Gods and Generals

Rating:
Summary: Should have been called "Gen. Jackson Says His Prayers"
Review: This movie was bad bad bad! I was looking forward to seeing it because I liked Gettysburg and I thought it would be at least as good. I saw this movie with a friend and when it was over all we could do is look at each other and chuckle. "I payed $9.50 for this?" This is not a movie about the Civil War. This is a movie about Gen Jackson and how he prays all the time. I know people are religious and war makes them more so. I know Jackson and many men on both sides of the war prayed and asked for divine guidance as their soldiers killed and died on the battlefield. But come on! Jackson says a prayer in almost every scene and he even has one extra hokey prayer with a slave asking God why there is slavery. If Jackson would have thought about it for a few minutes he might have figured out that people had slaves because numbskulls like Jackson were willing to fight to protect the political institutions that fostered and supported slavery. I think this film was an attempt to rehabilitate the Southern cause and make it more noble. Every attempt was made to strip away the issue of slavery from the motives of the Southern cause and generals. Big speaches are given about "States Rights" "sovereignity" and "revolution." Only the damn Yankees worry about slavery when they make their long speaches. But why were the Southerners worried about Yankee encroachment on their "rights" or "sovereignity"? Were they worried that the Northerners would make them speak with a Boston accent or stop drinking mint julips? No the ONLY issue they were worried about was the institution of slvery. They felt that the States had a "right" to allow slavery and the "sovereignity" to have slavery, and that God had given them the "right" by His divine approval in the Bible for the institution of slavery (as a positive social good as John C. Calhoun would say.) Seeing Gen Jackson standing there with a slave as they both pray to God about slavery was just too much for me to take. Maybe that is why God let the North kick the crap out of the South in the Civil War. The North was right, the South was wrong, the end. I cannot recommend this movie. And in case you are wondering, My Great Great Grandfather fought for the South in the Civil War. He was a poor farmer and did not own one slave. But he got shot by the Yankees and died of his wounds after the war in 1868.

Rating:
Summary: Long and Generic
Review: I have been waiting for a producer to make the Civil War equivalent of Saving Private Ryan. God's and Generals is not it.

The film covers secession to Gettysburg, and since this is the period of the war that was dominated by the South, our focus is there, with Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. This is Gods and Generals' strong point, in telling us the story from an unfamiliar perspective, the South's, showing us that they were God-fearing men and women who believed they were doing the right thing in defending their own land, which was being invaded by a rebel force (the North.)

Despite the epic length and acting, there is really nothing epic about this film. In fact, it's so generic you're not even sure what battle you're in or who's fighting in it. Every southerner has the same, overdone fake accent and speaks in maxims, as though there is a scribe there to write down everything that comes out of their mouth. Apparently, because we have some proverbial-style quotes from people of this era the screenwriters assumed everyone just *talked* like this. With every awkward burst of dialogue you feel like the stage should darken with a spotlight on the orator, as he/she gives us a lengthy dictum about the state of humanity. Others in the room crease their lips and exchange solemn gazes, all to aware of the weight of their undertaking.

This is called the "romanticizing of history" and I thought Ronald Maxwell (the director) would be above it. I suppose we all have an image in our heads of these noble people conscious of their place in history, knowing future generations would be scrutinizing their every letter or speech. Of course they didn't know, any more than we are aware of our place in history right now. But don't try telling that to the characters in Gods and Generals. They say every line and give every speech with the same emotion that we read those things on the page - teary-eyed and fully aware of their implications. However, we have the benefit of 150 years of knowing how these people would affect history; they did not. The power of a historical film should *not* be in seeing the actors deliver lines their characters are famous for saying, with all the angst of history behind them. Why? *Because they didn't have the angst of history behind them when they actually said it.* What makes a historical film great is watching a character deliver a line in an ordinary way, loading it with a wryness that only we, on the other side of history, can fully understand.

Gods and Generals is essentially a blur of battle-speeches, poor Maine accents, clichéd slaves and PG-13 battle scenes. For anyone truly interested in the Civil War, and willing to invest the hours that this film requires, you would do much better to get the Ken Burns DVD series. The facts are presented in the right way, to make you understand that these were just normal men and women who were only doing what they knew to be the right thing, not self-aware "Gods and Generals" who knew they were on the stage of history for all to see.

