Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Not politically correct enough for shallow tastes
Review: This movie is destined to be a classic. It will come to be appreciated by thoughtful people over time. The negative reviews seemed to be an organized effort by people who have little capacity to understand the person of Stonewall Jackson. The movie clearly points out the conflict between Jackson's "fanatical" Christianity and the existence of slavery, but some reviewers conveniently ignore that. I will be ordering this DVD to keep for years to come.

Rating:
Summary: My New Favorite Movie
Review: As I have stated in previous reviews that I've written, I despise political correctness in every sense of the word. And when it comes to historical epic movies, I feel there is absolutely NO PLACE for political correctness. That being said, Gods and Generals is not only pretty much HISTORICALLY CORRECT but is totally engulfing to watch, from the southern 19th century language usage (including many original quotes from the period such as the last words spoken by General Jackson as he lay dying) to the way the characters interacted with each other to the war itself. The camera angles played a major role in the feel of this movie as well. The way the whole flick played out gave me the feeling that I was right there, in the company of the major players of that awful war.
It was nice, also, to see a Civil War movie that spoke of the reasoning behind the war itself - states rights. Now, no president in his right mind, whether it be Lincoln or, if by some twist of fate, Jefferson Davis, would have allowed any states to secede. As much as I understand why those states wanted to secede, as president, I would have done whatever I could to prevent that from happening. Was the way Lincoln handled it correct? Well, hindsight is 20/20 and that discussion has been played out for over 140 years. We know the route Lincoln did take - right or wrong - to keep the union as one, and this Gods and Generals shows how the beginning of this situation played out, at least from the southern point of view. A little more of the northern perspective would have been nice. Oh well, maybe in the extended DVD version.
Unfortunately, too many people take all of these Hollywood historical movies as fact, and, since that town is run by politically correct liberals who would rather change history to fit the way THEY feel it SHOULD have been, rather than the way it actually was, the majority of movie watchers usually do not get a good part of the truth. And that's a shame and a crime. Gods and Generals is the exception, which is a breath of fresh air. As Jeff Shaara, author of the original book this movie is based, stated in a recent interview (from the Gods and Generals magazine), "Hollywood has a dismal record of portraying history. Historical films have one purpose - to make money - and it seems they have two means of realizing that. One, tell a story the studio thinks the audience wants to see, and thus tilt the story to whatever political correctness is in vogue. The second purpose is to allow one particular big time actor the chance to do 'cool things' on the screen. Though many of these films are entertaining, the one thing missing is any responsibility to give the audience the truth about the event being portrayed."
Do not let the length scare you off. From beginning to end, I was held to my seat, greatly anticipating the next scene when I saw it at the show. Matter of fact, I saw it twice in one weekend - once with my wife and once with my two eldest sons - and I'm ready to see it again!
Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, and the third part to be released next year (whose name escapes me) should be required viewing for all history students in school history class. Historical viewing at its best.

Rating:
Summary: southern apology
Review: ...The film for the most part ignores such major Confederate defeats such as Perryville and Antietam--the latter the single bloodiest day in the Civil War--and Grant's Western campaign, all of which established the foundation of eventual Union victory, in favor of the Southern view of the war. The "essential" reading Fremont suggests is anti-Lincoln and pro-Southern apologias, and any historian worth his salt, when studying the record, will note the increaingly violent and intractable rhetoric on the Southern side concerning one issue following the Mexican-American War: slavery. Certainly the South was concerned about the increasing economic power of the North, but after the Nullification crisis was squashed by Andrew Jackson, such considerations were accepted as inevitable (if not positive). The one Southerns thing feared above all else was the free black man, and even when white manpower was depleted in the last years of the war, even Lee couldn't convince the Confederate government to grant freedom to slaves who fought to preserve the institution.

Rating:
Summary: Let's get one thing straight right now
Review: The odds are if you didn't like this movie, then you shouldn't have seen it in the first place because this movie wasn't made for everyone. I can see why most people wouldn't find the movie appealing as it doesn't follow the format that the typical viewer has come to expect. It doesn't have comic relief between battle scenes, it doesn't have any amazing CG effects, the explosions seemed subpar, it was very lengthy, Tom Hanks wasn't in it, and there wasn't any witty dialogue. Instead, the movie chose to focus on the values of brotherhood, loyalty, honor, and the duty of a soldier. While this movie's special effects will never win any awards, they did not lack entirely (there is a major difference between the way black powder and an oil tanker driven by a killer cyborg explodes). Like many reviews have stated, the more you know about the civil way, the more you will enjoy the movie. As for the storyline, myself and many others thought it was very moving. I can see how many people however would think otherwise and I would like to point out to them that much of the dialogue was based on actual quotes. Reviewers have also felt the need to critique the film's plot. The movie, is based on historical events. I've never heard anybody criticizing the plot in a history book or documentary, which this film closely approximates. In short, if you know nothing about the war between the states or you are looking for a hollywood blockbuster viewing experience, then watch a different movie. Another sure sign you will dislike this movie is if you didn't like Gettysburg. If you are interested in learning about the civil war and the people behind it and don't mind spending 4 hours doing it then you should at least give the film a chance.

