Gods & Generals

[Bee]

My friend went to the preview the other day in DC. He really enjoyed it, but found it a little too long for his tastes. He's a big Civil War buff and seemed to think it was a accurate. At times he said it became a little "choppy" and would be hard to follow if you weren't up on the subject matter.

Anyone else see it?

[Fritz]

Gettysburg, the first movie by these folks, was wretched.

[Anrhydeddu]

This is the one movie since 20 years ago, that I will actually go to the theatre on opening day.

The book is long and it does cover quite a long period of time, but with Gettysburg being my most favorite movie of all time, G&G is eagerly anticipated.

[sachmo71]

I too am interested, but I probably will have to wait for DVD, as my wife will not sit through 2.5 hours Civil War movie. :(

[Anrhydeddu]

I'm not inviting my wife. :)

[Bee]

My friend said it was close to 4 hours? Maybe he was talking about the whole event? I didn't talk to him in detail about it this morning, just a few quick comments from him.

[GrantDawg]

I plan on catching it, but I have yet to see Gettysburg. I have read the book and it was excellent.

[ACStrider]

The Killer Angels was a very interesting book. I got a lot out of the window into the generals of the North/South (primarily Longstreet/Chamberlain). I would highly recommend it. I'm looking forward to G+G. I'm sure my dad will see it before I do, but I'm guessing it will be good. The reviews have been positive.

[INDalltheway]

My dad is salavating for the release of this movie. There is also another one comming out later this year? He is a major Civil War buff, and he reads everything. I might have to go see it with him just to "tickle" him. Heck I might even get a game out of it. :)

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I as well am waiting for this movie .

[WSUCougar]

I am eager to see G&G, if/when my wife and I are able to successfully wrangle a baby sitter for 4+ hours.

A little OT, but I received two copies of Gettysburg in the two-VHS set for Christmas. One could use a new home, so if anyone wants to pay shipping I'll send it to you.

[GrantDawg]

Sure. How much is shipping?

[WSUCougar]

PM me with your address, and then I'll ship it and let you know the actual cost. You can then send me a check. How's that for trust? :D

[wbonnell]

Not looking too good boys:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/wkp-news-generals21f.html

Also, Joel Siegel apparently claimed that it might be the worst movie of the year...

[Senator]

I will make my own judgement on this. Many are upset that the South is not made out to be Nazi's. They are upset because the South do not view it as a war over slavery but a war of invasion.
Yankee: "Why are you guys fighting this war?"
Southerner: "Because your down here."

I think there is a true PC hatred for the South of the Civil War, and unless the industry makes them out to be evil, the Boomer generation of the North will not accept it.

I liked Gettysburg, and they panned that movie as well. At least SOMEONE is making this movie.

[sabotai]

"Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy. Less enlightened than "Gone With the Wind," obsessed with military strategy, impartial between South and North, religiously devout, it waits 70 minutes before introducing the first of its two speaking roles for African Americans; "Stonewall" Jackson assures his black cook that the South will free him, and the cook looks cautiously optimistic. If World War II were handled this way, there'd be hell to pay. "

I have to say this is one of the dumbest intros to a movie review. Did he even watch Gettysburgh?

1) Gone with the Wind is a not a military history movie. Set against the background of the civil and a movie about the civil war combatants are two seperate things.

2) I didn't know in all movies about the north and the south, the north had to hero-ized and the south had to be demonized.

3) A lot of generals back then were devout christians, so of course there'd be a lot of talk of God.

4) It's a movie about the general of the civil war. There were no black generals. The movie is bad because there were no black generals during the civil war?

He goes on to say Jackson's death scene was "wordy"...well, it was wordy in real life. He did issue commands to soldiers and prepare to cross a bridge while laying on his deathbed.

It seems to me that he's panning the moive because it's historially accurate....I find that pretty sad.

[sabotai]

dola -

"I liked Gettysburg, and they panned that movie as well. At least SOMEONE is making this movie."

One of the things I liked so much about Gettysburg is that they make both sides the good guys and the bad guys all at once. When you saw Lee, the North was the bad guy, when you saw Chamberlan (sp?), the South was the bad guy.

[WSUCougar]

Yeah, I find it rather comical that he takes shots at the movie because it is what it is. It would be like panning a musical because it has too much singing.

What I think he might be TRYING to say is that the movie presents the causes of the war in a dated manner. I have not yet seen the film, but I've read the book(s), and they represent a somewhat-overstated interpretation of these few Civil War leaders through close-up portrayals (if not glorification). It's historical fiction that plays up the very things that Ebert rips on.

