JJ

(2013-05-23 08:08:00)

Quite possibly the longest and most boring movie ever.

This is quite possibly the longest and most boring movie ever. Well,maybeit is not the most boring. Civil Action was a bit more boring; IMO, butitat least had William H. Macy. Although the large ensemble of Gods &Generalsincluded veteran actors such as Robert Duvall as Gen. R.E. Lee andStephenLang as Gen J. `Stonewall' Jackson, this movie could not climb out of thesnore factor no matter how many times they attempted a climax. Perhaps,thatis what was missing: A definite climax. The movie seems really to be abiography of Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson, One of the most prominent figuresofAmerican History, and his part in the US Civil War. The one recurringthemethe movie tries to impose is that the Confederate States Army was notmadeup of a bunch of hillbilly slave owning scoundrels, but God-fearingsouthern-gentlemen. The one thing that is done more repetitively in thismovie, even more so then scene of "Rebs" shooting at "Unions", ispraying,lots and lots of praying. I do not mean the "god-save-my-ass" praying,butthe humble bread-braking "by-the-will-of-god" praying. The one scene Iparticularly enjoyed in this movie was a scene in which "Johnny Reb" and"Billy Yank" put aside there warmongering to share some coffee andtobacco.There stand less then half a meter from each other, quietly, sippingcoffeeand smoking. It seems to bring a realization that although they wouldkilleach other over their ideals and allegiance, they were still countrymenandcivilized. Another scene I liked, but probably should have been cut, wasascene in which Charles S. Dutton (Roc, Mimic, & Gothika) and Stephen Langare praying outside on a cold December morning. Dutton plays Lang'sslave,Jim. Each takes a turn praising god and praying for protection of theirloved ones. Jim then adds in his prayer to tell him why god-fearingpeoplekeep slaves. Jackson does not seem to realize that Jim was including himinthe question. Here we can see the hypocrisy of the south, and that factisnot lost on Jim. Overall, if you like Civil War reenactments, or if youthink anyone who lived in Virginia circa 1865 is a bad guy, then youshouldwatch this film. Otherwise avoid it and watch Gettysburg instead, it isslightly more entertaining and brought to you by the samedirector.

(2013-05-22 20:51:55)

A living history on DVD...

Gods and Generals, like its predecessor (and 'sequel', yes you read that right) Gettysburg, brings the Civil War to life on the silver screen. Through a combination of great cinematography, authentic sets, costumes (many living historians were involved in the making of this film) and incredible acting you will feel as if you are there on the battlefields and homefronts of this country's most divisive time.The most notable asset of this movie is the masterful acting job done by Stephen Lang, who plays "Stonewall" Jackson. In an Oscar caliber performance (the Academy I hope will award Mr. Lang for his efforts), Lang gives us a great view of a very complex man. Lang obviously did his homework well, the strength of his acting job is clear in the fact that you forget it's Lang and believe it's Jackson on the screen. Very well done...Overall, a great Civil War movie even with some errors and omissions. One not to be missed!

litenv

(2013-05-03 18:36:08)

Wait for the TV show...

The Civil War like you never learned it in school... though perhaps quiteabit more accurate than the "history as told by the victors" stuff that weall got in high school. Actually, the political overtones of the movie--especially with the ever growing Federal Government and the consequentiallimitations on State's rights and personal freedoms-- is the only trulythought-provoking thing about the movie.The movie was able generally to capture "another age", when courtesy andhonor prevailed in society, when men would dutifully volunteer and bewilling to lay down their lives for a just cause, and when virtue andcourage were respected and expected of our leaders. That said, Lt. Col.Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's (Jeff Daniel) p.c. movement when heremonstrated with his brother Thomas (C. Thomas Howell) about using theterm"darkies" for "negroes" suddenly broke the time frame and fast forwardedtheaudience into 1970-- with some chuckling from the racially mixed audience.The movie could easily have been cut shorter by an hour or two -- both inthe scenes that humanize the war, and the relentless battle scenes thatremind us of the tragic waste of life. It was nice to see a movie with anintermission -- I hadn't seen one since I was a lad in the 60s, but moreefficient use of storyline, plot development, and character developmentwould have made this a much more stimulating movie."Gods and Generals" should have been made a four night TV movie, and Iwouldimagine that, judging by the near empty theater on a Friday night, thismight be one of the lowest grossing theater released movies ever. Goodthingthat Ted Turner had himself inserted for a speaking line (uncredited) sothat he could recoup at least the SAG wage rate for his speaking part,sincehe'll probably lose a bit on this one.Perhaps the DVD set will be worth acquiring, but this is not worth seeingonthe big screen.

