Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Greatest Civil War movie ever made!
Review: I was so psyched to see this movie when it came out, especially after having read the book, and I must say that it is the greatest
Civil War movie out there! I was quite surprised that whereas "Gettysburg" (the film to which this is a prequel) follows the book "The Killer Angels" very well, "Gods and Generals" strays enormously from the novel, but it keeps the historical accuracy intact, and may in fact add on to that aspect. And unlike the book, which is evenly balanced on both sides (Hancock and Chamberlain for the Union, Lee and Jackson for the Confederacy), the film focuses mainly on Jackson, while almost eliminating Lee and especially Hancock. But what is produced is an honest and accurate portrayal of "Stonewall" and the Confederate cause, not so much for preserving slavery (as is the popular belief), but for defense of their native land and states' rights. But to balance this off is the Union Lt. Colonel Chamberlain, who is once again wonderfully portrayed by Jeff Daniels. Many reviewers, even the ones who like this film, say that "Gettysburg" is a much better movie. It is......for a MOVIE movie. But as far as the Civil War aspect is concerned, I like "Gods and Generals" better.....its richness and authentic feel, it's very effective battle sequences. But its the little things that stand out the most: the shooting of the deserters, the Yankee and Reb trading tobacco and coffee, the civilian life.....it adds to a better understanding of the war, not just one battle in Pennsylvania.

Rating:
Summary: For Civil War appreciators
Review: Gods and Generals is a film for Civil War buffs abroad, it is not--I repeat--it is not a typical film that if you expect plenty of action and melodrama you will be greatly mistaken. This is a film that was intended to tell the story of the Civil War, at least some parts of it. As much as I think Gettysburg was more put together and flowed so much easier, Gods and Generals is still a fine work of art if you look at it with a fair mind.

This film created much controversy because it viewed the South as something different than "slave whipping white men who were evil." They were viewed as humans, with purposes and reasons to going to war besides keeping slavery. Southerns fought for their way of life, whether you think that's right or wrong is beside the point, the movie had a right in portraying its characters as such. Southerners lived differently than the North. They had a different economy with a different form of thought over what America is and was. In their minds, America was a nation made up of many nations or states that were to be free to make up their own minds. But the North viewed America as one country and it was to be controlled by a central government composed of represenatives from every state. So you can say the war was over States Rights not slavery.

Now, talking about slavery, some folks here seem to think that this is what the film should've been about. Some throw hissy fits in their reviews because Jackson prays with a black man? So where is it written that every southerner was a racist and wouldn't be caught dead talking to a black man less praying with him? Don't generalize, it's very unbecoming when I read your reviews. Keep an open mind, please. And yes, blacks in the south--initially--were for the confederacy. Why you ask? Because they didn't care much for Yankees either. The South was their home too, and they viewed the North as invaders not liberators. Historical fact: slaves knew not a different life different from their own. Another historical fact: slaves did not always hate their white masters but revered them at times as patrons and leaders. Don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting slavery or making excuses for the South's way of life, but I do want to make it clear that blacks were not always mistreated and not always resentful of their white brethern.

Now, there have been some quote "civil war buffs" who claim that Jackson is painted out to be some "Christ like character." I honestly have no idea what they mean. Jackson was a very religious man, often considered a fanatic, that's all opinion. He was ruthless on the battle field, his losses were high, so some have called him a "killer" as one reviewer called him. Another opinion, take it for what it's worth. I suppose some reviewers wanted the film to show Jackson as a mad man and not as a man who's maybe a little extreme when it comes to the battlefield. I'm sorry, I have a hard time taking the word of a reviewer who takes an extreme view of Jackson and expects me to swallow it. I never knew the man, we only know of what historians tell us and what his biography displays, and from what I understand this movie does that well.

My one complaint about this film is balance. It does come across that this is a film told primarily from the Southern point of view. This sucks because we don't really understand much of the North's reasons to go to war and we don't get the equal balance of strategy before each battle. Like Chancellorsville: how come Jackson's corp was able to ambush Hooker's right flank? What was Hooker thinking? We don't know, because he's never given the opportunity. I think there is a little too much Thomas Jackson in this film, to be fair, and it goes a bit overboard with his personal life. Lee and Chamberlain, the other main characters are brief in their roles because Jackson hogs the entire movie. This was a mistake, I believe, and it created some bore. But it isn't that bad to demote a star.

The flow of the film is a bit choppy, jumping from Manassas to Fredricksburg to Chancellorsville. They did leave some battles out in between, but because of time restraints, I understand why. But again, if they trimmed some of Jackson's over abundance of personal life time to military strategy and battle sequences, I think the film would've surpassed Gettysburg.