[wbonnell]

I'd be interested to see a good review of the movie. Admittedly, I've only looked at mainstream sites, but they're all horrible.

[Bee]

Even non-mainstream sites are ripping it. I've read several reviews by people who liked Gettysburg and hated this, so just be warned.

B

[Anrhydeddu]

William, I think you would see some good reviews from a few of here that are interested in that time period instead of critics like Ebert that gives top ratings for pornographic indies films. G&G is based on Shaara's book and from what I've read of fans of the book, the movie did a great job in capturing the spirit of that historical novel. What did they expect? Sounds like the criticisms for being mostly faithful to the Harry Potter and LotR books.

I was supposed to have gone to see G&G this afternoon but my schedule today and this weekend will not permit it. Next weekend for sure.

[Anrhydeddu]

Here's a good review from imdb

I saw Gods and Generals a few nights ago and I must say it's the finest Civil War movie dealing with the first half of the Civil War. However this movie was originally 6hrs long and I can't wait for the DVD. The fact is that this theatrical version isn't long enough. That is right 4 hours isn't long enough. The film is choppy in parts and they skip events to move the film along. One moment were in 1861 and then were in December of 1862. So my one big complaint about this film is that they cut too much up, but what is still in the film did the job it needed to do. The opening credits were simply beautiful. If you see the movie you will see what I mean.

The acting was superb and Stephen Lang who played Gen Pickett in Gettysburg now plays Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Stephen Lang steals the show playing Jackson who is my favorite Civil War general to read about on the Confederate side. After reading 20 books on Jackson I came in expecting to see what I've read, and I got it. The only thing this film leaves out is more of Jackson's eccentric behavior but Lang pulls Jackson off without a hitch. This film mainly revolves around this great man, and SPOILER !!!!!!! His tragic downfall. END SPOILER!!!

Robert Duval comes in and plays a very good General Lee. I was a bit let down that Lee's character wasn't in this film very much, but once again this film was edited down a lot.

Jeff Daniels who plays in my opinion the best Union commander behind Grant and Sherman comes back and plays Chamberlin once again beautifully and poetically. It shows his beginnings as a Professor of Philosophy in Maine and his early showings of a great leader which serves him better at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Rounding out the cast is Jeremy London who does a great job playing a solid supporting role as Jackson's right hand man named Sandie Pendelton.

The one scene which I wished had been cut was the long drawn out conversation that Camberlin and his wife played by Mira Sorvino had which just went on and one. That is the only scene I didn't like.

At times this film can seem to be preachy and it uses the word God as many times as Pulp Fiction used the F word. However religion and God was very important to Jackson who was a devoted Christian as well as many other characters and this time period.

Now on to the battle scenes. While not as good in my opinion as Gettysburg due to each battle in this film having it's own aspects and such all the battle scenes depict the Civil War as a Civil War. A particularly touching and sad moment is during the Battle of Fredericksburg SPOILERS!!!!!!

The Confederate Irish soldiers fending off their position from a Union regiment of Irish soldiers. Very sad. The battle scenes show for the first time to my knowledge Urban warfare which isn't usually shown in movies dealing with the Civil War. Those scenes were the best in my opinion. The rest of the Battle scenes especially Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville are very well done. They used once again Civil War reanactors, and used a bit of digital soldiers for long shots. I also loved the Americana portrait matte shots of Fredericksburg and other towns and locations. They looked like Thomas Kincade's work. However they really shortened Chancellorsville and just how awesome Jackson's move to hit the Unions flank was great. However this simply isn't shown the right way in my opinion. For those who want to know SPOILERS!!! Jackson forced marched 30,000 men 15 miles around the right flank of the Union lines and won the day. END SPOILERS!!!

The conclusion of this film to me was too rushed, and this was due to once again editing.

Overall Gettysburg was more epic in my opinion due to just how large and bloody the fighting was. The battles in Gods and Generals were really well done but not as big as Gettysburg. However Gods and Generals adds more of the personal and politcal ideology going on leading up to the war. I give this movie a 9 out of 10, and for those who love history go and see this film. For those who don't like history don't bother.

I guess the last phrase "those who don't like history don't bother" applies to most critics who wants movies to make modern day social statements.

[Chief Rum]

STONEWALL JACKSON DIES?!? Well, SHIT! :D :D :D

Chief rum

[Senator]

On the other hand, it may suck. I am seeing it Sunday. And if you can believe it, the wife wants to go. She is a real trooper.

