Rating: 
Summary: Severely Underrated
Review: Apparently, all it takes to be a film critic these days is a combination of the right political views on the right issues and a fourth grade education. This would explain why "Gods and Generals" -- an excellent film -- was a box office flop. The critics killed it before it had a chance. Smug remarks by less-than-intelligent reviewers like "this is a film that would make Trent Lott proud" gave potential viewers a bad opinion of the movie before they'd even seen it. And what was it that the critics didn't like? One reviewer said it was too much like a history lesson!! Pardon me, but how could one make a movie about the Civil War and NOT include historical data? This just goes to show how averse a large portion of the American people are to thinking. But enough of this. Onto the film itself. Mr. Maxwell does an admirable job of cramming the first two years of the Civil War into a three hour movie. The film's star, Stephen Lang gives a performance worthy of an Academy Award as Stonewall Jackson. Since the Confederate forces were dominant in the first half of the war, the film focuses on them more than their blundering Union counterparts. This was percieved as Neo-Confederate propaganda by the critics, which of course is not true. And, due to the fact that most of the people in the 1860's were Christians, the movie delves into the religious side of the conflict which nearly sent the snide reviewers into an epileptic fit. The battle scenes were nearly flawless (the only thing missing was the gore and blood) and very exciting to watch. The only scene I could have done without is the infamous "Hail Caesar" scene that semmed to last a half hour. Overall this is a great film about great men who stood against tyranny and died to preserve freedom. If only this generation could understand that. I eagerly await "The Last Full Measure".
Rating: 
Summary: No stars
Review: If you are hoping for a movie similar in quality and performance to 'Gettysburg', look elsewhere.
G and G is poorly acted, directed and written. The cinematography is often a dull focus, similar to bad sentimental movies of the 70's. The acting, from many of the same cast members of 'Gettysburg', is equally dull and out of focus. Mr. Lang, who's wonderful performance in 'Gettysburg' surely got him the role of Stonewall Jackson, is overly sentimental, and near to weeping a good portion of the movie. Robert Duvall is the one good exception, but due to the poor quality of the soundtrack, I constantly had to change the volume to hear him speak.
The movie does acknowledge the slavery issue, but only to whitewash it and present the southern cause as solely one of states rights. I suspect that someone somewhere was trying to create ancestors worthy of their descendents.
There are two African Americans in the movie, but they are portrayed disturbingly like the slaves in 'Gone With the Wind', more concerned for the safety and comfort of their owners than their own. And apparently most southerners treated their slaves wonderfully and wanted to free the them before the war, there just wasn't enough time.
If you are looking for a good Civil War movie, buy 'Gettysburg' and stay away from G and G.
Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals vs Gigli
Review: Which movie is worse? It's hard to say. I don't typically comment on other reviews but the Christian Girl who wrote that this movie is about the christian south and un-christian North. Did she run out of medication or is the education system in the South really that bad. I live in South Carolina, yes it really is that bad! So is this movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Stunning
Review: Despite the negative press by liberal 'professional' critics who don't know American history, the film is an excellent portrayal of the War of Federal Agression against the states of the South. The central character of the movie is General Thomas Jackson. His deep faith, even on the field of battle, his strength, and his convictions are brought alive. His oppositon to slavery is touched upon, and his humanity is brought out with the (true) story of his weeping at the news of the death of a five year old girl who had befriended him. The movie is filled with short, touching scenes, like the Confederate soldier and his Union counterpart who swap a smoke and coffee at Christmas, and like the heartwrenching confrontation between the Irish regiments of north and south: regiments containing friends who had sailed to America together in search of a new life, now fighting to the death. A film covering two years like this one is not going to please everybody, but nevertheless I think that the producers did an outstanding job.
Rating:
Summary: Response to Mr. Setliff of Virginia Beach, VA
Review: I'd like to respond to a remark made by Mr. Setliff, Virginia Beach, VA in his review of July 18, 2003. To those of us who gave negative criticism to Gods and Generals this is a quote from Mr. Setliff's review: "This movie has drawn criticism chiefly from the amoral minority who scoff at the pious portrayals of Christian faith, chilvary, (his spelling, not mine) and nobility in a time when character counted for something."
Dear Mr. Setliff, many of us were not objecting to the religious aspects portrayed in the movie, but rather the excessive number of scenes devoted to Jackson's over-the-top prayer spectaculars that stopped the momentum and unbalanced the movie as a whole by not rounding out the other character's personalities. In Gettysburg most of us, North and South, felt an emotional connection to the men fighting on both sides because we were given a balanced view of their characters. We aren't amoral for wanting that balance in Gods and Generals as well. As for chivalry, the men in the north and the south shared equally in that department and still do. As for nobility and character, I say neither of these virtues can exist in anyone who chooses to enslave an entire race of people whatever their reasons for doing so. That is amoral! From a woman who likes her movies well done.