Mercy Bell

(2013-05-03 06:23:06)

Simple, colorful, mournful epic cinematic experience

I had the pleasure of attending the World Premiere of this film in DC onthe10th. I was happy to discover that this film is what I would call Igenuinemovie going experience: one of those rare occasions where you can forgetthat you're watching film stock with actors and fancy yourself in theworldcreated. I had my suspicions and fears going in, but can honestly say Iwasn't prepared for the film that it turned out to be.The beginning is simple, with a gorgeous quote about "home" from GeorgeEliot, and the very haunting strains of a song called "Going Home". Itthenmerges into fluttering flags of various regiments historicallyrepresentedin the film. Quite the opening.The film does start and stop from scene to scene very quickly, in otherwords the cuts between scenes are very fast and abrupt. But this didn'tbother me in the slightest. It occurred to me while watching that itmovesvery much like the chapters in the book itself do. I can see how it mightbejarring for someone not familiar with the characters or book to find thebeginning of the film confusing, but what I found that to be was a simplecharacter set up. The film is enormous, so by systematically and bluntlyintroducing characters early on, one after another after another, etcetc,it helped introduce the pace of the film. That was something thatremindedme of the way the book was laid out. Whether or not it was done onpurposeI'm not sure, but I had no problem with it. So, as with many screenadaptations, I think this is the part of the film, and the only part ofthefilm, that would have helped if you had read the book first, since youknowwhat they had left out, and how the story is set up. But that's only thefirst 20 minutes or so, after that I found that the movie took on it'sveryown path. They leave out the Hancock/Armistead relationship entirely,theyskip a year, they never once mention the Valley Campaign, or SecondManassas, or Antietam, or the Peninsula. Yet despite all this, it stillstayed true to the book in many ways thematically, style wise, andcharacterwise, though I'm sure people more familiar with the book than I am willprobably say otherwise. I sensed that Maxwell had decided he had tochoosethe story he was going to tell, and tell it with as many extra storylinesthat he could fit in there without making the film seem unfinished. Andthat's exactly what he does. The end result is a symphony of characters,storylines, and themes.Another aspect that I actually liked, and may lend itself to the factthatI'm a female, is the civilian aspect. The civilian costumes werehorrible,and the accents weren't to good, and the acting was a bit over the top,butI liked it. I think it worked very well, and gave the film another layertoit.I feel the need to mention that this movie is not refined. It's a bitawkward, it's not a Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorsese movie; somethingthathas no visible seams. It can seem a bit preachy at times, some of thecostumes are silly, some of the acting is off, the scene changessometimesfeel like what you just saw didn't really get a chance to soak in, andsometimes the music doesn't really fit what you're seeing onscreen. But,forme at least, it all eventually worked itself out.The film IS about Jackson. I think they make that very clear from thebeginning on, though, as I said, they have many different storylinesgoing.Most of which eventually flow into Jackson's character, or Chamberlain'scharacter. Chamberlain is really the only other person who's life we getaseparate glimpse of. Lee is a supporting character in this film. Hancockisintroduced slightly. And while watching we are aware by the end of themoviethat they go on to other pursuits and challenges later on. As you know,allthree of these characters go on to have their own cinematic monologues in`Gettysburg' and we are reminded of this at the end of the film as a notescrolled across the screen saying that G&G was the first in a trilogy ofCivil War films, including Gettysburg and Last Full Measure. The idea isabit akin to a Civil War `Lord of the Rings' style movie trilogy. Jacksononthe other hand, has no part in the other stories, so essentially, this ishis film, and a lot of that credit goes to Stephen Lang.I've heard it been said before, but Stephen Lang IS Jackson. I've neverseensuch a larger than life, real person embodied so intensely andcompletely.The casting in this film, for this character, was smart. By getting arelatively unknown character actor to fill the part of a historical,enigmatic, giant. Lang, eccentricities, speaking patterns, prayingstyles,and all grow on you. This man has done an incredible job. Jackson comesacross as a sometimes intensely cold, strange, distant man, often afraidtofeel, yet can be overcome by his feelings for his wife, and his daughter,alittle girl he befriends, his respect for his men, and his love and faithinGod. And where this accomplishment is 90% Lang, kudos to Maxwell are inorder for setting up, from the beginning of the film key aspects thatfleshout Jackson's character. I don't want to give away too much, but wewitnessan execution of Jackson's men, and by using Sandie Pendleton's character(ina wonderful performance the whole film through by Jeremy London) thefilmmakers reflect the contrast between a `normal' reaction and Jackson'scomplex and cold demeanor. And after one of Jackson's generals ismortallywounded, he softly and gently goes to speak and comfort the man, sayinghowhe will pray for him. As he walks out, one of his staff mentions thechaosof the battle and the ransacking of Fredericksburg, and how do theyintendto stop it. Lang chillingly repeats one of Jackson's famous lines, thattheywould simply kill them all. Lang's immersion in the character is socomplete, that even though I was anticipating the line, it was thecharactersaying it. Not an actor saying a line to represent a famous historicalfigure. To top the scene off, the score plays softly, menacingly, as thecamera pans away as the stunned staff watches the general slowly walkaway,erect, with his hands behind his back. These are the kinds of detailsthatfill the movie.To get back to the acting, it's not only Lang who shines. Jeff Danielsreturns for a fantastic performance, his monologue about Ceasar's troopsasthey march off to battle is chilling and perfectly suited for thecharacter(a