Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: gods and generals
Review: One of the best pictures that I have ever seen, tears flowed from my eyes most of the time, the only thing that they should have left out is the interview with Abernathy, pictures of M.L.K., etc. was not in good taste. The War of Northern Aggression was not about freeing the slaves it was about STATES RIGHTS which is a problem to this day. On my copy I would like to find out how to delete the Abernathy interview.

Rating:
Summary: The Love for God, Man, and Nation.
Review: I love God and I love generals, along with military history overall, and I have to tell you that this is one of the finest movies I've ever seen in my entire life. I bought it on Amazon nearly two years ago and watch it all the time--at least segments of it. The Thomas Jackson that is presented here is the epitome of manliness and goodness and his characterization (albeit obviously a very idealistic one) embodies everything noble about our lives on this earth. With Lee and Jackson as the book focus, it is easy to tell a story of grandeur. These may have been the two finest southerners in history, and, to those who say that this depiction is a manipulation of history, I would counter-argue that they simply are not acquainted with history. I read Roger Ebert's review and it was absolutely revolting. Political correctness has no room for the truth and arguments that every picture about The Civil War must include a discussion of slavery are fallacious. It is like insisting that "A Bridge Too Far" must analyze the Holocaust. Critics like Ebert are fools and "Gods and Generals" is one of the few pieces of art from this century that will last and last after all the trendy charlatans who embrace cultural Marxism are long dead. From the serenity of its opening song to the beauty of its sets, this movie is an artistic triumph.

Thank God that Ron Maxwell made this movie! If the third part of the trilogy is half as good I'll be ecstatic.

Rating:
Summary: excellent civil war movie
Review: Gods and Generals is a deeply moving film with outstanding acting. Moreover, the events displayed are historically correct and the romantic aspects of the film make it very enjoyable. I highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: Incomplete and way too long!!
Review: It's a good thing I watched the Ken Burns documentary, "The Civil War" or else this film would have been a star less. This movie is way too long. The film should have been cut down by about 1 and a 1/2 hours. I would have also liked to have seen the Jeff Daniels' character taken out and concentrated more on the Confederate generals relationships further. The battlefield sequences were well done and could have used more blood and graphic depictions to show how real war is. Overall, there are better films out there that do a much better job in telling the story of the Civil War such as the outstanding film, "Glory" or the controversial "The Birth of a Nation". "Gods and Generals" could have been a much better film.

Rating:
Summary: A thundering disappointment
Review: As a Southerner, my attitude towards the Civil War has always been complex. From the time I could first read, I have been working my way through histories of the Civil War, and works by such able scholars as Shelby Foote, Douglas Southall Freeman, and Bruce Catton were staples of my childhood. On the one hand, I have always lamented that the South fought for such a misguided cause, and ideologically the person I have always agreed most with was Abraham Lincoln. Nonetheless, like previous Southerners like William Faulkner and Foote, while I lament our cause (which for all the talk of states rights was really about slavery--any reading of American history from 1790 to 1860 reveals that the main right the states were trying to protect was that of keeping slavery alive, and the war itself was provoked by issues of the extension of slavery into the new territories obtained during the Polk administration), I swell with regional pride over how well soldiers fought. We continue to honor and esteem our heroes. My mother, for instance, grew up in Cleburne County, Arkansas, named for General Pat Cleburne, regarded by many as one of if not the finest field general the South possessed (and ironically a strong opponent of slavery, like most of the Confederate leading generals). I'm glad we lost, but I'm also glad we lost heroically.

As a student of the Civil War, I loved the previous film based on a novel by a Schaara, GETTYSBURG, based on Michael's THE KILLER ANGELS, and was eagerly awaiting this new film by Michael's son Jeff. But this has to be one of the most disappointing films that I have seen in my life. I was expecting a great epic of the central historical event in American history. What we got instead was a stuffy, stiff, and stunningly boring baggy monster of a movie.

The film gets a number of things right, but the things that it gets right could be just as easily appreciated watching a documentary of Civil War reenactors. It gets a lot of knick-knacks right, but it does so while completely failing to find a narrative voice or presenting believable, interesting characters.

