StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ok, I'm no movie critic, but I'll take a stab at giving you all the run down on the Gods and Generals movie I got out of not more than an hour ago. I'll give you the main plot, because pretty much about the American Civil War, and if you don't know your Civil War history you'd probably be better off giving this one a miss.

The film starts out in early 1861, before Virginia seceeds from the Union. Opening sequence shows Robert Duvall as Colonel Robert E Lee, US Army, turning down the offer to lead the Union army against the south. Duvall absolutely nails the look for Lee. Duvall Looks more like the general than Martin Sheen ever did, but his voice just didn't seem to fit Lee the way Sheen's voice did.

Next up, you meet Stephen Lang, portraying Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson. If you know your history books, you'll know that Jackson taught at the Virginia Military Institute before the secession crisis, and his opening scene of course, features him teaching classes at VMI. For those of you who remember the Gettysburg movie, Lang also had the role of General George Pickett. Lang handles the different southern personality very well, and captures Jackson's eccentricities to the best of his ability. It is not long before you forget Lang's latter role and accept him as the legendary Southern commander.

We're then reunited with Professor Joshua L Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels), as he's teaching classes in Bowdoin college in Maine. You probably know Prof. Chamberlain better as Colonel Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine of Gettysburg fame. Here, you get a drawn out and rather boring scene of him and his wife Fanny (Mira Sorvino) discussing his decision to join the Union army. Fanny gives a speech that's pretty much sentimental bullshit, and makes you want to pour acid into your ear canal.

After that, you pretty much get a plathora of rah rah speeches, poetry citings, and the occasional bible quote from various figures in the movie. Lee gets up in front of the Virginia congress, says some very nice things about Virginia, his will to fight, and God's will. Various wives and mothers of soldiers lament (rather blandly) about their loved ones going off to bear the terrible burden of war, and how they will quietly sit by and hope for the best. A couple of stern speeches from commanders to troops. Speeches, speeches, speeches. A lot of people just break out into speeches in this movie. History buff Irishmick was digging it. Movie critic Irishmick was getting ready to gouge his eyes out.

FINALLY, things start progressing again. Jackson's training his brigade up at Harper's Ferry. He gets word that the Union is *gasp* on the move, and it's time to strike a blow for Virginia. Troops cheer wildly, because they're about to go do something brave and daring, and they've apparently got nothing better to do but cheer wildly at the opportunity to get killed. Cut to - soldiers marching....soldiers boarding trains.....soldiers talking....well, you get the idea.

Jackson's troops finally arrive on the field at first manassas, Jackson does some more praying, and leads his men to victory on the field of battle. The first manassas battle had absolutely no drama to it whatsoever. It was like you were just suddenly, there. The arrival to the actual battle was akwardly paced, and it just seem to get there at the wrong moment in the film. The battle didn't look all that bad, but it just seemed akward. Granted, the film is four hours long, and director Ron Maxwell had to cut 2 hours out to make the sit tolerable. No big deal.

Ok, here's where my first major gripe comes in. The Battle of Antietam was COMPLETELY cut from the movie. Antietam was a pivotal point in 1862, allowing Lincoln to release the Emancipation Proclimation. Also, it featured the end of Union commander George McCLellan's involvement in the eastern theater. Along with Antietam, McClellan was completely cut in the movie. Kind of surprising to me, since he was such a central figure in the early part of the war for the north. For a Civil War movie styled like this to not mention these two things is atrocious. Hopefully, the antietam sequence will be reinstated when the movie comes out on DVD.

You quickly cut to Fredricksburg after Manassas, and this scene (when the characters aren't actually discussing topics other than battle plans) is impressive. Watching wave after wave of Union troops march up the heights only to get slaughtered by dug in confederates was frightening and disturbing. The nightfall after the day of battle only brought new horrors for the Federals, as you could see them lying on the field using the bodies of their dead comerades as shields against confederate sharpshooters. The film captures the events of the battle perfectly, even featuring the Union crossing of the Rhappahanock into Fredricksburg two days before the actual battle. The only thing I can really fault is Chamberlain, before his regiment makes the suicidal charge, quoting poetry at the top of his lungs, topped off with him shouting, "Hail Ceasar!"