verbose rhetoric professor), and Daniels' stage acting skills shinethrough as he recites the verse while watching the members of IrishBrigadecharge to their deaths (and we see, as they edited the uphill charge withDaniels' speech). The whole scene is goosebump inducing. In anotherscene,where Chamberlain gives his brother Tom a lecture and talks about whathe'sfighting for, he mentions how `every soldier out there is a whole person'with their own lives and people who love them. He's entirely convincingin ascene that could have been performed very badly, and is also one of theonlyinsights into the Union cause. But because of his performance, what hesaysresonates throughout the rest of the film.Robert Duvall is just how you'd imagine him to be Lee. You get a great,respected, icon of a dramatic actor, to play `The Marble Man' and halftheeffect is already done. Duvall acts the rest perfectly, and provides agreatsupport to Jackson's storyline.Other kudos go to Sean Pratt as a perfect Dr. Maguire, Jeremy London asSandie Pendleton, Stephen Spacek as James Smith, and Frankie Faison asJackson's cook, Jim. C. Thomas Howell returns with another endearing turnasTom Chamberlain, and Kevin Conway as the savvy and wise Sgt. Kilrain.MattLescher as Col. Adelburt Ames shines in smaller supporting role.DonzaleighAbernathy supports a separate storyline all by herself, and does a superbjob of it. Kali Rocha is good as Jackson's wife Anna, and fills her rolewell. Mira Sorvino has exactly two scenes, but she actually makes greatuseof them, despite a bad Maine accent and a distracting wig.Now comes down to the theme of the film. This movie does not attempt tosmooth over anything, but it's actually lightly political. Everycharacterhas a legitimate say as to their lot in life and why they stand wheretheystand. There is no argument about who was right and who was wrong. Thereareno apologizing or blaming modern messages coming through. The filmbelongsto the characters and depending on what character is in focus, that isthepoint of view you get. Whether it be Chamberlain, or the slaves, orJackson.The film, without a substantial use of blood and gore, gets the idea ofthetragedy of this war across. There's a scene where Col. Ames is readingoff aletter from Lincoln after Fredericksburg, and in the letter it ismentionedthat though all the men were noble, the casualties were comparativelymoderate, and Buster Kilrain mentions `compared to what?....the French atWaterloo?'. It's an ironic cinematic statement. We've just scene rows ofmenmowed down, and shots of men scattered about a field. We've seenChamberlainand his men use bodies as shields, and then this letter comes in. Earlyonin the film, the camera gently pans and fades in and out of different meninVirginia giving up their work in whatever they are doing, picking uptheirguns, and rushing off to muster in. It's a beautiful and sad technique,aswe realize where these men are coming from. Later on, in the same manner,wesee that one of Chamberlain's students, from an earlier scene, asks forpermission to go to the rear, and his arm has been blown off. The filmalsobriefly and sporadically follows two soldiers as they go through thebattles.The battles themselves are superbly filmed. They obviously put a lot ofthought into these scenes. First Manassas is and average battle scene,butFredericksburg and Chancellorsville surpass it. The crowning moment ofthebattle of Fredericksburg is the charge of the Irish Brigade. With ease,itmoves swiftly along with extensive tracking shots. Then we see that it'stheRebel Irish, the 24th GA, who are firing at them. As the camera movesfromthe Irish Brigade's emerald flag, to the Rebels' Irish flag, and we hearremarks from both sides, I could hear the audience start to sniffle, andIteared up. The effect is entirely stirring, startling, and tragic, itsendschills up your spine. What Pickett's charge in the Gettysburg film was,thecharge of the Irish Brigade is here (strangely enough, in the filmGettysburg, we have the Union line chant `Fredericksburg' at theretreatingRebels). It's just history, bluntly and plainly filmed. The battledoesn'tstop there, though. Chamberlain's men see some action, what with deadbodiesas shields, and the Aurora Borealis where all the characters, North andSouth simply look up, silently, not one word, as the scene softlyfades.The battle of Chancellorsville is just as well choreographed. In the sametracking, graceful style, we see each regiment come out of the woodssilently. And, in an amazing shot, just when you wonder how many menthereare, we see Jackson emerge, and all to the right of the screen we seethousands of soldiers emerging noiselessly. The rest of this battle isfantastic, with the various shots and angles utilized. This andFredericksburg are some of the best battle scenes I've everwatched.The dramatic scenes in the film work very well. There are many, manymomentsin this movie that are touching. Most of them concerning Jackson, but allofthem wonderfully executed. The score by John Frizell and Randy Edelman ,forthe most part perfectly suits the film. Sometimes it sounds a bit odd oroutof place, but it usually reconstitutes itself into the scene for agreatereffect. The cinematography by Kees Van Oostrum is stunning. He capturesthegorgeous landscape of where this war took place, thus adding, at leastforme, a new layer: how could such a horrific war take place in such abeautiful place? Costume design is so, so, sometimes awful, sometimesgreat;but the production design, interiors and exteriors (save many a scenewithtents where tents would not be) is wonderful, and had the look of amuseum.This film is, thematically, dark. It is somber, and it is intense. It'sextremely sad, foreboding at times, but it's not depressing or, substancewise, hard to watch. Despite some of the blatant costume mistakes (hey, alot of the beards looked great!), watching it felt like an immersion intoanother era and the lives of people not so different than ourselves. It'sanepic, colorful, mournful cinematic experience that captures a slice oflife.It's not a film for everyone: it's nearly 4 hours long, intenselyhistorical- from the romantic Victorian dialogue to various references toliteratureand politics, but it has an immense human value to it that I believeanyonecan relate to. And despite it's sometime rough hewed edges, it feelscompletely heartfelt, I think it is an ode to history.

