Rating: 
Summary: Gods and Generals is generally god awful
Review: Where to begin? As an avid Civil War hobbyist I would have to say that this is the worst representation of this period I have seen. Well maybe not worst as the costumes were great, battlefield scenes were adequate and some actors actually were somewhat believeable.However, one must compare this work with "Gettysburg" and this is where is falls apart for me. The flow of this film is not like "Gettysburg" at all. If this is about the war, where are all the battles and the men and generals of those armies? Where is Antietam? Jackson and a little girl? Sweet but this has NOTHING to do with the early dominance of the Confederate forces. Where does the movie make ANY reference to the mistakes of and the incompetence of the early war Union leadership? If this movie is the prequel to "Gettysburg" then these things must be presented for the events in "Gettysburg" to make more sense for those not entirely schooled in this subject. I won't even go into the preachy, speechy, flowery script that is just so unnecessary. What happened to the way everyone spoke in "Gettysburg"? That movie seemed to be about right, at least in my opinion. At least the movie does get Lee's reaction to Jackson's death correct (left arm, right arm statement) and Jackson's last words correct but holy cow, it would make people believe that an answer to a simple yes or no question would take a 20 minute oration quoting Homer and/or Julius Caesar with a prayer thrown in for good measure. Surely the people of this time were more religious but this is a movie and all these speeches makes this movie plod along. In short, if you must see it rent it. Do not buy or just wait for Last Full Measure.
Rating: 
Summary: A Masterpiece of Detail, Accuracy, and Drama
Review: Objective, accurate, and a wonderful account of the opening months and years of the Civil War. There are so many reviews already, so I'll just keep mine short. Excellent. DJM
Rating: 
Summary: Saint Thomas a Stonewall
Review: After I saw Gettysburg I wandered around yelling "Bayonets!" at the top of my lungs like many other fine Americans, disconcerting both my wife and dog. After I saw G&G, I wandered around yelling "Where are the #*%$&# bayonets?" disconcerting my wife, my daughter and both my dogs. Though the same creative team made both films, G&G sorely lacks the center around which Gettysburg revolved, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlin, whose above-mentioned order saved the Union. To be fair, Thomas J. Jackson is a worthwhile character to explore, but the portayal of Southerners as God fearing Protestants in the best Martha Stuart tradition, and Northerners as Pagan-quoting bespattered vulgarians aggravated me no end. True, Jackson was a religious man, true he was a near psychopath in battle, and true, the 19th century had a deeper tolerance of such flamboyant characters than the 20th or 21 century does, but to make him into a perfect Saint is to deny the truth; he and his cause were based on human chattel slavery. The relationship Jackson has with his cook is dubious at best, harmfully untrue at worst, and does little to show the actual conditions of slavery. In fact, only the house slaves (I would use the correct term, but I hate the word) are visible. The Christmas scene after Fredricksberg made me gag; I thought I was watching "A Southern Living Christmas." Jackson comports with a five year old child, preaching Christianity and vowing to "Kill them all." I don't doubt that's all true, but somehow his death is elevated to a religous transcendance - choirs and big music - I felt like I was watching history written by the Republican National Committee. Steven Lang, for what it's worth, is hypnotic as the saint of the Confederacy, and I even liked Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee more than Martin Sheen, but most of the actors here were simply too old to play their roles. If I'm going to invest four hours of my life, I would like at least to be treated like an adult, and this film plays like an over enthusiatic small-town football coach of really good intentions got hold of fifty million dollars and went wild. (This is no slam on small-town football coaches.) Spare me. The Ante-Bellum South, while pretty if you were White and Rich, was a bad cause to fight for. Northern factories weren't pretty either, but to claim that all the killing at Bull Run, Fredricksberg and Chancherivlle was to defend the South from banks and factories is a lie, a bad lie, and bad history. Also, sure, reenactors are fine, but put most of them on a 12-week diet of rice and beans, march them up and down hills and give them dysentery before you put them in front of a camera and tell me there were this many obese footsoldiers in the Civil War. Also, in a post Saving Private Ryan world, the lack of realistic battle trauma all undercut this film deeply. This was the first instance of industrialized butchery, a percursor to the industrial butchery of the 20th century, yet men die like they did in 1960's television.
Rating: 
Summary: A film of epic proportions on the first years of the Civil
Review: War. It is a prequel to "Gettysburg" made 11 years ago yet the first of a planned trilogy.
The war is pursued thru its protagonist, General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. By the way, he disliked that nickname. He was a very devout man & believed in predestiny, therefore was utterly fearless. As he fought it, this movie is definitely rebel friendly. Jackson was portrayed as a highly moral man with integrity. Questions such as slavery are neatly glossed over. The first three battles are nicely outlined without getting bogged down in boring (to some) details.
Training & recruiting of civilians without a clue is covered. This use of nonprofessional soldiers & the advance of weapons technology since the last major conflict, the Napoleonic wars, 35 years before, make this one of the first modern wars in history.
The south had the best generals such as Jackson, Beaureguard & Lee, played superbly by Robert Duval. It was as I imagined him.
As good as the southern general were the northern generals were insubordinate, (to Lincoln) cowardly & incompetant. They delayed after Bull Run allowing the Confederates who were out-gunned & out-manned to build impregnable defenses. Stupidly, the union generals threw waves of young men into frontal assualts repeatedly. I imagine that is where the term "cannon fodder" was coined. The carnage yielded nothing & the Yankees retreated. This failure ensured a long, bloody conflict.
