Rating: 
Summary: Not perfect, but still a great Civil War film.
Review: Given the mostly negative reviews that this film has received on Amazon, I can only conclude that it appeals exclusively to history buffs. And indeed, if you're not interested in the U.S. Civil War or American history in general, there's probably not much of interest for you in this film. But if you are, you'll be pleased to know that in terms of historical drama, it is a quite remarkable document. It was produced by the same team that made the 1993 film "Gettysburg," and indeed "Gods & Generals" is billed as the first part of a trilogy of which "Gettysburg" is the second part. However, apart from the fact that a few of the same actors play identical roles in both films, there is very little similarity between them in either style or substance. "Gettysburg" focused exclusively on a time period of four days and a single battle, while "Gods & Generals" attempts to cover more than two years of history in the same amount of running time. Also, "Gettysburg" went for intensive, realistic depiction of combat, while "Gods & Generals" instead consists primarily of melodrama. And rather than the war itself being the focus, as was the case in "Gettysburg," in "Gods & Generals," the life of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is the point of focus for the surrounding action. Only three battles are featured: the First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas in 1861, Fredericksburg in 1862, and Chancellorsville in 1863. While each of them are interesting, none of the battle scenes in "Gods & Generals" even come close to the intensity achieved in "Gettysburg," but I suppose this is the inevitable result of trying to squeeze so much into so short a time. Frequently, the film seems more like a stage play than a film, with many of the characters delivering long monologues in lofty language while looking directly toward the camera. Still, I found this to be a strength of the film rather than a weakness. It may not make for the most realistic dramatic action, but unlike most war films, we actually come to know something about the thoughts, feelings and motives of the major characters as opposed to reducing them to moving targets waiting to be shot down. We glimpse something of the cultural and intellectual milieu of the time, with the characters making frequent reference to the Greeks and Romans, and we see a bit of the aristocratic culture of the Virginian upper class of the time, from which the Confederate officer class was derived. Although in their zeal to portray the Confederates in a sympathetic light, the filmmakers tend to whitewash the realities of slavery at the time - as in one scene, in which Gen. Jackson expresses to his personal Black servant his hope that the Confederate government will free the slaves before the U.S. government can beat them to it. This seems to suggest that the Confederate leadership didn't see themselves as fighting in defense of the institution of slavery - which, if one knows the circumstances which led to the outbreak of war, rings hollow. But as the film is more about the war itself than its causes, this is an excusable blemish. Stephen Lang's performance as Jackson is definitely the highlight of the film. One wishes that Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee would have been given more screen time, as the little bit of his performance that we do get is quite remarkable, far outshining Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee in "Gettysburg." One hopes that Duvall will reprise the role for the conclusion of the trilogy in "The Last Full Measure." If the producers manage to combine the dramatic intensity and performances of "Gods & Generals" with the kinds of battle scenes in "Gettysburg," it could very well end up being the greatest Civil War film to date.
Rating: 
Summary: Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad history.......
Review: This picture is a complete mess. The script is ludicrous, the acting is wooden, and the underlying attitudes about slavery and race relations are truly tasteless. Don't waste your money.I would have given this film 0 stars if it were an option.
Rating: 
Summary: Great visuals, but where's the drama?
Review: **1/2 "Gods and Generals" plays less like a movie and more like a three-hour-and-49-minute long lesson in Civil War history. Grueling and plodding, the film is almost the antithesis of "Gone With the Wind," in that while both films are epic tales told from the viewpoint of the defeated South, "Gods and Generals" (unlike the earlier film) has been essentially drained of all emotion, drama and characterization. "Gods and Generals" may be a more "realistic" war film than "Gone With the Wind" (what wouldn't be?), but it's not nearly as entertaining."Gods and Generals," which begins right after the firing on Fort Sumter and ends shortly before the Battle of Gettysburg, is the first part of a planned trilogy. Despite a handful of "name" players in the cast (Robert Duvall, Jeff Daniels, Mira Sorvino and even Ted Turner in a ludicrous cameo appearance), writer/director Ronald F. Maxwell is unable to bring a single character in his film to convincing life (with the possible exception of "Stonewall" Jackson, who gets to carry the burden of what little drama the film has almost single-handedly). In lieu of dialogue, the actors spend most of their time looking wistfully up to heaven or scanning the mist-shrouded horizon while delivering endless homilies about the rightness of the cause and the place of God in human affairs. To keep it all palatable for more enlightened and egalitarian-minded modern audiences, the filmmakers are quick to have the Southern characters declare that, even though the South is forced to fight against the North to protect its God-given right to sovereignty, they, as individuals, are all personally opposed to slavery as an institution and firmly believe that their resident blacks will be freed someday as a matter of course. Hell, the Northerners in this film seem more prejudiced against black people than the Southerners, who just can't say enough good things about their sycophantic slaves. The battle scenes, though well staged and appropriately graphic in nature, are strangely unmoving, primarily because we have no emotional stake in any of the characters we see doing the fighting. Without anyone for us to focus on and care about, the audience becomes little more than curious bystanders, passive and unengaged observers of this brutal display of ritualized slaughter. Although the visuals are splendid throughout, the musical score, except in a few places, is like a thick, heavy syrup poured over the entire film. By providing subtitled identification of the principal people, places, dates and battles, "Gods and Generals" does provide a service as a history lesson of sorts. As a drama, however, the film is woefully lacking in every way imaginable. "Gods and Generals" may thrill the heart of the diehard Civil War buff. The rest of us will have to stick to our dreams of Scarlett and Rhett, and of a romanticized vision of the South that only a Golden Age Hollywood mogul would have dared come up with.