stevedee

(2013-05-01 03:55:49)

Awful

I couldn't get through this movie. The battle scenes are realistic, butthat's about all that is realistic. The dialogue is comical, the charactersare wooden stereotypes and the melodrama is the cheesiest I've seen in amovie made after the 1930's.According to this movie, the blacks were all happy living as slaves andloyal to the states the enslaved them, the whites treated the slaves likefamily, everyone in the south was against slavery and the God fearingconfederates did absolutely nothing to provoke a northerninvasion.Now let's get history straight; the southern states rebelled because thenation elected a republican, the south wanted to expand slavery into thefrontier territories, the south's entire economy depended on slavery and itwas the rebels that fired the first shots in the civil war. I would alsomention that based on the numbers of liberated slaves that took up armsagainst the confederates, I doubt they were as loyal to their states as themovie would have you believe.I even found fault with the battle scenes. Unfortunately when you use CivilWar reenactors as extras, you get a lot of fat old men. I would imagine thatnot too many soldiers were fat, and at this early stage in the war therebels were not yet taking old men.

E1701

(2013-04-30 14:19:22)

Extremely well done, but don't leave your brain at home with this one...

I thought this was a surprisingly good movie given the tons of lousyreviewsdumped on it (unfairly, in most cases). There are definately problemswiththe film, but not the ones that seem to be shouted out theloudest.First, the good. The movie is extremely accurate (save for some reallyminor technical goofs), and portrays an angle on history that is fair andbalanced, and hence unpopular in today's politically correct world.Today,disbanding the myth of the Nazi-istic South meets a lot of resistence frommany quarters. Too many people would prefer to forget that there wereblackConfederate soldiers, and that in areas where blacks were free or treatedwell, they remained loyal to the CSA right to the end. After all, for themassive problems it had, the South *was* their home, and many saw it as aninvasion rather than a liberation. Likewise, many of the greatConfederategeneral officers did not care for the South's "peculiar institution" anymore than most rational people. Lee had already freed most of the slavesbequeathed to him by his father-in-law, Jackson found the entire thingdistasteful (hence his comment to Jim Lewis), and at least one Confederateofficer was nearly cashiered for suggesting that the Confederacy beginorganizing black regiments. In all, major kudos to Maxwell, Turner, andShaara for having the fortitude to take an objective look at the war, andthe *real* motivations behind the Americans on both sides who fought anddied.From a technical standpoint, the acting was almost universally good,particularly Stephen Lang, who had one hell of a pair of boots to fill.Hisdeath scene, which could easily have been overdone and corny, waslengthly,but surprisingly low-key, although they did flub one of his last words,missing the line, "Tell AP Hill to come up fast." The music was quitegoodfor the most part... but more on that later. As far as the graphics go onthe wide location shots, I agree that it looks surreal, but I will pointoutthat it is heads above the CGI used in "The Patriot" a few years back, andthat was considered brilliant. Further, Maxwell and Co. remained true tothe language of the time, which to be blunt *was* quite flowery attimes...but that is also how they really spoke, whether or not a typicalmoviegoingaudience can appreciate that.Now, for the bad... I think most of the complaints have little merit, butmy main gripe was with the editing and the musical use. I suspect thattheDVD version of the full movie will include far more of Chamberlain,trainingthe 20th Maine, and more from actors who appeared only in passing in thetheater. Jackson did get the lion's share of the footage in the theater,and that may have been a mistake, since a lot of it was pretty slow, goodasit was. The music I had the biggest problem with though... Fredricksburglacked the atmosphere that Pickett's Charge had in Gettysburg, because themusic was mostly slow and mournful even in the heat of battle (except forthe exception of that great Irish Brigade tune). The worst though cameright at the end... Jackson's men are sneaking up on Howard's Corps, andthemusic is perfectly tense and leads up to something... then suddenly soundslike Lord of the Rings! I found myself scanning the screen for signs ofUruk-Hai.In all though, excellent movie despite the problems, and I really lookforward to both the full DVD version (which I suspect will shred the bulkofcomplaints about it, save those from the historically ignorant, who wonderwhy Grant wasn't in the movie, despite his being in Kentucky at thetime...), and also to Last Full Measure. The Battle of the Crater shouldput even the final attack on Fort Fisher in Glory to shame.