Intermission. After intermission, you get a stream of some more sentamentalist bullshit, and you get Stonewall Jackson developing a charming relationship with a little five year old local girl named Jane. Heartwarming scenes of Stonewall playing with said girl, to show that he's not all "blood and guts".

Unfortunately, the federals decide to break up the little party by moving again, this time to Chancellorsville. As Stonewall is leaving for the front, the little girl dies of scarlet fever. For the only time during the war, his staff sees him break down and cry when he gets the news.

Now, on to the battle of chancellorsville. TO make this review a little shorter, it should suffice to say that the director made great efforts to incoporate historical detail. It's a pretty impressive scene, culinating with Jackson being shot down by his own troops as he scouts the federal position for a night attack. The movie concludes with Jackson's own death shortly after the battle.

All and all, I've got to give the director a lot of credit for paying attention to historical detail. As a civil war buff, I can say that the presentation of the fighting styles and the uniforms was damn near flawless. The director cares alot about getting his source material right, and it shows.

On the downside, this is an absolutely horrible movie to sit through. The characters who weren't soldiers were simply not compelling, and their speeches and poems were boring as hell. There's alot of mushy sentiment to get through. For me, having Stonewall Jackson as a primary character was a double-edged sword. He's an interesting character, but he's also a character who's kind of hard to like.

Overall, I'd say 2.5 out of 5 stars. Historical detail and well-done presentation of battle make this a good movie. The bland characters and bad speechwriting make this a bad movie.

I just saw it too. It's historically accurate, like you said, but I agree that it is painful to sit through especially after 4 hours. Poems, speeches, blah blah. If you like Civil war movies and can sit through some of the boring parts, I think you should see this. Otherwise, just stay far back.

A local movie critic was saying how it's more sympathetic to the Confederacy than he was comfortable with.
The 700 Club was praising the christian virtue of Jackson.
I want to see it for myself, badly.

I enjoyed it the second time through much better than the first time I saw it at an advanced screener.

The speeches were not problematic, it were the people who gave them that were. Specifically, I noted that each time the movie DRAGGED was when one of the damn women was speaking. They were just horrible, with the exception of Mira Sorvino. I actually found her to be quite convincing. But that old lady.. man, she just kept pissing me off each time I saw her on stage, and her daughters.. just horrible, horrible! If Ron Maxwell cut out all of their parts, this movie would've been GOOOD.

The Bible verses were a must I believe. These were strong Christian men and some married into preacher's families. Jackson was a religious fanatical.

The thing about the long winded speeches and huge downtime between battles I could accept because it was a different time when words were also weapons, and the Civil War was not just battles. It was a big chess game. A lot of moving and setting up jockying for a favorable position. Also, these men were geniuses.. their ability to be more verbose is acceptable to me given their intellect and their time period when it was the classics and Bible they learned, not MTV.

I saw it on friday night, I thought it was a pretty good movie, altho it did drag on alot.

I will never understand this morbid fascination that Americans have for re-living their civil war. You people obsess over it in a manner that's just not healthy. I can't recall any period of time when there wasn't something out there; a movie, a mini-series, a documentary, something for civil war buffs and re-enactors to talk about. Americans talk about that war as much as WW2, if not more.

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this morbid fascination that Americans have for re-living their civil war. You people obsess over it in a manner that's just not healthy. I can't recall any period of time when there wasn't something out there; a movie, a mini-series, a documentary, something for civil war buffs and re-enactors to talk about. Americans talk about that war as much as WW2, if not more.

Well, it was an extremely important event, it's essential in defining the history of the nation. But I do agree, I think we need to just play Dixie and The Battle Hymn of the Republic side-by-side and move on.

