more than anything else. Added on 10/28/03: I just read here, on another user's review, that a 6-hour DVD version will be released soon... and that many deleted scenes that were integral to this movie's success will be included there in. This, at least, gives this movie some hope of being a little more interesting. Maybe I will buy it. As it is, the theatrical release was nothing more than a long-winded, over-blown Confederate love-fest.
Rating:
Summary: He who films everything, films nothing
Review: "Gods and Generals" is the second of a film trilogy based on the Schaaras' historical novels of the Civil War. Whereas the first film, "Gettysburg" concentrated on its eponymous battle, GandG tells the story of the war from its inception until Chancellorsville. The movie also follows the life of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson during the same period. The producers made much of their painstaking attention to historical accuracy in rendering the details. No doubt, the uniforms, accoutrements and weapons are as accurate as it's humanly possible to recreate. Also, the producers accepted the input from historians regarding the re-enactors in the previous film. The main gripes were a-too old (average age was 23-25) and b-too fat, especially the Confederates. These minor issues were corrected in GandG. One lesson from "Gettysburg" went unlearned though.
As my stolen quote from Frederick the Great implies, there's just too much movie here timing out at roughly 4 hours. Simultaneously describing the war in the Eastern theater and details of General Jackson's life is doable in a novel; it just doesn't work on screen. Much screen time is consumed in introducing non sequitur characters/events that add nothing to moving the plot ahead (and hey, I'm a military historian). Two examples: as Jackson moves towards Manassas Junction, he encounters Trimble entraining troops. He exchanges words with him, and we don't see him again, except as a callback to the previous film. Second, at Fredericksburg we see line after line...after line of Union troops moving against Marye's heights. But we as viewers have NO idea who these brigades and leaders are, or why they are highlighted. Finally, the one holdover from Gettysburg is the dialogue; lifted apparently from the Schaara novel. Neither the Schaaras nor the screenwriters seem to appreciate that 19th century written and spoken English were two different dialects. Written English was very flowery and indirect: exactly what the characters recite, making every conversation sound like speechifying. Speaking of actors, Stephen Lang's Jackson is excellent, though not as eccentric or politically incorrect as in history. He was a hypochrondriac among other things and believed slavery "ordained by God". Duvall's Lee is better rendered than Sheen's though reduced to the marble-man by the script. Jeff Daniels reprises his outstanding role as Chamberlain. The history's excellent but gets in the way of the story. With aggressive editing an outstanding 21/2 hour movie about the war or Jackson is in here, somewhere. Slightly recommended for the historical detail.
|