kmcmenim

(2013-04-28 03:30:06)

How Ted Turner wishes it was.

The most appropriate sub-title for `Gods and Generals' would be `TedTurner's Fantasy of How the Old South Really Was'. We must accept the needfor film to edit and condense historical processes and to invent compositecharacters, in order to `accurately' depict the feel and flavor of thepeople and times which are the subject of a film. However, the libertiestaken with the true racial relationships of the times depicted in thisfilmfall well outside the realm of artistic license and four-square withinclinically pathological denial. In `Gods and Generals', the relationshipbetween master and slave was warm and loving. The slave shared the samequarters with the masters as well as the same perils. The slave possessedaloving parental concern for the welfare of the owners and cheered thegentlemen of the South as they marched off to battle the Untermenschen ofthe North. There were no slaves slaving in the fields. There were nobeatings or rapes or murders of slaves. The Old South was bliss on earthfortheir African guests.Quite fittingly, the men of the South were devout adherents of thatparticular sect of Christianity which did not require them to apply theprecepts of their Bible to any other than their own kind. Although slaveryhas perished, that type of Christian has flourished.There are two arguments which vitiate the need to consign all copies ofthisfilm to the fires of the nearest sanitary landfill. As you watch it andseethe at the travesty it does with the history of American race relationsand ask yourself how it could have been made in the 21st Century, thefirstthing that pops into your mind is: Ted Turner. The Mouth of the Southstrikes again. This epiphany makes you realize there is no cause foralarm.There are Warner Brothers cartoons with more social significance thanthis.The other argument reflects the fact that it was the North which won theCivil War. It means all people have a right to say what they want. It's a`North-man's burden' kind of thing. Because of the Civil War, people dohavea right to tell a story from their own perspective and to preach their owncauses. Cinematic history provides a rock-solid foundation for thistradition. To remain true to this genre, Ted should have hired LeniRiefenstahl.That said, should you go see this film? The answer is an emphatic yes.It'sthe battle scenes which count. The re-enactors and stuntmen aremagnificent.They bring to life the horror of those battles, without preaching all warisevil. What will turn-off our Hippie/Preppy/Yuppie/Beemer-Boomergenerationsis that the men of the Civil War, on both sides, had something they valuedmore important than themselves. Those men had something worth dying for.Itmay have been simply feeling the country could expect its people to fightfor it. It may have been to preserve the Union or it may have been to freethe slaves. For the South, it was the right to live their own lives or todefend their states, although denying such rights to the slaves. Thedifference between the two sides was the breadth of their view of life.TheNorth's was simply broader. The point is, `Values' aren't what you rantandrave about in the media or the streets. `Values' are what you are willingtodie for.`Gods and Generals' is supposed to be part of a trilogy. The first partwas`Gettysburg'. That did not show the North's view of the war, only howGettysburg was fought. Since the North won the Civil War, it reallydoesn'tneed its side to be shown. `Gods and Generals' gives the South's side ofwhat the Civil War was all about. My prayer is that, before Ted Turner iscompletely lost to dotage, he makes the third part from the slaves'perspective. I know he could say `Roots' and Mandingo' did all that buttheyreally didn't. No one has humanized the brutality of slavery nor shown itslegacy today. That story needs to be told. Reparations aren't the answer.

smitemuslims

(2013-04-27 15:49:41)

A Window Into Time

I give the film a 7 out of 10 rating, because I have never seen thefull 6 hour "director's cut", which I someday hope will be released."Gods and Generals" is a film of greatness and ineptness rolled in one.Whatever was done in the editing room has left this film a shell ofwhat it probably was in the full 6-hour version.Acting is superb, especially Stephen Lang as Stonewall Jackson.Cinematography is excellent, and this film is unique in the way itpulled me back in time. Watching the first half of the film, I couldnot help but feel I was staring through a window of the past into 1862.It just seemed that real.Sure, there were long soliloquy's, but historical letters exist toprove that some of the folks of that day did give long-winded speeches.So what if someone rambled on for three paragraphs of speech when a nodor a terse word would have sufficed. If that's how they spoke, thenthat's reality.Again, hats off to the cast, the director, and the camera guys.Hopefully, the editors can be rounded up to piece this film backtogether and release the director's cut. We can only hope.

b-keval

(2013-04-23 17:39:08)

I'm sorry critics, what?