In summary, Gods and Generals is a historical film. It teaches you quite a bit about that period, it gives the viewer an opportunity to see the southern view point for once and does enlighten you on some of the battles. It's worth seeing if you like historical films. But if you go into it with a narrow mind, as other reviewers here have done, you'll end up being bitter.

Grade: A-

Rating:
Summary: Simply awful!
Review: I had three friends recommend this film to me as we sat around eating lunch.So I went and saw it....they owe me a lunch! The most left-brained ,boring,didactic,film of long somber,overacted soliloquies and silly battle scenes that were neither dramatic nor believable.I never EVER got the sense that I was seeing anything more than a couple hundred guys doing a reenactment thing on their weekend.The cinematography was lame,the music strident..offering the only clue as to whether anything was happening on the screen.Robert Duval is a favorite actor of mine...I think the best special effect in the movie must be the painstaking effort of erasing,frame by frame,the blush of embarrasement from this fine actors face.

"Other than that Mrs Lincoln...how did you like the play?"

NO stars!..Please....there is really no reason to put yourself through this!!

Rating:
Summary: A Great and Accurate Tale!
Review: I was amazed by this film. Of course it isn't as good as it's brother film-Gettysburg, but it is still a beautiful and inspiring film. As I watched this, I just couldn't find that many historically accurate mistakes. It's truly one of the most historically accurate films ever made. While it's great battle scenes show the complete horror of war, this films also shows a human side to the American Civil War.

My favorite hero is Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain-the film's main character. I first knew of him back in 1994 when I first saw Gettysburg(which I also highly recommend). Just like Gettysburg, Gods and Generals shows the true heroism of men like Chamberlain, Jackson and Lee. It also spreads the emotion of many other epic war films. It displays the carnage and horror that these brave men went through. They fought for what they believed was right. No war is a good war.

While many disliked this film for being "politically incorrect" or "unpatriotic", even more enjoyed it. Some people say that this film is a piece of "southern propoganda" and we shouldn't portray people defending slavery as heros. This is not so. 85% of southerners didn't even own slaves, they were too poor to do so. They fought for rights that they thought were right and did so dignity and honor. Shame on anybody who think otherwise. This film is not "propoganda". It chronicles what really happened and why it happend. There is nothing wrong or "unpatriotic" about that.

Despite all the controversy behind this great film, it still proves to be a fine film and certainly one of the absolute finest American Civil War films ever produced. The movie depicts three major battles from 1861 to 1863, just prior to the major Battle of Gettysburg.

Just as it has educated and inspired people like me, I'm sure this film will do the same for you and all that see it in the future. It is a film that matters about a time that matters. Always remember that. We should never forget what our ancestors did for us in the past. North or South. No matter what you believed the Civil War was fought for, this film tells what the true message is. Men fought and died honorably in times that brother fought against brother. They did so with honor and dignity. We should care for what happened in our history. It is what matters most.

Rating:
Summary: Historically accurate
Review: Many of the reviews here seem to divide into 2 main camps, depending upon the reviewers' political and cultural views. I am a Civil War buff, and a "amateur" historian, if there is such a thing. And thoroughly Southern (before I moved into the great white North). First off, this movie deserves, in my humble opinion, to be honored for its historically accurate depictions of the basis of the conflict as well as the emotions of those who fought. I felt the acting was superb, except for some of the "large" reenactors. Was it biased a bit more towards its overview of Jackson? Absolutely. But I believe Ron Maxwell wanted it that way to ensure that this would not turn into the normally self-righteous Civil War period movie we've seen before. For those who wonder about the feelings of Southern people, read closely this quotation of George Eliot that appears during the opening credits:

"A human life, I think, should be well rooted in some spot of a native land, where it may get the love of tender kinship for the face of the earth, for the labors men go forth to, for the sounds and accents that haunt it, for whatever will give that early home a familiar unmistakable difference amidst the future widening of knowledge. The best introduction to astronomy is to think of the nightly heavens as a little lot of stars belonging to one's own homestead."

That quote sums it up quite well, even for how we Southerners feel today. For Jackson, his portrayal was accurate. I would not doubt that Jackson's prayer with his black cook could have certainly happened. Before the war, in Lexington, Jackson personally ran a Sunday School class for slaves. During the war, whenever he encountered someone who was from his hometown, he would ask about the status of that class. Jackson's religious fervor was well-known among all at that time. Though the movie did not (and could not) get into the religious implications of the war, I think that it simply was God's plan (for those of you who believe - others please bear with me) to humble the North in the beginning, then take Jackson out of the picture, then lead Abe to issue the Emancipation after Sharpsburg. Make no mistake: our nation SUFFERED because of the evil of institutionalized slavery. The South in particular. So that is the one complaint I have about this movie - it glossed over slavery a bit too much. Otherwise, it is indeed a haunting and emotional drama, truly depicted.