Rating:
Summary: A more accurate portrayal of the Southern viewpoint
Review: I purchased this DVD with not a little trepedation after reading the widely divergent viewpoints of many of the reviewers;I'm very glad that I did not allow many of the "politically correct",Northern establlishment rants deter me! This is an excellent film! The main reason I rated it only 4 stars is not based on any sins of commission , but on the errors of ommission. The film jumps from the first battle of Manassas to Fredricksburg and then to Chancellorsville without Lee's invasion of the North through Harpers Ferry and Antietam. The producers of the film skipped the bloodiest battle of the entire war! On the very positive side , the acting by Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee was magnificent. Frankie Faison portrayed "Big Jim", Stonewall Jackson's cook very well. Historical accuracy: as many other reviewers have pointed out , the war was NOT simply about slavery. This film brings into focus many of the other issues involved , primarily the issues of sovereignty and federal coercion. The major issue of the economic impact of southern secession is not even touched upon. Anyone who is from the south or has freinds and relatives form the south can testify that the depiction of religeous fervor is accurate (altho' many reviewers have commented in a negative manner on this issue!). Yes--maybe a little too much for a movie--but true. I commend Ted Turner for this effort.
Rating:
Summary: A GREAT HISTORY FILM
Review: I do believe that this is the best Civil War film ever made. The battles are awsome ( First Manassas, Fredricksburg, Chancellorsville). I felt the acting was well done and the plot was well developed. Believe me, just because critics are giving it bad reviews, does not mean that it is bad at all. Here one area that the film is taking hits. They say that the diologe is way to long. That is so not true.
The way the people in the film talk is very accurate. Americans in the 1860's spoke very different than we do. They were more into reading than we are today. Even poor people spoke better, they mostly read the bible. There were less books back than there are today and people then were better educated. Americans today cannot understand that this is how people spoke. People even spoke well when they were praying with each other. Their is a scene in the film between Jackson and his wife praying. The spoke by praying, and this was very acuratetly prortrayed in the film. That was not over done at all. Don't listen to those air head critics. They do not know what they are talking about. I would like to talk more about how accurate this film is, but there is not enough room. I will say it again, i think this was a wonderful film and i wish more people would see it. You can be entertained and be educated at the same time. But in the end, it is up to you to decide if this movie is as good as i said it was.
Rating:
Summary: Long, overacted, and boring
Review: This was a poor prequel to Gettysburg, and clearly the work of a Ted Turner trying to make and epic as a producer.
The long pauses, and monologues prior to battle and the poor screen play made it hard to watch, and the 210 min run time seemed more like 280 min. There might be 4-5 scenes worth their salt, but most are tired and so overdramatic it takes away from the story and seems just plain campy. good actors, good history, bad bad script and directing do not buy this movie.
Rating:
Summary: Great civil war drama
Review: This is one of those epic movies made especially for the history buff, although all who view this film will benefit. Seeing the flags of the civil war regiments at the opening credits was haunting, as tho it was the "threshold" we as viewers were to cross to get back to the U.S. in the 1860s. The primary complaints that most people are apt to pledge against this film too long & too pedantic. As far as length, it was appropriate for the scope of its story - just as the sequel, GETTYSBERG was. [Even tho GETTYSBERG was made before the present movie, it is still the sequel]. You can't make an epic movie and still have it be under 2 hours; is just the nature of the epic. As for it being overly pedantic, for myself I relish lines such as "We train by day and read our Xenophon by night." We must remember that the service academies gave much more credence to classical history in the 19th century than they do today. Also, Xenophon had a far greater reputation as a trustworthy historian than he does today. The cast of the film is top-knotch. Robert Duvall plays Robert E Lee in a more stoic fashion than Martin Sheen's portrayal in GETTYSBERG. Bruce Boxleitner is an even trade off for Tom Berenger in the role of General Longstreet. If you are even remotely interested in the period of the civil war, this film is a must-see film. The early days & incidents leading up to the conflict come to life on the screen before our eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Good but not perfect
Review: I did enjoy this film. Although I am not a Civil War buff, I did appreciate its portryal of the human side of this internal war that tore apart this nation. The other reveiwers commented on the absence of the battles of Antietam, etc and they have a valid point, but I believe this film had a greater idea in mind. The humanizing protrayal of Southern legends such as "Stonewall" Jackson. Let's face it. When was the last time a film or documnetary about the Civil war portrayed a Confederate such as Jackson being intimate with his wife or holding his newborn child? Just like films about Americans in World War II, we are almost always portrayed as the "good guy." The Nazis are always evil. Same for the Civil War, the Confederates are always out back whipping their slaves. One can quibble with the portayal of Fredericksburg by the use of Harpers Ferry, W VA., but the events that took place there are what matter. Jeff Daniels continues to perform in an outstanding manner as Joshua Chmaberlain (and George Washington but that's another film). I doubt few quibbled about the intimate scenes of Chamberlian and his wife, unlike Jackson. Let's face it. Any portrayal of the Civil War is bound to upset one side or the other. It is just such a topic. But the fact that hundreds of thousands of men fought to defend their beliefs, no matter how right or wrong, should count for something and when slavery continues to this day in other parts of the world, the fact that we can look back on it as a historical event should say something about this country.
|
