 |
The orchestra should have stayed home. The music not only overwhelmed, but virtually destroyed the magnificent panoply of Civil War infantry in action, taking what would, most certainly, have been a world class platinum award production. Robert Duvall was much more nearly convincing as General Lee than was Martin Sheen in 'Gettysburg', another extraordinary docudrama requiring only the 'field music' and the ad hoc performances typical of the time; again, the production was virtually destroyed by the orchestra. In many of the battle scenes, the orders of the officers, noncoms and file closers can almost be made out over the racket made by all the dameed stringed instruments; with no orchestra, the impact of 'Pickett's Charge' would have been, I think, absulutely stunning, the same dismal fact is present in 'Gods and Generals'. The Union attack against Marye's Heights suffers much from having the orders drowned out, although the advance of the Union infantry appears to be true to the contemporary observation that 'the troops went forward hunched over, as though walking against a heavy rain.' Bruce Boxleitner is okay as Longstreet, but not really convincing in the character. I don't know that everybody on the Union side was fighting to free anybody, since most of the Northern troops had no experience of slaves; I know that my family's field journals and correspondence make no mention of slaves, slavery or any particular interest in freeing anybody; not until 1864 do they begin to show any attention to 'coloreds' or 'negroes', the few references note that now that they are free in Union occuppied areas they are lost because there is no provision whatever for them, there is no cash in the south to hire labor, and work for the Union military is very haphazard, consisting mostly of burying the dead of both sides. I don't know if any house slaves discussed their situations with any Union troops or not (as is shown at Fredricksburg when the federal troops briefly occuppied the area), but I'd doubt that such a conversation ever took place. Artistic license can only be stretched so far. Over all, because of the detrimental effect of the overloud and tedious music, I'd rate 'God and Generals' from so-so to pretty good; If this, Gettysburg and The Last Full Measure were available without the orchestra, and the politically correct fabricated theme of slavery, I think that they would be very nearly etermal classics, military docudrama the way it ought to be done; as they are, they'okay as entertainment, but I'd get good condition used copies and not spring for new ones.Read full review
I loved this movie, though it is not as generally appealing as "Gettysburg", every adult and every student in the 9th grade up should be required to see both! I bought it to send to a European friend who knows nothing about our war, but is very curious; this should really help explain who and where, and why. Lang gave a studied, sensitive portrayal of Jackson that was a gem. My ancestor was in the 9th LA "Fighting Tigers" and stood with him at the moment he was named Stonewall, so the Manassas battle had me digging for a tissue, which I used several times at moving moments. The man next to me openly cried, too. Why was it so much about the South was someone's comment. Well, the South dominated the war for the first two years, until Gettysburg, until the North could organize their superior resources and bring their overwhelming numbers against the better led Southern forces. I feel this movie is a necessary introduction to "Gettysburg", especially for someone who does not know every battle detail. This is definately not Hollywood's version of the war! I tip my bonnet to Ted Turner for going back and making this movie, knowing it would not have the huge financial payback of "Gettysburg", for wanting to leave an accurate history for future viewers while he could.Read full review
This movie is a flawed,civil war experience that is not without merit. It features a fine performance by Stephen Lang as CSA General Thomas Stonewall Jackson and provides some well needed, but often neglected, historical points. Those familiar with the film "Gettysburg" will undoubtedly open discussion as to whether Robert Duvall or Martin Sheen did a better job as Robert E. Lee. This is not "Apocalypse Civil War", no performance is over the top. To the contrary, they are subdued. Indeed the cast and authenticity of the production are very good and make for the best parts. The problem is the film's length and at times its coherency. Is this a film on battles, or a case study of a General, Jackson, who fights them and lives during a terrible war. It's best if you have a good general idea of the period of the American Civil War. If you are engaged by this film, you'll want to seek more information. The fact that the Union contained four slaves states is but one point I refer to. Overall, it was a worthwhile experience, but not an ideal movie.Read full review
I am an avid Civil War history buff as well as a serious reenactor so I might look at this movie a little differently from your average movie watcher. First, I think Ron Maxwell made a serious mistake by attempting to use some of the same actors for the same roles as he used in Gettysburg. Gods and Generals technically should have been the first movie made in the Shaara trilogy since it deals with the beginning of the Civil War but since The Killer Angels (the book the movie Gettysburg was based on) was written first in the 1970s that work actually predated Gods and Generals, which was not written until much later. I thought Jeff Daniels portrayal of Col. Joshua Chamberlain was exceptional in Gettysburg but in God and Generals when Daniels reprised that role he looked older, heavier, and basically uninterested and unmotivated. Why would he look this way? Because he actually is older and heavier in this film in a role that if anything he should have looked younger and more fit in than Gettysburg since he is portraying a more youthful Chamberlain in Gods and Generals. That is just one example but there are several others in the film as well. Also, how does one make a Civil War movie about the first two years of the war and completely omit the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in 1862? That battle still earns the honor of being our nation's single bloodiest day in its history but yet it is not included at all in the movie! Terrible mistake! I understand it was filmed but it ended up on the cutting room floor in order to make the movie shorter in length! But yet they included way too much footage of the Battle of Fredericksburg, which just seemed to drag on and on. Also, on a technical note, when Robert E. Lee went to Washington, DC in 1861 to meet with Mr. Blair on President Lincoln's request to offer Lee generalship in the Union army, Lee would have actually appeared much younger than the gray-headed and bearded Lee that Robert Duvall portrayed. Maxwell decided to use the image of Lee that everyone is most familiar with but it is not historically accurate as Lee actually had brownish-red hair at the beginning of the war and it did not turn significantly gray until well into the war. On the positive side, the movie is beautifully filmed and the soundtrack, although not nearly as powerful and memorable as the music in Gettysburg, is for the most part well done. The high point of the movie for me is Stephen Lang's portrayal of General "Stonewall" Jackson. Lang had a small role in Gettysburg, playing General George Pickett but in Gods and Generals he completely dominates the movie. Jackson's character is complex to say the least (see James I. Robertson's monumental book "Stonewall Jackson"). Robertson's book was used extensively to accurately portray Jackson in this movie and Lang seemed as if he knew Jackson's spirit and personality completely. There can be little doubt that Lang took this challenge very seriously to recreate an American legend as faithfully correct as possible and he succeeds. I would have to rate Lang's role as Jackson as one of the best all-time performances of an actor portraying a historical figure. Robert Duvall or Martin Sheen as Lee? Personally, I would have liked to have seen Sheen brought back to reprise his role as Lee as he did a commendable job in Gettysburg but I understand he was unavailable or just not interested. In summary, a movie worth watching if for no other reason than Stephen Lang.Read full review
only reason i give a good and not excellent is because if your following the trilogy...gods and generals should have come before gettysburg with "the last full measure " to finish the three.i wish they would make the movie allready before the actors get too old. im very into civil war films, i have g and d's on vid as well as dvd and the soundtrack, same goes for gettysburg which i think is outstanding, but the problem here is its kind of difficult watching god's and then watch gettysburg (which by history dates was before god's)with many of the actors in both films 10 yrs older and not notice, not to mention that stephen lang played pickett in gettysburg, then gets to meet himself in god's as jackson, and in my opinion, martin sheen made a better lee
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Best Selling in DVDs & Blu-ray Discs
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- Save on DVDs & Blu-ray Discs
Current slide {CURRENT_SLIDE} of {TOTAL_SLIDES}- You may also like
