Just got back. Went to the 9:00 p.m. showing, which means that I got back home, well, late. It's a 4-hour movie, if you count the intermission. Yes, I said intermission. I think this was the first movie I've seen in a theater with an intermission. OK, I've got that out of the way. If you go into this movie expecting "Gettysburg," you'll be disappointed. "Gods and Generals" delves more into the story behind the characters, specifically Stonewall Jackson, the focus of the film. We also get a look at the cost of the war on civilians, something that was ignored in "Gettysburg." If you're a fan of the book, you'll probably be happy, because the film is quite faithful to the book. Obviously, with a book close to 600 pages, even a 4-hour movie can't come close to fitting it all in. The movie is mostly the Stonewall Jackson story, with Lee, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Hancock thrown in at times. I enjoyed it though. I'm glad I saw it, and will certainly get the DVD when it comes out. If you liked "Gettysburg," you'll probably like "Gods and Generals," and if you liked the book, I think you'll certainly like the movie. I know I did.
I was wondering when I saw some of the quotes in the trailer from "unnamed" critics saying it was the best Civil War movie ever, etc. It seems pretty universally reviled...of the 69 critics to review it so far, only 6 have even mildly liked it? Ouch...That's Juwanna Mann territory. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GodsandGenerals-10000981/
Anyone suspect that the release of Gods and Generals timed so that it couldn't be considered for this year's Razzies, and to increase the likelihood that it would be forgotten by the time next year's nominations roll around?
i think this was one of those films for history lovers only. i don't think alot of people understood what it was going to be about. i enjoyed it alot because there was almost no historical innacuracy and it didn't glorify war through terribly violent battle scenes. i think alot of people expected this to be another war movie and they were wrong. this one was about thomas jackson and probably did better in the south than it has up north. most of the grumbling i heard on the way out involved people just missing the point "what was with all the religious crap" and "why wasn't there more fighting" people don't want stories anymore they just want something they just want sex and blood spilling which is fine that's very entertaining but to say this movie is terrible is wrong you're just holding it to incorrect standards. keep in mind this is coming from a guy who's watched Ken Burn's civil war like 9 times and plans on watching it again this weekend. and really loves the leaders of the south in the civil war.
I enjoyed the battle scenes from this movie and they definitely did their homework as far as historical accuracy is concerned. The thing that makes this movie suck so much is that it tries too hard to be grand and comes off being cheesy. Especially, the over the top dialogue and the omnipresent orchestra playing in the background. Plus, how can they have a 225 minute movie but still leave out Antietam, one of the most important battles of the war?
I have to admit that I was also surprised that there wasn't any mention of Antietam. It pretty much skipped from Manassas/Bull Run straight to Fredericksburg. IrishFS1921, I think you hit the nail right on the head as to why the movie wasn't critically received. The reviews I read talked about how the battle scenes were "sanitized." Frankly, I found that refreshing...I'm not in to all the blood and guts depiction myself. Yes, this is a movie for history lovers, and people who enjoyed the books. And no, that's not a very broad market, and financially might not have made the most sense. But this is a movie that definitely falls into the "labor of love" category.
I have not seen this movie, so I can't judge it yet, but I have heard that one of it's problems is that it's not violent enough. Yes, that's what I said. It's cinematic Predecessor Gettysburg was a great story, but if they want to be as accurate as possible, it could be a lot bloodier. There was one seen in G-burg where a group of men, get shot at point blank range by an artillery cannon, and all they do is fall down. In real life, that cannon ball would rip through all of them. I thought "Glory" had the best battle scenes of any Civil War Movie to date. Any thoughts?