Rating:
Summary: Reminds me of going to the dentist
Review: Preface: I loved "Gettysburg". Although it was preachy historical fiction, it was entertaining and well balanced between North and South, although I would say it was 60% South, 40% North.

With that in mind, how can you describe how bad this movie was without sounding petty? You can't. Instead of Gods and Generals, the movie should have been called "Stonewall Jackson... Oh, and Some Other Guys." I really went to the theater hoping the critics were wrong. After all, "Gettysburg" was not hi-tech, but it had heart. The lights dimmed, and then I sat for hours in the theater hoping that the movie would pick up the pace slightly. "Look how wonderful of a person Stonewall Jackson is" screamed the movie, and I wondered if anyone writing the movie bothered to read the book.

The book, for those of you who loved the film, was about four leaders (Generals Lee, Hancock, Jackson and Chamberlain), and Stoney was only supposed to be 1/4 of them. Instead, the movie focused about 60% of its time telling me that Stonewall Jackson was a good man, who loved his wife and daughter, and was loved by his men. Hancock and Chamberlain seemed to be mere afterthoughts, although Lee seemed to get at least 25% of the screen time. If this movie was a four hour expose about Gen. Jackson, I think that I would not have been so disappointed.

But, whatever, take these comments for what they are worth (free advice). If you want to torture yourself, watch this movie. While you are at it, check out Matrix Revolutions, Gigli, and any one of the many Adam Sandler movies are on the shelf. You will be just as disappointed, but it will take only about half the time.

Rating:
Summary: revisionism, romance and a curious disappointment
Review: For those, like Mr.Vallante who thinks that this movie gave a
view of what the view of the South was, a Civil War movie should
give the views of both the South and the North. Like it's pre/post quel, Gettysburg, there is a romanticising of the South.
The persons are quite clean and pristine, and the slaves are well
dressed and of course, quite satisfied.

Sorry, but the amazon initial review betrays the fact that there are not only misguided priorities, but that it really is valuable for the study of the Civil War, as to see the difference between history and romance.

The portral of Jackson was quite interesting nevertheless, and especially his moving tribute to his first brigade-which should at least be watched by military commanders to see how a good speech can move military men.

One wonders whether Jackson would have had a prayer with
his cook, a slave.

Rating:
Summary: Boring and revisionist
Review: Did the people who made this bother to research their history? The history in this reminds of a friend of mine who was teaching history in South Carolina and the book said the South WON the Civil War. In another review, someone was wondering what America would have been like if the South had indeed won. Duh - slavery, discrimination, hatred of others, no progress. The south was a backwards culture. They even still had jousts for entertainment in some places because they longed for the "good old day". No, if the South had won, America would have been a neigtmare of a place. The question would then have been - whose side would the C.S.A. been on in World War II/

Rating:
Summary: Through the Eyes of a People From a Different Time and Place
Review: My God!? 539 reviews? It would seem that a lot of folks who didn't like this movie brought their own political views to the table. Should you bother to buy this movie? It depends what you're looking for and depends on whether or not you'd like to know how things really were, or if you'd prefer the politically correct pabulum that's being pedaled in our society today.

WHO SHOULD NOT SEE THIS MOVIE:

If you are looking for thrills, spills, chills, and the mindless Hollywood drivel that passes for entertainment these days, then skip this movie. Stick to "Dude Where's My Car" or the "Matrix" or better yet,"The Dominatrix".

If you have the attention span of a fruit fly and you're running low on your Ritalin, then skip this movie. The people of the 19th century, for all their shortcomings, had better attention spans than we do. No "time outs", no video games, no Reality TV. Life itself was the reality and they had little time to be bored. Words meant something to them. Those words will mean little to you because you've never learned to listen.

If you are the type who wrings his or her hands whining and pontificating about "chattel slavery", then please skip this movie. You'll give yourself carpal tunnel and a nervous breakdown to boot. You'll also give the rest of us a headache with your incessant, self-righteous reviews. You obviously know little about history, because if you did, you would not be engaging in "presentism", that is, the judging the people of the past by contemporary standards. Slavery has been around since the dawn of time. Everyone's had it, including the Africans. Get over it already.

And finally, if you're the super-patriot, chest thumping, "I'm a PROUD American and the Confederates were all Traitors" type, then skip this movie. You obviously never read William Rawle's "A View of the Constitution", which was required reading at West Point before the war. You obviously are not aware that 16,000 Confederate soldiers are buried in Arlington National Cemetery with the full blessing of the United States Government. And despite your professed love for America, you just can't seem to get it through your head that the America you know was born in a crucible of blood we call "The Civil War".

WHO SHOULD SEE THIS MOVIE:

Want to know how southerners of this period saw the war? Do you want to gain that understanding without having to read a hundred books and invest years of your life doing it? Then see this movie! It's that simple. Ron Maxwell does a rather masterful job of portraying what was, and of giving us the opportunity to see it through the eyes of the people who lived it.