Just sometimes critics get it completely wrong. This film is one suchinstance of that. I guess a well made Civil War epic with astoundingacting, well put together convincing battle scenes. Accurate uniformsand weapons and a film which takes full advantage of it's budget etccounts as bad these days. Personally as a historian and someone whoenjoys long epics I was invested in this one. To me it is more of acharacter study of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and his actionsas a Confederate officer than a war film. This film has all the tropeswhich makes a great war film of course but I never really knew who theman Jackson was, just what he did as a General. I'm glad this film wasmade because it gave me an insight into the man's psyche, someone heresaid Stephen Lang deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Iagree. I do prefer Ronald F. Maxwell's other epic Gettysburg but takenon it's own Gods and Generals is still worth sitting through despiteits four hour running time. I want to see Maxwell's proposed thirdinstallment in his trilogy The Last Full Measure and I think peoplewill agree with me the audience is there and want to see it get done.God's and Generals is criminally underrated and one which criticsmissed the mark on.Solid 10/10

(2013-04-23 12:02:44)

Another Ron Maxwell masterpeice!

This super duper. See it!

Synpax

(2013-04-15 11:44:49)

Motivations

Unlike most films that focus on this era that seek to dramatize and weaveplots through the background of historical events, Gods and Generalsfocuseson the individual dramas of conflicting motivations on both sides of thewar, with special focus on Stonewall Jackson.A very enjoyable film for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Most notable isthat there really aren't any true villians in this film, making it agenuinetradgedy.

(2013-04-15 00:03:16)

The Movie To Forget For 2003

I enjoyed the director's earlier film, "Gettysburg" so I was expecting to enjoy this film as well. To my disappointment I was aghast at this long, tedious, boring film with one of the worst scripts in decades. I have to admit that I left the theater during the intermission; I could not continue to watch this film.The battles are full of redundant scenes filmed with the camera almost in the same spot shooting the death of soldiers one skirmish line after another as they boldly march towards the low wall. And, probably one of the most embarrassing scenes ever filmed by a good actor is Jeff Daniels incredibly lengthy, dreary and overacted monologue to his men as they wait to enter the battle. The problem with the script, that absolutely ruined this film is that the lines given to the actors to read are actually from the letters written by the real characters. These letters were written in a flowerily prose of the times -- people just didn't speak that way then nor now.I love epic films, but this is one epic about nothing -- don't waste your time or dollars on this DVD.

TrevorAclea

(2013-04-13 05:00:55)

Massively overambitious

Ironies abound: while Gettysburg was made for television but ended upwith a theatrical release, yet despite a $60m budget, a huge cast andbeing shot in 2.35:1 widescreen, Gods and Generals looks like it wouldhave been more at home on TV. In some ways it's almost the mostexpensive home movie ever shot, with Ted Turner paying for this accountof the early years of the American Civil War out of his own pocket. Forthe first hour it's almost as if the Union never existed, the filmshown entirely from the Southern side, and with a very partisan view atthat (all down to Yankee aggression, with Fort Sumpter convenientlydismissed in a single line). Too often lengthy quotations take theplace of dialogue and even the better actors in the cast often seem illat ease while the surprisingly weak daylight photography and poor CGimatte painting in early scenes giving it an air of storybook unreality.Indeed, Ronald Maxwell's approach at times seems pure D.W. Griffith,with a fondness for awkward tableaux and unconvincing sentiment (poorMira Sorvino gets a couple of particularly painfully hearts-and-flowersscenes to deliver as a consolation prize for missing out on playingJoan of Arc when Maxwell's version was dropped in the wake of LucBesson's film). There are a few moments here and there – an intimatescene between Stonewall Jackson and his wife confiding his doubts, ascene between Jeff Daniels and Kevin Conway's sergeant about friends onthe other side – but as the over-ambitious film tries to cram too muchhistory into its four hour running time (and still scenes filmeddealing with Lincoln, John Wilkes Booth and the Battle of Antietemdidn't make the cut) the people just get lost.Thankfully, the second half rallies considerably as the film reachesthe Battle of Fredericksburg and the 20th Maine's disastrous charge,and the contradictions in Stephen Lang's "Stonewall" Jackson, a deeplyreligious man yet one who advocated taking no prisoners, become moreinteresting despite the film's determination to turn him into acrossbetween Jesus Christ and a vengeful Old Testament prophet. Yet sadlythe lasting impression is of a film that is too sprawling and unfocusedfor its own good and one that not only either needed to be a lot longeror a lot shorter but also much better written. As for the somewhatnonsensical title, it's an abbreviation of the novel's Faith in Godsand Generals. Incidentally, be warned that the DVD has one of the worstside breaks ever.