[bamcgee]

' "Gods and Generals" is the kind of movie beloved by people who never go to the movies, because they are primarily interested in something else--the Civil War, for example--and think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute. The film plays like a special issue of American Heritage. ' Roger Ebert.

I think he spells it out rather well - that will likely appeal to some people, including some of the members of this board. I loved the kneejerk reaction to Ebert however - porno indies? hahaha.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

It really irritates me that out of the hundreds of screens ere in the vegas valley . Gods & Generals is only showing on 8 screens .... really ticks me off .

[Anrhydeddu]

I guess you don't follow Ebert's review site at the Sun Times. Nearly every week, he reviews films that come through the small art houses in Chicago, quite a few of which are Not Rated stuff, domestic and foreign. He likes most of them and here's a sample of one, while not highly rated, gives a taste of what he would spend time seeing and reviewing: http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/08/081605.html

Some will argue that such films have a place in society and I would argue that historical films adapted from books have a place in society. Nothing knee jerk about that.

[wbonnell]

I have found that my taste in movies is very similar to Ebert's. Thus, I can usually (but not always) trust his opinion plus or minus one star.

[JPhillips]

That's really the key to reviewers. Find what that shares your taste and follow him. Personally, I tend to trust one of the guys that writes for time. I don't think he's better than others, but he shares my tastes, so I tend to see what he recommends.

[wbonnell]

Any updates? I want the FOFC perspective.

[Anrhydeddu]

I have not seen the movie yet but been thinking about the tone and the presumed “bias”. Shaara’s book accurately reflects the historical tone of the first 2+ years of the war where it truly was full of Confederates hype and charisma. It started off with the highly emotional secessionist movement which carried over into firing on Fort Sumter. When Beauregard’s army was sitting outside Washington, the Union had to respond and the Confederate victory provided even more hype for 1861. For the next year, however, the tide turned against the Confederates in a big way but most of it was in the western theatre which no one cared much about since the first two years, the rallying cry was “On To Richmond” or “On To Washington”. When McClellan failed in the Peninsula Campaign and then Lee brilliantly took the initiative by moving out of the Richmond defenses, the hype was back onto the Confederates, esp. Jackson’s phenomenal Valley Campaign. Lee, Longstreet and Jackson then moved north to capture Manassas Junction and then invaded Maryland. When that failed, it was back to Virginia. But on the battlefield, it was still the Confederates war when they easily repulsed the charges at Fredericksburg and then won the battle at Chancelorsville before invading the North again.

So when they talked about the bias that perhaps too much of the movie was centered around the Confederates, I disagree since, in the Eastern Theatre, much of the glory and hype was on the Confederates. The Confederates had the Secessionists, Lee, Longstreet and Jackson. All the Union had was Lincoln.

If you want to see the tables turned, just wait until the next movie, “Last Full Measure” where you will see the defensive Confederates get pummeled without taking any initiatives as they did in the years covering “Gods and Generals”.

Just some thoughts.

[Wolfpack]

My wife and I saw it Friday night. I love the books and am a Civil War buff in general, though not of the re-enactor persuasion.

I'd give it a B. There are just enough scenes to make the viewer cringe and otherwise think negatively of the movie to prevent it from getting an A, but considering the amount of info involved, they did fairly well.

Do note however, that if you come into this with a high school knowledge of the Civil War, you will find a lot of this movie off-putting since it does little to address the moral and political dimensions of the war and focuses almost exclusively on the generals involved, particularly Jackson and to a lesser extent, Chamberlain (who was a colonel, technically). Since the focus is so heavy on Jackson and somewhat his relationship with Lee and the men under his command, things will generally be presented with "Bonnie Blue Flag" colored glasses.

There is lots of speeching going on in the movie. Not much small talk. The most annoying thing I found was the mother of a Fredericksburg family who had some very horrid cliched crap to say several times during the movie.

The editing isn't that great, as others have said, simply because so much of the story is cut for time. It comes off as a bit choppy. There is a scene where Jackson is farewelling to his troops as he has been promoted, but you have to infer it, since it doesn't say that he's been promoted. I also hated the fact that they dropped Antietam. Single bloodiest day of the war and they couldn't even mention it. Jumps from late 1861 to late 1862 in a blink of an eye. Skips over Jackson's Valley Campaign and the Peninsula, as well. The Peninsula campaign and the Seven Days are precisely where Lee rises to prominence. Instead, all you know of Lee's career is that he turns down the US army command, accepts Virginia's militia command, and just about the next time you see him is at Fredericksburg running the Army of Northern Virginia.