Rating:
Summary: This movie is just bad
Review: I so wanted this movie to be great. But like Gettysburg, it just isn't. The acting is stiff and one dimensional and the pace is so slow I gave up and had to come back to finish watching later. This movie catches none of the magic of the civil war.
Rating:
Summary: It Only Seems like it Was as Long as the War Itself
Review: I watched "Gods and Generals" on cable over the weekend. Now I understand what the critics were saying about it when it appeared last year. Oh my, what a confused, exasperating, sappy, speechifying mess of a film! At least the beard of Confederate General Longstreet in this film was better than beard of Tom Berenger's Longstreet in "Gettysburg." Beyond that, this film was an embarrassment for all involved. I am surprised that this forum's writers gave it such high marks. "Gods and Generals" fails as history--one is hard pressed to gain real understanding of the Civil War, or any part thereof, from watching this film. It compresses events and simplifies motivations--although let that pass since it is a commonplace for historical drama. It omits critical elements necessary to any attempt at explaining the war in northern Virginia. For example, the film's time period is essentially from the battle of First Bull Run through Chancellorsville, summer 1861-spring 1863. Yet it even fails to mention the most important battle in the East during that period, Antietam. If the goal is historical, this is a huge omission. But I found truly upsetting that "Gods and Generals" is so pro-Confederate. They were characterized as "oh so noble," fighting for their state's rights. I kept waiting for a conclusion that characterized this rebellion of several southern states as a "war of northern aggression." In reality, they were traitors seeking to prop up an evil institution. The high point in the film, as far as I'm concerned, was the speech of Joshua Chamberlin to his brother about the Emancipation Proclamation and how it was critical that freeing the slaves become the core aim of the war. Well, perhaps "Gods and Generals" was not about history. Perhaps it was really just historical drama. If so, then it most assuredly failed there as well. It is overly long, boring, and sanctimonious. No one in the film seems to talk. They all give speeches, all the time. And they deliver them with stultifying and stupifying rigidity. I did like Stephen Lang's Stonewall Jackson, although the real Jackson was more interesting and charismatic. I also liked Jeff Daniels' Joshua Chamberlain, as I did in "Gettysburg" as well. Both actors made the best of a bad script. I also thought Robert Duvall's Robert E. Lee was much more effective than Martin Sheen's Lee from "Gettysburg," but he appears so seldom and is so peripheral to the plot that his talent is wasted. I wish this had been a better film. I really wanted to like it. As it is, I cannot recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Good, accurate movie, though a little long
Review: (This is an essay I wrote for school about the movie.) The Civil War has always fascinated me. When my brother and I were little, my Dad instilled this interest into me by reading two books to us - one about Robert E. Lee, the other about Thomas Jonathan (better known as "Stonewall") Jackson. Through those books, I came to greatly admire these two men. They were both such great Christians and role models, and they were also brilliant generals. For two years they managed to utterly confound a much greater and better-equipped foe and win earth-shattering victories in the face of great odds. But they happened to be on the side that lost the war, thus making them the "bad guys." Although they fought on the south, neither of them supported slavery; they did what they felt was right (fighting to preserve their home state), were great generals, incredibly good role models, and two of my heroes. I've always especially admired Stonewall Jackson. Yet there was never a movie or radio drama made about him. He got killed during the war, and his side ended up losing, so his story was - except for in books - pretty much just ignored. I recently watched a movie, Gods and Generals - the prequel to Gettysburg, which was a famous Civil War movie. Gettysburg's greatest achievement was that it did not unfairly paint the South as an evil slave machine that must be destroyed, but instead tried to show both sides of the story in a clear light. Gods and Generals basically does the same thing, and that fairness is what makes it capable of finally giving the first positive, accurate portrayal of Stonewall Jackson in a major production. Political correctness does not exist in this movie, nor is it a radical political flick about how Dixie was right and the world would have been a better place with its victory. Gods and Generals simply tells the story of Stonewall Jackson. I am often disappointed by movies that either stain the characters of the people they portray, change history, or completely distort the books they're based upon. Gods and Generals does none of these - it faithfully shows Jackson as the brilliant leader and devout Christian man with an honorable character that he was without making fun of his faith. He was not perfect of course, and Gods and Generals tries to demonstrate that aspect of him too. Jackson had doubts, fears, and he made mistakes - one that cost him his life.