The "Making of...", commentaries & two fine songs by Dylan & Mary Fahl were nice additions to the DVD version.
Rating:
Summary: Stonewall Jackson, the heart of the South!
Review: Gods and Generals has a running time of four hours. The length of the program may make it desirable for some people to plan to watch the film over two evenings. The first half of the film introduces us to the cast of characters, the Southern point of view for the Civil War, and some opening skirmishes. When the film begins we meet Colonel Robert E. Lee. He has a chance to take command of a large union army that will most likely have to march into Virginia. Lee declines the promotion saying that he will not fight against his friends and neighbors in Virginia. He is not for slavery or secession, but he is intensely loyal to his state and its people. When Virginia secedes from the Union, Lee becomes commander in chief of the confederate forces. More than simply an able commander, he is is revered and even loved by his men. Robert Duvall does a fine job bringing to life the quiet capability and humanity of General Lee. Gods and Generals is less about Lee and more about General Stonewall Jackson, a religious man who hates war, but when it is forced on him, he becomes totally committed to the Confederate cause. They named him right. Stonewall Jackson is most unlike a typical general. He is not afraid to put himself in harms way. His men respect and even idolize him for his willingness to lead by example. An intensely religious man, Jackson believes his fate has been predetermined. He will go to his heavenly home when God calls him and his place with the Lord is the better place to be. He loves his life and family, but he is not afraid to lose either of them. He believes his cause is just and all his will and energy is spent pursuing his goal to drive the invading Union Army from the south. In contrast, the Union Army is led by cautious men who think they can win battles from the rear in headquarters safe from harm. At Fredericksburg, for example, one of the major battles of the early war between the states, the Union generals send their troops into battle when they have little chance of succeeding. The Confederate army slaughters thousdands of hapless and ill led Union soldiers. Jackson takes no pleasure in seeing so many brave yankee soldiers die to no good purpose, but he remains committed to killing as many of the enemy as possible. While out at the front with his troops, Jackson is ambushed and seriously wounded. He dies and his loss is a disaster for the Confederacy. Gods and Generals moves slowly. History should not be rushed. Those viewers who wish to be introduced to the minds and hearts of Generals Lee and Jackson will not, I think, be disappointed. Through their eyes we see the best intentions of the men who fight for the Southern cause. From the distance of almost 150 years we have the chance to be objective and to try to understand how men of courage and integrity could fight for a cause so futile and so wrong.
Rating:
Summary: For Civil War Re-enactors ONLY
Review: Yes, this film has enormous attention to detail-period costumes, period weapons, period everything. However, no amount of authenticity can save it from being terribly dull, plodding and overwrought. Every line of dialogue is written and delivered as though the speaker were giving the West Point Commencement address. The film contains multiple plot lines and characters, but none of them have any clearly defined or dramatic conflict-the plot seems derived entirely from biographies and historical accounts-it's as though no attempt at crafting an actual story was made. The only thing that kept me awake was the occasional spurt of gunfire from one of the battle scenes. Save your time and money-STAY AWAY unless you dress in Confederate or Union fatigues and shoot blanks at other people every weekend.
Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars from a Yankee!
Review: I've always been sympathetic to the cause of the Confederacy, having learned that it wasn't just about slavery. For two good books currently in print on the subject, see "When in the Course of Human Events" by Charles Adams and "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. The three main criticisms I've seem of this film was that 1) it didn't portray the sufferings of the slaves, 2)there were too many long and drawn out soliloquies,and 3)it was too sympathetic to the South. Well, I think the liberal elite hates the fact that Lee and Jackson were devout Christians. Lee, by the way, had freed his slaves long before the war (whereas U.S. Grant still owned some rather late in the game!). I didn't see the speeches and prayers as being too drawn out. The problem is, people want action and blood. Listening is too difficult. As to the slaves, I think this movie portrayed their plight very well. The 2 or 3 slaves featured were very eloquent in describing their desire to be free, despite the fact that they loved their masters. The movie was not too long, but maybe it didn't seem so to me because I watched it in too segments.
Rating: 
Summary: An exercise in joining the dots.
Review: I have had an interest in the Civil War for a number of years, which was undoubtedly a big help in watching this film. Having read Shelby Foote's trilogy I found that I was able to string together the rather disjointed episodes that made up this movie. Whole chunks of the war are missed out and events that shaped the main characters are not even referred to. This is no doubt due to the constraints of compressing a large chunk of history into a manageable length for release at the cinema. Stephen Lang is superb as Jackson and Duval makes a very believable Lee. As for the rest of the performances, they are more soap opera than grand opera. Still any Civil War film is better than no Civil War film at all.
Rating:
Summary: I'm a Yankee, But I loved this movie!
Review: I rented this movie because I wanted to see Gettysburg, but I wanted to see the first movie first, plus my uncle worked on the set. I thought the movie was excellent, but Jackson's religous preaching did get on my nerves a little. The battle scenes were very well done and made child-safe, but during the battle of Bull Run, I noticed one scene of Confederate soldiers advancing was used 3 times. I even found it sort of funny when Stonewall was shot in the hand and rode by his soldiers, it made him look like he was giving the fingers. I loved this movie and plan to buy it soon.
Rating:
Summary: LEFTY RESPONDS
Review: To the viewer in South Carolina. No, I believe a racist term connotates someone's racial make-up. Anyone can be a redneck. It is however, a derogatory term. I guess some rednecks don't be gettin' much schoolin'.
|