But, enough about weaknesses. When the fighting is raging, it is quite good. Fredericksburg and the charging of Marye's Heights is one of the better battle scenes you'll see in movies (though try to disregard the somewhat artificial nature of the pullback scenes which look rather unsophisticated by modern standards). Lang does a very good job of bringing Jackson (if not his propensity for sucking lemons and holding his left hand up while riding a horse) to life. Duvall looks exactly like Lee does in many pictures you see of him, but doesn't get to do much since the focus is primarily on Jackson. Daniels does a very good job of playing Chamberlain as the only Union character of anything more than cursory presentation in the movie. I have a feeling that if the full six-plus hours were allotted, we'd see a lot more of the Union side, particularly Winfield Hancock, who is prominently featured in Shaara's narratives.

"The Last Full Measure" should be an interesting project, which should give Duvall his due air time as the movie will likely zero in on him and Grant during the campaigns of 1864-5 in Virginia.

If you like Civil War history and know enough of it to know that the scenes presented are fairly accurate in detail and can live with editing that tends to favor the Southern perspective, go see it. If you're not one of these people, I'm not sure if you'll have the patience for the full 3:40. (There is an intermission, BTW)

[Anrhydeddu]

Thanks wolf, that was a really good review, it sounds like something I would say as well. I'm surprised they skipped over Antietam but I would assume we would see that in the full DVD version.

since it does little to address the moral and political dimensions of the war and focuses almost exclusively on the generals involved

I guess this is where some of the criticisms come from but that's not fair since 1) that is exactly what Shaara's book(s) focus on and 2) it is not a general history of the war with modern social agenda as some would demand.

[Anrhydeddu]

As planned, I did see this today.

My overall impression is mixed. Those that would like or appreciate this movie would be Civil War enthusiasts or at least, those interested in 19th US history. I just don't see it reaching a wider audience (maybe the DVD will).

The movie played just a like a book and I don't recall any movie I have seen doing that. What I mean is that we all complain that when they adapt a book to a movie, they take out all character development and just focus on the important points to move the plot along. G&G did not do this. It had many scenes that is drawn out (esp. the dialog), just like in the book. That is an interesting approach to filmmaking, imo, but I'm sure many will be shocked to experience that.

Having said that, it was a long winded movie for me to watch since I really can't hear all of the dialog very well. It seems that many scenes are long monologues. Again, this is true to the book, but for me, it is more comfortable for me read these thoughts instead of listening to them.

I thought the depiction of the Battle of Fredericksburg was superb. This alone, imo, is worth the price of the movie. First Bull Run was focused solely on the soon-to-be-called the Stonewall Brigade and Chancellorsville was the same way (with Jackson's flanking movement and his injury).

The movie is clearly focused on Stonewall Jackson, with Lee, Chamberlain and all of the other stars in supporting roles. The book was the same way and therefore, supports the argument that it is not a general history of the first two years of the war (which many assumed it would be) but really nearly all about Jackson. In that role, Stephen Lang did a superb job.

[WSUCougar]

This is currently available on PPV and I am curious if anyone else has comments or a review to add.

[sianews]

I'm a civil war buff and all, and rarely watch movies that are not historic, but damn...this one was downright boring.

[Celeval]

I've rented it and am hoping to find time to watch this weekend. I liked the book (all of [both] Shaara's work, incl. the Revolutionary War stuff as well), and am looking forward to it.

[ice4277]

I was also going to rent it on PPV soon, but I am glad it is in the on-demand service so I don't have to sit through the whole thing at once.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by ice4277
I was also going to rent it on PPV soon, but I am glad it is in the on-demand service so I don't have to sit through the whole thing at once.

Got my new PVR two days ago, never have to worry about it again.

[ice4277]

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Got my new PVR two days ago, never have to worry about it again.

Nice; I want one as well but am a cheap poor recent college graduate and don't want to shell out the extra cash :(

[GoldenEagle]

I watched this tonight as I recently got it on DVD. I have a pretty wide knowledge of the Civil War, and could debate with Buc and some of the others forever about it. The movie to me, tried to split interest between casual movie viewers and civil war buffs and it just did not work out. It is still not a bad movie though.

[Cards4ever]

Does anyone know when Last Full Measure is going to come out?