Just saw it today in Gettysburg and I thought it was good, although boring at times. Im a big history and civil war guy, so I pretty much knew going in that I would like it. Last week we had the director and a few others give a lecture at school and they're main emphasis was the historical accuracy of the film, especially the extra money that was paid to shoot it on or very near location. The guy in charge of the historical accuracy of the film got very riled up when someone mentioned the bad reviews. He talked about how the critics didn't or couldn't understand that it was real history not historical fiction like Saving Privaete Ryan, for example. He criticized another civil war being made, Cold Mountain, because it was being made in Romania with Romanian soldiers playing the parts of their Civil War counterparts. He said that that wasn't "our" history and got quite upset about it. But I dont think he truly understood the whole concept of a movie going experience. He described himself as someone who rarely ever sees movies and, ironically, one of the critics of his movie, Roger Ebert addressed that in his review: ""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" All in all a worthy movie for me. It didnt have the majic of Gettysburg but it did out into film several of the scenes that I have read through the years about the Civil War. PS I will definitly get the dvd where the entire 6 hour original version of the movie will be shown, including the battle of Antietam which was wholly cut from the theater version.
the problem with historical films is this. if a movie like that was all blood and guts and made thomas out to be just this murdering maniac. and the battle scenes where wholy inaccurate and drawn out then you get people with all these skewed views of american history. of course without that no one cares to watch it what most people don't understand about those battle scenes is that alot of those "actors" are american civil war reenactors having scenes with exploding arms and blown up heads and the such is stuff alot of those guys won't participate in because they feel it glorfies war and takes away from the history. when i reenacted the craziest it got was some hand to hand. which is really hard to coordinate with weekend warriors. guys tend to loose gear in those things and are not so keen on it. just trying to shed a little perspective. glory is a good "film" but as far as "civil war movie" i don't think it's the best. i enjoyed "the birth of a nation" because it's a historic persepective and of course it was one of the first major films in history. and regardless of it's glorfication of the Klan i can still enjoy it. i also enjoyed Gettysburg due to the gravity and overwhleming achievements of the film. gods and generals again was a great story and i feel mostly an attempt to share a little history with people.
God that book was awful. Dutifully read it because it was a Christmas present. And I needed some new ties.
The best historical movies tend to be the ones that are less concerned with historical accuracy than with a skewed but literate story.
Well, that explains why Antietam wasn't in the movie. And also why the film reviewer in my local paper mentioned that it was shot on location at Antietam. I just thought he was being an idiot and confused it with Fredericksburg. Ebert summed this discussion up perfectly, BTW.
Well I finally went and saw it today, and I admit I slept through long stretches of Jackson quoting the bible. Good, long, and frequent sleep it was too. I went in thinking this was going to be terrible, and so was honestly somewhat pleased when I found it to be less terrible than I thought it would be. Everything about the characters "making speeches" instead of talking to one another, and the clear bible-belt Southern-apologist slant to the film, has already been discussed. I found these things to be redundant and at times inexcusable as well as many others have. The only things I have to add are these: the film I think makes the essential mistake of treating these people as histoical figureheads, displaying them as we see their legend today, rather than making an attempt to humanize them, which I thought was a shame, as there were some really good actors who had little or nothing to do outside of quoting long passages from history books, or in the case of Jeff Daniels (who I thought was the best actor in the film), quoting long passages of semi-related literature. Also, this film's "historical accuracy" only goes so far as what I imagine southerners who still romanticize this period consider their truth and their experience, and as such is so romanticized that I chuckle a bit at those who refer to this as being "historically accurate". Even the battles, especially Fredricksburg, displayed a certain sacrifice of accuracy for drama. For example, there is no way that the 20th Maine could have withstood such a lengthy period of exchanging volleys in front of the wall on Marye's Heights. In real life, they fired a single volley, and wisely hit the dirt, where they stayed, pinned down by heavy fire, for two nights and a day. They certainly didn't get any sleep, and I laughed at them "waking up" the next morning, in bright sunshine, to the sound of a few gunshots. Yikes. At some point during the middle of this movie, between my naps, I realized that Ted Turner has made a film that he can endlessely show on his network without significant editing. But Mira Sorvino. Yum. Me likey.
i went and saw it last weekend, and i agree that it's a movie that's for history lovers only, but it does fall short of gettysburg.
It depends on the history you like. To paraphrase a review of this film: Note to the director - The South lost, get over it.