This film contains none of the overly graphic violence, language, or sexuality that has become far too common in modern movies; and it respects - even applauds Christianity. Despite the fact that this film is a bit too long, and the first part can get kind of slow, Gods and Generals masterfully weaves together Jackson's personal life, his legend as a general (along with a suspense-filled portrayal of his military genius in his surprise attack on Chancelorsville), and his dedicated Christianity into a long-overdue, well-done portrayal of one of my heroes.
Rating:
Summary: Atrocious, plain and simple
Review: I can't believe that over all this movie has a rating of 3.5 stars in this forum. It deserves much less. I have nothing new to offer in the way of a review that hasn't been said already. Poor acting, sappy dialog, G-rated battle scenes, torturous movie length, etc. Is this movie historically accurate? Probably. But that is what PUBLIC TELEVISION DOCUMENTARIES ARE FOR, not hollywood movies. I have seen 1-hour shows on PBS that were far better at capturing the emotions of the war. What really bothered me about this movie was the portrayal of two African-American characters who were enamored so much with the South and their masters that they pledged themselves to the cause. WTF?! It may have been true that some blacks at the time were happy living in the south, but COME ON! Making the only two worthwhile black actors in the movie play roles that were sympathetic to the SOUTH?! That is just plain ignorant. Oh, don't get me started on the whole "God is a Southerner" thing that this movie pitched ad nauseum. Jackson was religious...okay, we get the point already! About the only thing I liked about this movie was that it didn't go along with the mantra that the North was the "good guys" and the South was the "bad guys", like what is pounded into your head all through grade school and by other Civil War movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Jackson and Reenactors
Review: Having participated in G&G as a confederate "extra," I can tell you I have great respect for Stephen Lang and many of the other actors in the film. They did a wonderful job given the fact that the screenplay was a bit bloated and long winded. I admit the battle scenes could have been more realistic and at times looked like a reenactment. The director should have ben more careful about the height/weight ratio of the reenactors. I am 5 feet 6 inches tall and weigh 150. Even that's a tad overweight for people of the day. There were too many fat soldiers. Also, Maxwell should have shown more of the horrors of war, the blown off limbs, the blood (ala Saving Private Ryan). People need to understand that Civil War battles were just as horrible as other battles from WW1, WW2, etc. War is war, and it's all horrible. As an extra in the movie, I wish I could give it a higher rating, but the shortened version and long winded dialogue keeps me from doing so. Hopefully the "director's cut" will be better.
Rating:
Summary: Once you get past the opening credits, it's downhill
Review: This movie is a tremendous injustice to the fascinating men it attempts to portray. Part of the problem is it does too much, if it concentrated on the lead up to First Manassas and that Battle and explored the characters in depth it may have been good, but it covers too much ground to make character development meaningful and then wastes a lot of time in parlours with piano playing and philosophical ramblings. Despite the focus on Jackson, you come away with little insight as to what made this man arguably one of the greatest generals of history. I was excited with Robert Duvall as Lee, but you can measure his screen time with an egg timer, a waste of a good actor who could have explored the complexities of the man. It was a sad waste of a topic worthy for exploration in a film, and I am afraid this turkey may scare off future better attempts to explore this topic.
Rating:
Summary: awful
Review: I have to agree with everything that "How About No Stars" wrote. This movie was so bad on every level. The acting was horrible. Everyone in the movie made at least three long speeches and just droned on and on. I guess it was supposed to be "deep" and "dramatic" The attempt to portray slaves as on the side of the south was truly tastless. I can't say enough bad things about this movie. Some reviewers who didn't like this movie also didn't like "Gettysburg" I have to disagree there. I did like "Gettysburg" which just makes my disapointment in this movie so much more.
|