(2013-04-12 20:04:08)

Sweeping Yet Human

Overall, a very watchable film and certainly a must for Civil War buffs.I felt, however, that this installment was inferior to its predecessor, Gettysburg. The script, cast, and editing of Gettysburg were much tighter and finely honed than here. The style of speech is not the problem in Gods & Generals, its the lenght and cheesy sentimentality; Chamberlain's speech quoting from Julius Caesar, for example, is over the top and unnecessary. Yes, the treatment of slaves is a bit PC and soft but within the realm of reality. While this film is about conflict and resolution, it is precisely this quality that falls short with respect to the people in the film: conflict and resolution between individuals and within individuals. This was done so much better in Gettysburg. Overall, I'd say that, buoyed by the success of Gettysburg, the director just tried too hard.The criticisms and weaknesses aside, it is still a fine film.

(2013-04-09 15:38:26)

History comes to life!

Although the movie was based on a novel, it was filmed with the intent of showing the battles and personal relationships as historically accurate as possible. The reenactors are marvelous. They are the backbone of the film. Robert Duvall looks incredibly like his true relative Robert E. Lee. But the real miracle worker of "Gods and Generals" is Stephen Lang as Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson--a relative of mine. Lang literally became Jackson for the four months he spent filming, and he continues to give presentations at Civil War seminars and other historical events on his experience portraying Jackson who had never been depicted on film before. If there is any justice in filmdom, Stephen Lang will be nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award, a Golden Globe, and an Oscar for best performance by an actor in a leading role in 2004.

(2013-04-09 06:36:35)

Book was much better

This along with Gettysburg were excellent movies, two of my favorites but although I love the movies...I love the books more. Gods and Generals by Jeff Shaara was much more detailed and much more moving than the movie that seemed to drag at points. Sometimes it seems as though it took longer to watch the movie than read the book. The books starts out with the John Brown raid at Harper's Ferry which helped develop the characters of Lee, Stuart and Jackson. The book also developed Chamberline's character early while he was a professor being penalized by the administration of Bowden college for speaking out against the rebellion and supporting the many students who joined the army. Also the scene where he tells his wife that he joined the army was much more moving and detailed in the book than in the movie. The build up to the war, was very important to get people to understand what was going on. I believe thThe movie was good in its description of the battles, but they forgot one major battle, the Battle of Antietam Creek. This was more bloody than Gettysburg and it was a union victory. I also wished that the end of the movie showed Lee and Longstreet planning the invastion of the North like in the book. A much better ending than Jackson's funeral march. I did like the addition of the cook though, he was a powerful character and the book only showed one black character, Nate, one of Robert E Lee's former slaves. I hope that if Ted Turner goes through with putting together the financing for "Last Full Measure" Ron Maxwell uses more of the book. Anyway, that is just my opinion.

Kerm Russ

(2013-04-09 22:07:26)

Revisionist View on Slavery and Race Relations

In "God's and Generals", when General Stonewall Jackson asked his cookJim how his family was, if Jim were a typical slave (based upon hisdark skin tone and size, probably a field slave, not a house slave, anddefinitely not this fanciful Hollywood slave) he most likely would'veanswered, "I'se reckon I don' know, General. Ma chillins wuz sold downriva some time 'go to 'nother plantation and ma missus well, she bespectin' another one of Massa's bastard chillin". Let's be real here,folks. This movie has great cinematography, some historical accuracies,and yet many glaring omissions such as, the Black Union regiments,e.g., the 54th Massachusetts (guess we have to watch "Glory" to seethat one since it's not a part of American history, no more so than thefact that a former United States President, John Quincy Adams,successfully argued for and secured before the Supreme Court thefreedom of rebelling slaves, vis-à-vis, "Amistad"). In "Gods andGenerals", the race relations are pathetic, revisionist fallacies. If aslave dared to look a white man, woman, or for that matter, childdirectly in their eyes and be so bold as to talk to them as if theywere equals, much less hug them without invitation (dare we imaginesuch an occasion), they would have been whipped within an inch of theirlife. All these slaves seem to speak the King's English, an amazingfeat considering that it was illegal to teach a slave how to read orwrite, much less conjugate their verbs properly! Let's not waxnostalgic to the point of being PC. For the South, the Civil War wasabout state's rights and property rights. Now, let's all take a guesswhat that property included!

(2013-04-09 08:50:36)

Warning! Explicit Bible reading!