Rating:
Summary: Two Years compressed into 3 hours and 39 minutes
Review: This is a film that will live on after we are all gone. It's unfair to compare "Gods and Generals" to "Gettysburg" as "Gettysburg" covers four - five days of the conflict vs. the two years being retold in the extremely short amount of film time.

This film is for everyone. Mind you that those with very short attention spans do not like it and are easily confused by all those white men with facial hair. Everyone else will enjoy the film and come away with the sense that the war was very complex. The various ideas about why the war was fought, the many factions (Northern, Southern, Irish, Black, US Regular career military, state volunteers, etc) and how best friends before the war fought each other for very different reasons...

Rating:
Summary: Revisionist Waste of Time
Review: When I first heard that Ted Turner was planning to make Gods and Generals, I eagerly anticipated its release. I loved Gettysburg and hoped that Gods and Generals would be as good. Unfortunately I was wrong. Gods and Generals is perhaps one of the least accurate Civil War movies that I have ever seen. This four hour long disappointment shows nothing but the revised Pro-South version of the Civil War. All of the battles shown are Southern victories. The South is portrayed as merely defending their homes and the Battle of Antietam (a Southern invasion of the North), the bloodiest single day in American Military History and the Union victory used to justify the Emancipation Proclamation, is left out of the movie as is the fact that Lee's Confederate Army kidnapped free blacks in the North and sold them into slavery during his invasion of the North). Also, all of the "touching," "emotional" scenes focus on Southern families. No Northern mother is shown tearfully sending her sons of to fight. Finally, the book Gods and Generals is completely changed. Hancock's role in the book as a major character is shortened in the movie to a few lines. With the exception of Chamberlain, the entire movie is told from the point of view of the South. In lieu of any Northern point of view Ron Maxwell decided to add ridiculous characters like Jim Lewis (Jackson's cook) in laughable scenes where he and Jackson pray to end slavery. Save your time and money and avoid this 4 hour-long revisionist atrocity.

Rating:
Summary: Deserves 10 stars
Review: Without a doubt this is the most historically accurate Civil War movie ever made.

Steve Lang did a fantastic Stonewall Jackson. Robert Duvall did a Great Robert E. Lee, and is a superb horseman.

Some people complained the movie talked too much about God, and faith. Well, that is what the most of the people did back then, and especially the Southern people, more so Jackson and Lee. ( there is NOT ONE CUSS WORD IN THE MOVIE!)

Some people complained the movie didn't show 'reality'! ( with blood, guts, etc.) Please use your imagination folks, the REALITY of the Civil War, does not really need to be splashed on the screen.

The other plus's--the authentic REAL Old South accent; and most of the lines read were quotes from REAL history.

If one reads histor; or is from the South, the relationship between the black slave, and her mistress, was just as described in the movie. ( which is a very loving and caring relationship)
[ Northern people always have a hard time realizing this. They don't understand black and white children grew up together, and played together on the plantation. Segeration occured in the North during the Civil war, in all most all areas)

FACT: Stonewall Jackson taught Sunday school for black Children, sent their school money during the war, and like Robert E. Lee, wished to see slavery abolished.

Was Jim ( Jackson's personal cook and aid,) --who was black-- a real character?

Answer: If you know where Jackson is buried, look over your shoulder, and you'll see Jim's grave.

Errors on the Movie: 1.)The Union TORE THE STRINGS OUT OF THE PIANO, and DESTROYED IT. ( though they MAY HAVE played it first)

2.) JEB Stuarts cloak, ( normally red lined--though he may have had one that wasn't)

3.) The Irish Brigade--Here is an interesting point.

The Southern Irish, fought for independence; the Northern Irish fought for Empire and SELF. ( Aggrandizement)

Example: CSA General ( Irish) Patrick Cleburne--"a man should bow down to no man but his creator"

US General ( Irish) Thomas Meager--fought to make a name for himself, and become a strong political figure. ( which was his idea from the start) Meager left the Union army under a cloud of distrust and other crimes were alleged to him)

This movie really states the war for what is was; Independence and leaving the Southern states to fight for what the REAL design of the founding fathers wanted.

The North fought to create and EMPIRE. It shows the CREATION OF THE MONOLITHIC OUT OF CONTROL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that we have today.

Further reference reading:

1.)"Cultures In Conflict" by Charles E. Jennings ( Outstanding 113 page book, bluntly truthful. About the religious and cultural differences between the North and South, during the Civil War.--a MUST READ FOR SOUTHERN PEOPLE)

2.) "Lincoln takes Command" by John Shipley Tilley ( Learn through Federal Official Records, Navy Records, etc., HOW & WHY this was started) Forget the myths you were taught in high school, this book has the facts!

3.) The Real Lincoln by Charles C.F. Minor ( Tons of Primary sources in this book--see my review)

Buy this movie, for yourself and your friends, read the books, and learn how the Federal Government came into being.