All of the major figures are presented more as talking statures, always striking poses, than real, live human beings. While all of the central characters are guilty in this regard, but Stephen Lang's Stonewall Jackson is far and away the worse. Without any question, Stonewall Jackson is one of the most delightful weirdoes in American history, and with George Patton one of the two most wonderfully eccentric figures in American military history. Any of the biographies of Jackson capture this. His narcolepsy (he fell asleep in one battle and for several hours could not be awakened, and while deeply religious, perhaps never heard a sermon all the way through, instead falling asleep every time), the oddity of his religious beliefs (he would not mail a letter that would be in the post on a Sunday, yet he loved to fight battles on the Sabbath), his hypochondria and fixation on quack remedies (Jackson would famously raise his left arm over his head and hold it there for a while to attempt to restore the balance in his body's circulation), his odd beliefs on a host of topics from pepper to his intense love of the state of New York (though dedicated to Virginia, he loved New York much the way that Sherman loved Louisiana and the South), all of these would seem to provide a world of opportunity for the writers to produce an utterly fascinating film character. But Jackson in this film is duller than one can possible imagine. It isn't really Lang's fault (though he does show a tendency to declaim rather than talk); it is primarily a function of the way the character is written.

Much is made of the historical accuracy of the film, but Joshua Chamberlain is elevated to the position of a major character, even though he was an almost completely unknown figure before Ken Burns's THE CIVIL WAR. I think it is wonderful that Burns rediscovered this fascinating individual, but odd that the Schaara's give him such a central place in their narratives. I am also uncomfortable with the way the film as a whole exonerates the South in the War. The film wants to shift the cause of the war away from Southern secession (which might have been prevented from spreading if James Buchanan hadn't been so utterly inactive during the period of time between Lincoln's election and inauguration--it was during this time that things went badly), as if breaking the country into pieces was in any way possible (read Lincoln's Second National Address for a powerful and cogent explanation why union was not only essential but why disunion was ultimately an impossibility), to the military aggression of the North. This is simply irresponsible history, and the filmmakers would have done well to have someone like Shelby Foote or James MacPherson to save them from such silliness. The brute fact is that the war was fought over slavery, and no cogent historical account of the war can avoid this. Yes, state's rights was proffered as a cause, but apart from keeping limitations on northern industrial production (which threatened to overwhelm Southern agricultural production) the only real "right" the South insisted upon was the right to keep slaves. The only time they started talking at length about states rights was when it appeared that expansion into new territories would produced more non-slave states than slave-states. This film not only produces a simplistic understanding of the cause of the war, it presents a misguided one.

These are failings of history and in the credible presentation of historical figures. But the film completely fails both as a dramatic narrative and in producing interesting battle sequences. The story is just wretchedly uninteresting. The focus of the film seems to be more on generating a somber and respectful mood rather than creating anything approaching dramatic tension. And how is it possible to produce such incredibly boring battle scenes? It isn't just that the depictions of the battles provide absolutely no understanding of the battles themselves (I defy anyone to tell me what happened apart from Thomas J. Jackson acquiring a nickname at the first battle of Bull Run from the film's account).

The performances don't really matter in the film. For the most part, they function merely as props. Duvall is good as Robert E. Lee (better, in fact, than Martin Sheen in GETTYSBURG), but this isn't a film about characters so much as large tableaux, and he is always pushed to the side during the film. Jeff Daniels does a good job as Joshua L. Chamberlain, and is probably the only major figure who manages to make his character seem like a real person.

I really can't recommend this film. It is accurate without being historical, and as a film it lacks dramatic tension, interesting characters, or a compelling narrative. Rarely have I anticipated a film with so much hope, only to be so completely disappointed. I do recommend GETTYSBURG, and instead of seeing this I recommend seeing that instead. One last complaint: there is simply no excuse for a film to be this long. It is very nearly this long unless it is doing a great job along the way. It clocks in slightly under four hours, but one gets the sense at the end that nothing much happened. If I ever do a list of the most disappointing films I have ever seen, this one would unquestionably be on the list.

Rating:
Summary: Great, but not for everyone....
Review: "Gods and Generals" is a movie which sheds new light on the American Civil War. I have read several reviews and critiques from various unhappy reviewers who seem to spend a lot of time complaining about how long and disappointing this movie was. I think they've missed the whole point of the movie.

This movie is not an action movie and it requires a greater-than-average attention span. But neither is it an historical documentary. I believe this movie was created to show the human side of war and how "close to home" war can be. Coming from the South (my Great Grandfather fought under Jackson at Chancellorsville), I thought it was nice that this movie forces the viewer to see the war through multiple viewpoints (North, South, Slave... etc) which, in my opinion, is how a movie like this should be made.