The DVD has a few perks added on. The music videos by Mary Fahl, who is absolutely gorgeous, and Bob Dylan were superb! There are some interesting clips on the DVD that ended up on the cutting room floor. And there's a discussion of the movie by a couple of historians at the end of the film.

Yes, the film is full of religious references. Jackson was devoutly religious and old Massa' Robert wasn't far behind. Religion played an important part in these men's lives and in the lives of the men they led. To fail to understand the south's affinity for religion is to fail to understand the south.

The slavery question is conspicuously underplayed? Read the letters and diaries of southern soldiers. You'll not find much mention of it. For that matter, you won't find it much in the diaries and letters of the northern soldiers either. What you will find a strong emphasis on is the concept of "home". Today the word "home" is most often a building that we purchase and live in until it appreciates in value. Then we sell it and move to a more upscale "home". There was a time when the word "home" meant something quite different. You fought for it, and you died for it if necessary.

And no, you don't need a repeat of "Saving Private Ryan". To be sure, the wounds inflicted by weapons of this period caused the same kind of trauma to the human body, but bloody stumps that were once legs and intestines strewn on the ground are not present in this movie. It simply isn't necessary. If you pay attention you'll see that there is plenty of gut wrenching in this movie, but it's the emotional kind. I have to admit that I found myself with a lump in my throat watching the Irish Yanks and the Irish Rebs slaughter each other up on Marye's Heights.

If I'd level one criticism, it would be the so-called "special effects", or CGI. There are a couple of shots of Fredericksburg and of the Union troops advancing on Marye's Heights that resemble a bad video game.

And finally, yes, there were a few fat reenactors, both in blue as well as gray. It goes with the territory I suppose. The average civil war soldier was 24 years old, weighed 140-150lbs and stood 5'6" tall. He could walk 18 miles in a day and there were no McDonald's, no KofC, and no Wendy's around! The average civil war reenactor is twice the age of the soldier he represents, generally has a job and a family and like most of us who are getting up in years, he's fighting his own personal "battle of the bulge". But several times a year, he gives up his spare time to join others who share his passion. Together, they attempt to give us a glimpse into what was. Thousands of such people gave of themselves and their free time so that this movie could be made. As a sometimes reenactor myself I salute their efforts and their self sacrifice.

Rating:
Summary: An incredible movie. Definitley in my top ten.
Review: God's and Generals is amazing. I really don't know why it's so heavily critised. I think the reason may be that it requires you to be intelligent and have a good grasp of U.S. history. It doesn't really explain why the battle at Fredericksburg was so misguided and it doesn't show you the battle at Sharpsburg (aka Antietem, the bloodiest day in American history) that leads up to it. It assumes you're a Civil War buff and you know all of this. It assumes you paid attention in History class.

And frankly, if you're an American, you should know all of this stuff. These were brutal, horrible battles, fought in Virginia and Maryland, and the stakes were high. The fate of the continent lay in the balance. The consequences of the Civil War are felt to this day... 140 years later.

This movie is actually about the religious beliefs of three Generals who fought in this war. The war is a backdrop. Mostly, it is about "Stonewall" Jackson. His bravery is a side-effect of his belief in God. When God is ready to call him home, then he's done. Otherwise he presses on without fear. His relationship with his wife is inspiring, and when he learns of the birth of his baby... I guess critics find this sort of thing thing to be boring.

God's and Generals also focuses on three early Civil War battles: The First Bull Run, Fredericksurg and The Wilderness. All three of these battles were sharp Confederate victories. The truth is, until the stalemate at Sharpsburg in September 1862, the South was beating the North badly. I think critisim of Gods and Generals may have more to do with the fact that the Civil War has been taught incorrectly in Public Schools, and that political correctness has crept in and reared it's ugly head.

The American Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought over an issue called state's rights. The breakaway states thought of themselves as independant countries, and if the Federal Government cast down a law that was harmful to them, they wanted the right to null and void it. The Abolishionest Movement had been in full affect 50 years befor the Civil War started. In 1803, Ohio became a slave free state, the Civil War started in in 1861. In the 1820's, freedmen were repatriated to Africa and formed the nation of Liberia. But they don't teach you that in school.

I think what really bothered left-of-centered critics of Gods and Generals is the scene of Jackson praying to God with his slave. I think it just rocked their world a little bit to see that scene, and contemplate that it was possible. What's really wierd about this is that "Gone with the Wind" is one of the most celebrated movies ever. And it's a, gasp, Civil War movie told from a Southerner's point of view. They even show slaves marching off to the front lines to defend Atlanta, and Scarlet slaps one of her slave girls. Go figure.