Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: recommended to Civil War buffs only...
Review: A film by Ronald Maxwell

Gods and Generals is the Civil War epic that is a prequel to Maxwell's own Gettysburg. It is based on the novel by Jeff Shaara. Rather than telling a narrative story with a plot, Gods and Generals is an examination of the men (mostly Southern) during 1861-1863. The major players are General Robert E Lee (Robert Duvall) and General Stonewall Jackson (Stephen Lang).

The movie itself is a collection of scenes, personal glimpses into the lives of the soldiers that don't really amount to much. We see that Stonewall Jackson is a very devout Christian and that he believes in the rightness of the Southern Cause (as presented by the movie, this cause is not slavery but rather the encroaching of the federal government on the rights of the states). The Southerners are presented in an even handed light and not as evil slaveholders. They are men, just like northerners, who believe their view of government is correct. This is more of a sympathetic view of the Confederacy than I have ever seen in a movie. The movie contains several intense battle scenes, and even though it may seem incredible to the modern man, these are highly accurate accounts of Civil War battles...men walking right into the line of fire because that is how the battle is fought.

Gods and Generals comes off feeling like more of a re-enactment of the Civil War than a film telling a story. On one hand, this is a good thing. The accuracy of the movie helps the believability of the movie. The downside to this is simply that there is so much detail in getting everything right that Ronald Maxwell forgot to tell a story. The movie is just lacking a narrative spark. As a historical portrait, the film works. As a movie, it fails. Recommended to Civil War buffs.

Rating:
Summary: Good film, but in small doses...
Review: First, I'd like to comment on the two supposed slaves in the film:

1) The cook was not Jackson's "manservant" or a slave--he was a cook. That is all. He was free and applied for the job.

2)The slave, Martha, was not as happy about her situation as a lot of the other reviewers tend to believe; she says as much to Hancock when he commendears her home for use as a hospital. She mentions that the family is good to her, and that she cares for them, but she is a slave and so are her children; all she wants is for them to be free. She then says something to the effect of "may god bless you all" to Hancock, a union man. That doesn't sound like a happy, cheery slave now, does it?

********
That said, the only problem I have with the film is the lack of several battles. They were supposed to be restored in a director's cut, but who knows if that'll ever get released.

Rating:
Summary: Gods And Generals Tells What Really Happened
Review: I went to see Gods and Generals when it was in the theaters and bought the DVD as soon as I heard about its release. This is a fantastic movie that dipicts the realities of the Civil War like no other movie I have seen. I like how it depicts the toll that the war took on families, a side of the Civil War not to often seen. Also, this movie showed the true side of Stonewall Jackson, depicting him as a Christian, which he was. The battle scenes are amazing, and the prayer scenes are touching. If you want a movie that shows the South side of the war, then this is the movie I would suggest to you. A true, historically acurate film. I applaude Ron Maxwell and look forward to the rest of the triology

Rating:
Summary: Interesting character insight.
Review: The definition of 'honor' really meant a lot to those generals (Lee, Jackson). It makes for an interesting insight into their conduct, both as officers and gentlemen during a time of torn loyalties and having to take sides in a civil war.
I think that this video is well worth watching, particularly when seen with GETTYSBURG.

Rating:
Summary: Ok, in places, but not that great.
Review: It's kind of hard to put down a movie like this because it is such a sincere effort, and because the historical events depicted are so rarely treated in film for contemporary audiences and are so intrinsically intersting. It is, sad, though, to see so many chances missed in a single film.

Stonewall Jackson (the overriding subject of this film) is probably the most interesting American Military leader in our nation's history and deserves a film at least of the caliber of Patton; yet in this film so little is really revealed about him, other than that he is devoutly religious, loves his wife, enjoys the company of children and wins a lot of battles. More focus, better casting, and less attempted breadth of scope would have produced a more biographical film to be much more valued and enduring. The strangest irony of all is that the perfect actor to portray Jackson in such a biograpy was already in the film, cast as Lee. (The fact that Duval was so disappointing as Lee only adds to this irony.)

The greatest disappointment, however, was the portrayal of the battle of Chancellorsville, which was so hurried that it only occupied about 20 minutes of film time. Chancellorsville was in fact the most significant, greatest and longest day of Jackson's life (probably also the greatest single day for the confederacy) perfect for him in every way, including, perhaps, the fact that it also happened to be his last day in charge of his army. Such an end for him, mortally wounded by his own soldiers at the close of his greatest victory, seems almost too perfect not to be scripted. So many wonderful details about this battle were missed, such as the fact that the union soldiers, who were cooking breakfast, were first surprised by deer and other animals bounding from the forest in the path of so many confederates moving rapidly toward them through the woods. To a film which paid so much attention to historical detail, this sort of detail would have added much to the proper mood and the almost mystical qualities of the battle.

The worst thing about this film, however, besides the cameo appearance by Ted, which was certainly the low point, was the really sappy music, which intruded frequently on dialog, unnecessarily distracting and annoying any earnest viewer who might still be trying to concentrate on the actors.

The film is not entirely bad, however, and does provide at least a cursory view of the early stages of the civil war, and does provide well intended attention to historical detail, setting and costume.

Rating:
Summary: better than "Gettysburg"
Review: I didn't share the enthusiasm of my husband and son for the blood-drenched battle scenes that comprised most of the movie "Gettysburg," and I expected more of the same in "Gods and Generals", taken from the book by Jeffrey Schaara, son of the author of "The Killer Angels", from which "Gettysburg" was taken.