Rating:
Summary: Its a crying shame it couldn't live up to the book...
Review: I am a Civil War reenactor who got into the hobby because of the film "Gettysburg." I've read all 3 books in the Shaara trilogy and "Gettysburg" did justice to "The Killer Angels." However, "Gods & Generals" as a film is incredibly disappointing. Too much of the book was left out, and to those who do not know about Jackson the story in the film was very confusing. (I had to explain many parts to almost everyone whom I know that saw it.) Apart from the departure from the book, there are a lot of problems with the film technically as well. Many of the CGI aspects are laughable (unlike ones found in such films as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Star Wars, and The Matrix). The same "footage" was used over and over again during the battle of Fredericksburg, regardless of which company it was supposed to depict. Definitely bad filmmaking. I spent several days on the set, talked about the release of the film constantly, and now cannot even bring myself to buy the DVD. I can only hope that Ron Maxwell will find the finances to release his director's cut on DVD. THAT I would pay money to see.

Rating:
Summary: A quiet, classically styled tragedy
Review: I saw this movie at the Premiere in DC, and I was blown away by it. The critics saw the flaws in the film, I saw them too, but it all worked together for me. I was impressed that someone actually pulled off making an epic, and the aesthetic beauty of the film, and the genuine warmth, heart, and soul it had, something many a movie lacks these days.

Quick rundown of flaws: Some of the history is un-researched (but what can you expect from Hollywood?), especially concerning the costumes. But, despite complaints, the dialogue is correct (yep, those speeches were how they talked. Just go to your local college's library and pull out a war-time newspaper chock full of "going away speeches". Oy),a nd it would have been a shame to revert to monosylables. The script is untidy, but one must keep in mind that this film was originally cut from a 6 hour version, still Maxwell could have done much better with the screenplay. The women in the film were rather awkward and unecessary, though, unlike many, I liked the feminine touch. Some scenes seem to come out of nowhere and lead into nothing, and the movie moves quickly, jumpng over huge portions of time. The movie doesn't follow the book closely at all, choosing to make this the "Stonewall Jackson Movie", which can be an ambiguous (either negative or positive) choice, depending on the viewer. Thus, a great many of the beloved characters and scenes from the book are out.

But on top of all it's flaws, the film has charisma and heart, and does work, at least for me, despite what many of it's critics think. It doesn't feel cliched; rather, it feels fresh. The battle scenes, though lacking in gore, are extremely well choreographed and awe-inspiring. The score is amazing, and there's one song, "Going Home" which plays at the beginning, which is downright Oscar worthy. Stephen Lang brings in a true tour-de-force theatrical performance (he was, after all nominated for a Tony Award for A Few Good Men), in the legacy of many a great character actor. Mr. Lang doesn't have the most startling resemblance of Ol' Stonewall, but his sheer presence convinces you that he is. Jeff Daniels and a plethora of supporting actors deserve kudos for fine performances as well.

The film doesn't lack in poignant moments and, in it's own way, drives home the horror of war in scenes too numerous to count. Unlike many war films these days, this film is quiet. It makes you think, makes you pay attention. In many ways it reminds me of classical plays performed for the stage, or even Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (though it shares the same thoughtful, intellectual pace and graceful, natural visuals, it moves much more swiftly than dear Barry does).

This is a different film, to be sure. Don't be turned off by counting it's flaws. It has a deep, profound undercurrent that makes up for those. It can alternately wring genuine tears from or inspire it's viewers, without the use of cheap cinematic manipulation; this is a slow cooked film. This is a fine film about our national tragedy, not the best, but certainly fine, respectful, thoughtful, sorrowful, and indeed, stirring.

Rating:
Summary: God Awful
Review: I'm stunned at the number of 4 and 5 star reviews for this movie. Lets get one thing straight right off, this film is for the most dedicated civil war buffs only. For everyone else, I would recommend literally any other movie ever made over this one. I think it would be more fun to sit and stare at a wall for the entire length of the actual civil war than be subjected to this film again.

The biggest problem is the story. The script takes several eventful years from American history and fails completely to give even a spark of life to them. There are no particularly interesting or likable characters in the film. Not one. The acting is forced and wooden, but I can mostly forgive the actors considering how little they had to work with. It should also be noted that the film has no real beginning or end, since it is the second film in a trilogy. The movie just starts telling its "story" from a fairly arbitrary moment, and ends the same way. There is little to no dramatic payoff after sitting through this whole thing. It is not even successful as a sort of dramatized documentary if one could see it that way, because a real documentary would be far more interesting.

The next major problem is the length. The film is over 4 hours long. Those four hours are divided between long, insipid exchanges of dialog, and the most tedious battles ever to have been put on film. When I saw the film at the theater, much of the audience did not even bother to come back after the intermission.

Perhaps in a different format, this film might have done a little better. As a TV miniseries, split over 4 or 5 nights, with at least an hour cut and some heavy rewriting, Gods and Generals maybe could been mildly tolerable, at least for a slightly wider audience. But as it stands, its very hard for me to imagine almost anyone enjoying this film. Even die-hard civil war buffs can certainly do better, no matter how accurate the film's costumes may be. If your friends, neighbors, or spouse want to rent this film, try to talk them out of it. If they insist, make sure you get the comfortable chair and bring a book. Odds are they will give up on this terrible, terrible, movie after about an hour or so anyway.