Rating:
Summary: Very slow and stodgy
Review: First of all, I am not a Northerner. I am pure Virginian
through and through. But I didn't feel this movie was any
good. Even though it was told from a more Southern point of
view, it did not really lead to any major character development
and the performances were way over the top. Not really
very convincing. And those terrible Virginia accents! Did they
have a dialect coach on site? Because they really butchered
it. I'm not sure how people spoke in those days, but they
did not all sound like Reverend Bob. Note to Actors: Guide
your speech to fit your character. I was much more impressed with the accents in Gone With The Wind. Of course, apples and oranges when applied here. I think the script has too syrupy and sentimental. And.... Will the Southern accent
of any type ever be done right on screen or stage??

Rating:
Summary: Yawn
Review: This is a film about the battles of Fredericksberg and Chancerloville. It is apparently the first of a trilogy that attempts to be some sort of history of the Eastern Campaigns of the American Civil War. The film is told largely from a Confederate perspective with portraits of the Generals Lee and Jackson. The Union side is represented but by more lowly ranked soldiers.

Historically the two battles portrayed were significant Confederate victories and led to Lee feeling confident enough to launch his disastrous Gettysberg campaign.

Most treatments of the American Civil war see it as an epic struggle in which both sides are glorified. The North, representing the ideals of modern Enlightenment and the South as romantic freedom fighters. One would think however that there is a stronger case for presenting the struggle as a war of bungling amateurs.

Sherman in his memoirs characterises the battle of Bull Run as that of bumbling amateurs. The North not able to launch an attack and the South not able to destroy the Union forces after inflicting a defeat. The battles that followed repeated the pattern. McClelland must surely rank as one of the worst generals in the history of warfare. He led a huge army into the South and when attacked by Lee simply retreated. Although Lee has been for years portrayed as a genius his tactics could only work against a fool such as McCelland. Any other general worth his salt would have noticed that Lee had expended the lives of his soldiers at such a rate that he would not have been able to defend against a counter attack.

After McCelland was sacked the command of the Union forces moved to Burnside who launched the disastrous Fredericksberg campaign. He ordered his men to ford a river and to attack piecemeal well fortified confederate positions. Another disastrous defeat saw Hooker take over the responsibility for the Northern forces and this led to the disastrous Chanceroville campaign. Despite having overwhelming numbers Hooker was again able to lose. Lee split his forces and using heavily wooded country sent Jackson around the rear of the Union Army to take them by surprise. This tactic worked and another Confederate victory. Of course against a general of moderate competence this strategy would not have worked. If one held firm then Lee was happy to simply destroy his armies by pointless attacks. Something discovered by General Meade at Gettysberg.

The film adopts the epic struggle approach. The incompetence of Burnside is acknowledged but Chancerloville is seen as a tactical masterpiece by Lee and Jackson.

The film is split between a number of battle scenes and some human interest scenes with most of the human interest scenes dealing with Jackson. The battle scenes do not look that realistic. They look more like overweight civil war fans doing re-enactments. Some of the things portrayed are inaccurate such as the use of exploding artillery charges and the sight of infantry loading guns with the bayonets fixed.

The human interest scenes are generally ponderous an often like tableaus. There is little dialogue and it unnatural and staged. Still not doubt it will be a great hit with civil war buffs.

Rating:
Summary: Civil War problems are still unresolved
Review: After seeing the movie & reading several reviews, it is obvious that the problems that resulted in the civil war have not been resolved, & need to be addressed. I thought the movie was an excellent attempt to historical accuracy, while still making a small profit for the investors, on a limited budget. Massive sets would have been costly & would not have added that much to the movie. Although wordy, much of the dialog was gleaned from the letters written & saved from the time, & people did & do speak as they write. But by being less bloody & gory, its makes the film viewable by the very young, who truly need to be the ones to learn the 'lessons' of the civil war. The remaining problems still need to be resolved, & we must learn to forgive both the North & South for the transgressions of the other, & move on as a stronger, more powerful nation, respecting the views of each. I spent 20 years in active military service & another 15 as a civilian & reservist. I have served with all five services & lived in both Northern, Southern & Western states. Although born in Ohio, I hold no specific allegiance to any other than the ONE United States of America - Under God. This movie is certainly worth seeing, & investing in a copy for ones own home library, along with Gettysburg, The Last Full Measure & the PBS series "The Civil War", recognizing that we can only gather as much information as possible, & each one make our own decisions. I will submit that had we not remained one, United States, our efforts during Worlds War I & II may have come out much differently.