"Gods and Generals" could have used some tighter editing, just as many of the professional and online reviewers say. But some of their more hostile comments tell more about the reviewers than about the picture. World magazine writer Gene Edward Veith gigged them nicely with this mock content advisory: "Warning! This movie contains explicit Bible reading. Scenes contain graphic depictions of prayer. The language may not be suitable for viewers offended by nonprofane references to Jesus. Viewers are strongly cautioned due to intense moralizing, violently affectionate marriages, and gratuitous displays of selfless behavior."It's hard to portray piety well on-screen, and Hollywood these days scarcely ever tries to do so. But Stephen Lang pulls it off. His Jackson is stern, warm, charismatic and convincing. I had long imagined a film about Stonewall, and this is almost all I could have desired. I had envisioned Ed Harris in the role, as he bears a strong resemblance to Jackson, but I don't think Harris could have outdone Lang or even equalled him. If you doubt Lang's acting chops, just watch him play Pickett in "Gettysburg." What a contrast to Lang's Jackson! Each portrayal has a life of its own. Lang's performance outdoes even the great Robert Duvall, who here and there lets the hint of a "Lonesome Dove" mannerism slip into his portrayal of Lee."Gods and Generals" is especially welcome in that it contains none of the puerile nonsense that spoiled the recent would-be epics "Pearl Harbor" and "The Patriot." Plodding it may be, but it should at least get credit for its maturity.Here's what I missed in "Gods and Generals" and hope to see in the 6-hour DVD when it is released next year:* Some sense of how Jackson and Lee earned their immense reputations, in the Valley campaign and at Second Manassas.* Some more attention to the Federal commanders, who were the tragicomic foils for Lee's and Jackson's brilliance. In the movie, that parade of bunglers and blowhards is represented only by Burnside. I understand the eventual 6-hour version will include Antietam, so we may meet McClellan there, but I want to see Pope and Hooker huff, puff and fall on their faces, too.* Speaking of bunglers and blowhards, a hard look at the secessionist firebrands who brought the war on might have mollified those critics who found the Southern cause way too idealized in this picture. Especially on the issue of slavery and race, a contrast could have been drawn between Jackson and someone like Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, who prattled about the "great moral truth" of white superiority. The South's bigotry resided in its politicians, not in men like Jackson. (One critic doubted that Jackson would ever have called the free black cook he hired "Mr. Lewis," as he does in the movie. But "Tom Fool" Jackson was known in pre-war Lexington for tipping his hat to black men on the street. Said he: "I could not be less polite to a Negro than he is to me.") I look forward eagerly to seeing the conclusion of Mr. Maxwell's Civil War trilogy. In the role of U.S. Grant, the Union general who finally took Lee's measure, I'd suggest Russell Crowe. Like Grant, Crowe looks a bit surly, "as if he had determined to drive his forehead through a brick wall and was about to do it."And if Crowe isn't available, just call on Lang again. Embodying Jackson, Pickett AND Grant --- now, THAT would be an acting trifecta!

icebreaker41

(2013-04-03 06:55:32)

A joy to behold. They still make good films.....

This is a film that will be viewed and treasured on DVD (and futureformats!) for many years to come, long after other 'Box Office Success'films have withered and disappeared. It's a slow-burning classic andpeople will look at it increasingly and say "That's how to make a greathistorical epic". It's hard to condense the ACW up until Gettysburginto any film, they did the best they could. I've seen it three timesnow and it gets better every time - each time I see something new. Thistime I spotted (among other things) the shot of the White House withit's incomplete roof (as it was during the ACW) - that's an example ofthe film's attention to detail. It's easy to be a knocker and findsomething to criticise in the film - but take a step back and look atthe whole thing - get a taste of the Civil War - one of the mostfascinating historical periods - period!

(2013-04-02 11:24:41)

A Worthy but disappointing effort on the Civil War

I applaud their efforts about America's darkest hour which was theAmerican Civil War from 1860 to 1865. The drama is that it was brotherand brother, north against south. America lost more men on it's ownbattlefields in this war than any foreign wars combined. While Europeremembers two World Wars, America must remember the Civil War. It's sadand depressing to know that most Americans know less about the CivilWar than foreign wars. Anyway, the film's battle scenes are shotexquisitely. The brutality and force of the war must be seen to knowthe evil and horrors of any war. The Civil War is a tough chapter inAmerican history. Unfortunately, this film is almost four hours longand there is so many situations and characters about that you caneasily get lost in it. I watched it on video at home. My boss who is abig Civil War buff drove almost 2 hours to see this film and liked it.While some of us are not geared to watching war movies, if you likeGettysburg, you will like Gods and Generals. The actors, Jeff Danielsand Robert Duvall who lives in Virginia himself perform brilliantly andalmost unrecognizably. I also liked Frankie Faison in the film as aBlack soldier. If this film was released on television as amini-series, I have no doubt that there would have been awards. Thescenery, costumes, and art direction have spared no expense. I believeit was a mistake to release it in theaters because I don't thinkaudiences can sit through 4 hours of this film. Ted Turner, the mediamogul, did a service to producing this film. Maybe students in Americanclassrooms will learn to appreciate the magnitude of the Civil War. I'mgiving it an 8.