Here are, in my opinion, the reasons that an average movie-goer (like myself) would like/dislike this movie:

Pros: Great character development, historical accuracy (all scenes were shot on location), dramatic musical score, remarkable acting by Stephen Lang, costumes

Cons: 231 minutes long (be prepared for a long ride), some landscapes look painted

Rating:
Summary: battles ok, needs less talking
Review: This movie fits in the same category as
Gettysburg (1993) and Waterloo (1970),
which is the category of long movie with
lots of talking and battle scenes while
trying to keep things historically correct.

Of course I watched the movie for its
battle scenes.

Gettyburg has more gore. Waterloo has
more troops on scene. Also in Waterloo
the battles are all in the second part
of the movie for your skipping convenience.

So I would say:
- Waterloo (1970) score: 5/5
- Gettyburg (1993) score: 4/5
- God and Generals (2003) score: 3/5


Rating:
Summary: Lots of chances to go for snacks!
Review: I really wanted to like this movie. Very much like the fate of the Army of the Potomac, it is a tragedy that so little was accomplished over so much time by the people at the head of this effort, considering the outstanding raw material they had to work with.

The flaws have been catalogued and commented on by other reviewers. I will confine myself to saying that this depiction of Stonewall Jackson is downright bizarre. Not eccentric. Bizarre. It is utterly unlike any account of the man that I have ever read.

The obvious and important thread between this movie and the vastly superior _Gettysburg_ is the inclusion of the character of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, his brother, Tom, and "Buster" Kilrain-- along with the 20th Maine. This is, of course, consistent with the novel and viewers can be thankful for such a merciful distraction.

If you are to derive any enjoyment of this film at all, you will need to focus on certain scenes.

The candid talk between Chamberlain and his wife Fanny tracks with what we can know of such an intimate relationship. It is also a showcase for Mira Sorvino who, in a few minutes, outshines virtually every other performer in this film.

The Battle of Fredericksburg is the most watchable of the three battles covered, though I do not recall ever reading of the Irish Brigade retiring in disorder after being shot to pieces on Marye's Heights. God knows they could have, but they did not, and the film does them a disservice in depicting them as near routing off the field.

The soundtrack is disappointingly mediocre with the stunning exception of Mary Fahl's "Going Home," which is so evocative and hauntingly beautiful that I went out and bought her CD.

Regrettably, the few really well done parts of this film accentuate the deficiencies of the whole.

Rating:
Summary: Poor Excuse for Anything
Review: I will begin by saying that I'm proud to call "Gettysburg" my favorite movie. I'm also proud to say that this film has to be my least favorite. This film simply makes me want to vomit. It's the most pathetic excuse for a movie I've ever seen, not to mention a Civil War film. The only thing this movie had going for it war Robert Duvall's portrayal of Lee. It would have added merrit to "Gettysburg". Unfortunately, he was cast for this flop. I'm a Civil War historian, reenactor, collector, and fellow reenactors of mine, who were actually in the movie, also agree that this has to be the worst film ever made. It would be right at home in any high school auditorium stage or some "lost cause" fanatic's DVD collection.

Rating:
Summary: Good Film with Some Memorable Scenes
Review: Although this film has some biases and issues with it, this is a good film. I want to highlight some the reasons why and provide some issues that I have with it.
There are some excellent scenes in this film. The sacrifice of the Union troops has never (and probably never will) been more memorably shown than in the charge of the Union brigades up Marye's Heights. The charge of the Irish brigade in this battle has always been a memorable event in paintings, and books, and this movie does an excellent job of showing that. To increase the human interest, the fact that an Irish regiment from Georgia was fighting them is provided (which is true)..., and the irony of their statements, "don't they know that we are fighting for our freedom?" and the fact that they are the Irish brigade troops are being duped, etc. Well, who is being duped and really understands the cause of this war? This is brought on a little later when a Negro lady housekeeper talks with General Hancock, the same housekeeper who helped the strong Confederate supporting family leave the home, over the wounded and dying Union soldiers, thanking him for fighting for her freedom.
There are other scenes like that, the attack of the 20th Maine, Chamberlain's regiment is handled beautifully (if something as shocking as this can be called beautiful) with very reverant music in the background right in line with the sacrifice that they were called on to make (by a stupid General - Burnside, I might add).
Well, now for the negatives: the movie does lean too much to the south - playing General Jackson as this demi-god, although giving some time to his eccentricities. At the end, when time was spent and spent at his death bed, I found that I couldn't finish watching this. OK, he was a great general, but... And, all the scenes of the Confederate army and their parties and other events.
Yet, all in all, this is a good movie. Another highlight is the start of the movie which shows Union and Confederate flags flowing while a beautifully sung song is in the background. It showed good taste for the start of a good movie.