Rating:
Summary: Propaganda for the Confederacy
Review: I believe this entire film was made for the sole purpose of getting sympathy to the Cofederacy. Most of the story follows Stonewall Jackson and the story is way too drawn out. The only good part is the battle seens but they do not totally show the grusomeness of war. Anyone who promotes this crap must be a rebel. Creighton Lovelace should be arrested for treason in his idea of a returning Confederate States of America. Guess what, I am a Yankee and an American. You southerners need to stop all this Confederate flag debates and bumber stickers. You should be honoring the country you live and not try to destroy it. Leave the country or honor it. And this movie needs to be trashed.

Rating:
Summary: The Moose Hole - Ground of Some Value
Review: The era of the Civil War, a time of great conflict in our nation, has been of great interest to many who study the history of the United States. The Civil War was the bloodiest conflict on American soil for many years and the last great war to be fought in our own country. As southern states quickly succeeded from the Union, young men of the north were asked to help fight the rebels who wanted to rip this great nation apart. The North fought for preservation of the Union while the South fought for state rights and the preservation of slavery. The war was hard on everybody as brother fought against brother, sons against their fathers, families against families. No war had ever divided a nation so greatly as this one. The film Gettysburg, original planned for television viewing only until it was decided to be released into theaters, gave a glorious view into possibly the greatest and most well known battle of the Civil War. Though the film was not a box office success, it was glorified for its artistic merit. Can the prequel Gods and Generals do the same or will the lengthy film be killed in action?

The story follows the early days of the Civil War all the way up to right before the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863. Much of the focus of the film follows T.J. Jackson, who is commander of the Virginia division for the Confederate army, but the film also follows around General Robert E. Lee, who is in charge of the Army of Northern Virginia, and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who is an officer in charge of the 20th Main division of the Union. Several battle are shown within the course of the film including the Battle of 1st Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville. The story for Gods and Generals is well done but there is some disappointment. There was a feeling that the film spent too much time involved in the small stories and speeches then on the battles that actually occurred within the early days of the Civil War. The fact that the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest battle in the Civil War, was not included in the film was of huge disappointment. There was also too much confusion trying to keep track of so many personal stories that it became too much within the course of the four hour film.

It is hard to focus on just one performance with a film such as Gods and Generals but maybe it is best to focus more on the lead characters then anything else. Possibly the best role within the film was performed by Stephen Lang, who portrayed Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Lang gave a stirring performance as "Old Blue Eyes" showing the great difference of Jackson's actions on and off the battlefield. Jackson's death at the end of the film should bring many historians to tears for being so dramatic. Another fabulous portrayal was of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain performed by Jeff Daniels, who was in the film Gettysburg as well. It was kind of disappointing that he is not seen at the end of the film to transition into the film Gettysburg but not a huge flaw. Robert Duvall takes over for Martin Sheen as Robert Edward Lee in the prequel to the famous film. Duvall has the look down as well as some famous lines from the Confederate general but Lee is not seen much within the film which is quite disappointing as the ads make it seem like he is the main focus. There are too many small performances to make huge note of but they are brilliantly performed by this great cast.

Overall, Gods and Generals is a good film on the Civil War but not a spectacular one. With success in many areas comes some failures. The time length was too much at a stunning four hours but the intermission was well placed. Some conflicts involving the Southern view of slavery and blacks in the army argues against historic records. The focus of the film also seemed to be too Southern biased as much focus was placed with the Union as much as the South. The biggest disappointment was exclusion of the Battle of Antietam, which Jackson was a part of. Though there were errors, the film wasn't all disappointing. Civil War buffs will be proud to hear lines like "He may have lost his left arm but I lost my right" from Lee or Jackson saying, "Let us rest under the shade of the trees" right before he dies. Another great surprise was the inclusion of songs like "Dixie" and "Bonnie Blue Flag" though the film could have included some Northern songs as well. The original song "Going Home", which can be heard in the opening of the film, was masterfully well done. Gods and Generals does what it was set out to do which was to give an epic portrayal of the early days of the Civil War. Though some may be disappointed with the toned down versions of famous battles, they will be happy to see that history can be brought to life in such splendor.

Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing....
Review: I completely expected to love this movie. I'm a proud Southerner with a passion for Civil War history (or ANY history, for that matter). But watching this movie actually made me squirm in my seat, I felt so sorry for the actors. I guess they did the best with what they had, but the script seemed terribly "plastic" and unrealistic. It was one speech after another about the importance of honor, or the Confederacy, or love, or some other grand notion. Life just isn't like that, especially during war time. I can't imagine that anyone ever really talked that way! Compare it with Cold Mountain, which excellently shows the human struggle to maintain honor amidst the horrors of war. In "Gods and Generals", the writers just tried too hard. SHOW us honor, don't just TELL us about it. SHOW us love, don't just TALK about it. Very awkward. See Cold Mountain instead, if you're a Civil War buff.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant film!
Review: Gods and Generals is one of those movies not done justice at the box office. But it seems a lot of people made up for it by getting the DVD. Perhaps it was the movie's length that put people off sitting in the theater. I am sorry I missed the spectacle of seeing it on the big screen, but having bought the DVD, I rejoice in possessing this well-made and stirring film.
I commend Creighton Lovelace for his insightful review and roundly chastize Cheryl Zaleski for her patronizing and insulting remarks. I did not grow up in this country and so got my understanding of the American Civil War from Hollywood, as many non-Americans would. I imbibed the common and flawed view that it was all about slavery. It seems any other history about the reasons for the war was suppressed until recently. Now we have books like The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo. Now it is not only die-hard descendants of Confederates who know the truth - that Lincoln had far less noble reasons for invading the south.
There are many remarkable things about this movie, but what is really striking is its devotion to authenticity, probably more than any other movie made about the Civil War. And this from the funding and production of arch-liberal Ted Turner. What a shock! It seems Ted does have some redeeming values. Any story about the life of "Stonewall" Jackson that diminishes or ignores his Christian faith does not honor the man or history. In this movie we are blessed to see how profoundly Jackson's faith guides his relationship with his wife, his response to the Virginia secession and his life as a soldier. He had a difficult task at a tragic time in history, but he responded with prayerful deliberation. We see him praying with his wife, with a black cook working for the Confederate Army (both voicing their petition for God's justice to be done), and before doing battle.
With this sometimes word for word dialogue from official historical documents and personal diaries, and with the battle scenes often re-enacted in real time, some people could get bored with this movie. But that is to miss its value as a documentary drama, an antidote to decades of misinformation about the Civil War. We could do with more re-appraisal of Lincoln's saintly status, delving deeper into his ambitions (and success) in creating a highly centralized, activist state as opposed to the limited form of government intended by the founding fathers. Also the revelations that Lincoln never believed in racial equality.
As for the reviewer who complained about the army uniforms being inauthentic, you are obviously wrong because this production went to great pains to recreate exact duplicates of the various uniforms. Also, do you think every footsoldier would be personally outfitted in a form-fitting uniform? Duh, with a war on you don't exactly have time. See the behind the scenes feature "The Authenticities of the Film." The same goes for using Harper's Ferry for Fredericksburg. This was the best town they had (a preserved historical landmark) to represent 19th century Fredericksburg.

Rating:
Summary: excellent prequel
Review: First off, read the book before you watch the movie. the relationship between the genereals is better explained in the book. this movie along with Gettysburg give better insight in the rebel or confederate aspects of the war; which has rarely been done, i.e. Glory. the movie makes you feel like you have known Jackson your whole life. Many critics of the movie believe that scenes of 10 minute prayer by stonewall should have been minimized or cut, but in reality to understand Jackson you need to have a feel for his religious side. in a movie you cannot just have a caption that reads HE IS VERY RELIGIOUS, at the bottom of the screen. other people i have talked to about the movie argue that it is just a biography of Stonewall Jackson and they were unsuspecting of this. I agree that it was more of a biography of Stonewall's Civil War career but it is still a great movie. my only problems were the first scenes of the movie were not the first scenes of the book. The book starts off in Lee's estate, which i was dying to see on film but was not put in. If you are a civil war buff or just interested in anything history i recomend this movie, if you are just looking for a good movie with no real knowledge of the civil war then you should get a better understanding before viewing this film to get the full extent of it. Also it gives more reasons for war than just slavery (Unlike other hollywood pictures that dwell upon slavery far to much, although it was a great aspect of the war).