There are an ample amount of devastating conflict scenes in "Gods and Generals", but the movie presents a more complete picture of the men from both sides of the war. We see them with their wives, involved in family life. The language is 19th century, and that helps to draw us into the culture of that era, which included the firm belief of all the combatants that God was on their side.

Hundreds of Civil War re-enactors, along with well known people like Ted Turner and some Congressmen, appear in the movie, bringing to life Schaara's story of those meaningful days, perhaps the most emotional, violent, and poignant time in our nation's history. Kudoes to Robert Duval and to Jeff Daniels for their excellent portrayals of Robert E. Lee and Joshua Chamberlain. The central character is Stonewall Jackson, a complex, devoutly religious man who often seemed able to embrace two opposite concepts simultaneously. He is played masterfully well by Stephen Lang.

This highly recommended movie is also a history lesson for your children.

Rating:
Summary: ZZZZZZZZZ
Review: I grew up 20 miles from Manassas Battlefield and, as a child, I loved going there and taking in the mystery and sadness of that beautiful area. I would walk along the lines of cannon, gaze at the statue of Stonewall Jackson and imagine myself fighting in that horrible war.

I sincerely wish I had never seen "Gods and Generals". My opinion of the Civil War has changed from fascination to disappointment. I guess I should be thankful. I can now stop wasting my time reading about that thoughtless massacre. To justify killing fellow human beings on the basis of politics is completely ludicrous. And to use "God" and "prayer" as a way to feel good about killing is equally stupid.

I felt as if I was watching a twisted reigious after-school special. According to this movie, Thomas Jackson was an insane, self-centered idiot with a death wish. Robert E. Lee was depicted as a lethargic, senile turncoat (Not unlike other U.S. leaders who have led lower-class citizens to slaughter).

I could rant more about this movie, but it's hardly worth the time. To use Stonewall's words, let us pray to the glorious saviour that Ted Turner does not produce another film.

Rating:
Summary: Good, but different from the book
Review: When I first saw this in theaters, I was disappointed. I read the book shortly after it came out in the late 1990's and was excited about all the rumors I heard about a movie being made based on the book Gods and Generals. However, I found that the book was much better than the movie. I've watched my copy of the DVD about 4 times since it came out, and each time I see it, I find I like it a lot better than I did the time before. The movie was too much of a biography of Lt. General "Stonewall" Jackson. In the book, General Lee, General Winfield Scott Hancock, General Lewis Armistead, and Lt. Col. Joshua Chamberlain were much more prominent, and at times, more interesting than Jackson. However, despite leaving out the Battle of Antietam and the Peninsula Campaign of 1862 (both included in the book), the movie had some excellent stories and accurately portrayed how things were for slaves and soldiers alike. Robert Duvall, Stephen Lang, and Jeff Daniels were phenomenal actors and delivered excellent performances in this movie. I am a history major, currently in my second year of college, so I was very happy with the historical accuracy. There were only two miniscule problems in the entire movie that I found, unlike in Gettysburg, where I was able to pick out numerous problems. Gettysburg is still a much better movie, but if Director Ron Maxwell would've stuck closer to the book, Gods and Generals would have far exceeded it.

Rating:
Summary: Look elsewhere for an accurate depiction of the Civil War
Review: For those who admire Stonewall and Lee, you will find Stephen Lang's portrayal of the eccentric general quite convincing. I think that Jackson's obsessive behavior was not fully represented, though, in the interest of marketing a successful theater production. The best scene in the movie, in my humble opinion, is the recreation of the famous "Last Meeting" between Lee and Jackson, before Jackson's assault at Chancellorsville. Robert Duvall is mesmerizing in his delivery of Lee's interpretation of the situation, and his subsequent development of the plan of attack with Lang's Jackson.

I thought the battle scenes at Fredericksburg were very well done, with attention to detail of the street-fighting and terrible slaughter on Marye's Heights. They did not accentuate the gore, however, which was a refreshing change from "The Patriot" and "Saving Private Ryan." This is most fortunate for younger viewers who wish to learn about Civil War battles without having to see blood-and-guts.

Although the production quality and special effects were better than Maxwell's "Gettysburg" I was very disappointed with many aspects of the film. I won't be too critical, but it seemed overly "Hollywoodized" in an affected attempt to educate the audience by having the characters talking about things that 19th-century people might have avoided or just not known. And for those who know their 1862-63 Eastern Theater history, there may some head-scratching and "huh?"s at the insertion of historical figures and units out of any logical context in the plotline. The civilians' costumes leave much to be desired, as well, as indicated by my girlfriend, who has a very wide knowledge-base on 19th-century clothing.

"Andersonville" is much better for accurate portrayals of Civil War soldiers and battles. And, for well-done period filmmaking, I refer you to "Barry Lyndon," "Glory," and "Amistad," Spielberg's film about the plight of a group of Africans attempting to secure their freedom after escaping from a slave-ship in 1839 New York. The most recent film that recreates the entire Civil War era in exhaustive detail is "Gangs of New York."

Rating:
Summary: Unrateable
Review: The usually brilliant Robert Duvall should have walked away from this one. If it is the first of a trilogy, the rest should not be made. Such direction I have never seen. The action moves as if all the actors have wooden legs. And the dialog would have been better in King James English. There is not one believable character in the whole film. One could make more realistic battle action with toy soldiers. History could never have been this boring.