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this morbid fascination that Americans have for re-living their civil war. You people obsess over it in a manner that's just not healthy. I can't recall any period of time when there wasn't something out there; a movie, a mini-series, a documentary, something for civil war buffs and re-enactors to talk about. Americans talk about that war as much as WW2, if not more.

Well considering it killed more then twice as many Americans as where lost in both world wars combined, it make sense. The fact that more then half the US population can easily reach a Civil war battlefield, while WW2 battlefields require plane trips is also part of it.

I'd like to visit Normandy again, and see the Somme and Verdun, but in the time it takes to fly to Europe I can drive to Gettysburg, walk ten miles across the battlefield and then go home while spending a few bucks for gas.

Supposedly I guess it's because it was Americans fighting and killing Americans that makes the Civil War so obsessive, but then there's that weird hero worship of people like Lee, Jackson, or Grant.

And yes, these people are scary. I used to have one for a classmate, who is now on his way to West Point. And he was a biblical fundamentalist as well.


Bad combination.

I've heard this movie engages in some serious Southern apologism...now I'm all for viewing Civil War era Southerners as something other that inbred, racist, evil hicks beyond redemption, but not THAT much...

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this morbid fascination that Americans have for re-living their civil war. You people obsess over it in a manner that's just not healthy. I can't recall any period of time when there wasn't something out there; a movie, a mini-series, a documentary, something for civil war buffs and re-enactors to talk about. Americans talk about that war as much as WW2, if not more.

Being a Civil War buff myself , and a former re-enactor (19th Indiana, Iron Brigade )I think we have such an obsession over it because it was such a truly defining period in American history. Our nation as we know it hung in the balance in a way unlike anything since Washington was alive. This combined with the fact that it was a blood bath more terrible than WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam combined(Chancellorsville alone cost 30,000 dead in FOUR days of fighting) has the effect of searing it into the national conciousness. As an American I look on it with both a sense of horror and awe, and I need to know more, to understand what was so important that perfectly reasonalble, well educated(by their own standards) were willing to wage brutal war on men that a few months earlier they would have called brother, and countryman. In 1775, Carolina farmers and New England freeholders fought side by side aginst the British in the Revolution, why in less than a century were they willing to slaughter each other at Antietam, Fredricksburg, the Wilderness, Vicksburg and Chickamauga...... Along with this , the Civil War produced some of the most compelling ang fascinating personalities in the last two centuries, J.E.B. Stuart, Longstreet, McClellan, Lincoln, Davis(who fought with Jackson at New Orleans as a Lt. in the Mississippi Rifles in 1814) John Bell Hood, Grant, Hooker, Burnsides, Sherman, and of course Robert E. Lee. Unhealthy probably, but its important to us.

Darth Wong wrote:I will never understand this morbid fascination that Americans have for re-living their civil war. You people obsess over it in a manner that's just not healthy. I can't recall any period of time when there wasn't something out there; a movie, a mini-series, a documentary, something for civil war buffs and re-enactors to talk about. Americans talk about that war as much as WW2, if not more.

I'm sure Canadians would obsess over a civil war of that magnitude if it ever had one. Hell, ANY nation would obsess over a civil war of that scale.

I think I can see why Jeff Sharra and Ron Maxwell picked the three battles chosen to be the focus for the book and the movie while ignoring pivotal events such as Antietam and figures such as George McClellan, given the context of the trilogy.

Manassas was the battle which set the pattern for the war and of course established Stonewall Jackson's reputation. Fredricksburg was the battle which hardened the South's determination to resist the North to the death —particularly after the wholesale looting and vandalism in the town wrought by the occupying force. And Chancellorsville set the stage for Gettysburg and largely determined the outcome of that epochal battle and the entire war. It spurred Lee's determination to decide the war with a single showdown battle up north, and it doomed him to failure when he lost the commander who would have pressed aggressively to seize the Round Tops and gain the high ground over Meade on the first day.

Fredricksburg and Chancellorsville also underscored the crippling incompetence in battlefield leadership which hamstrung the Union war effort and resulted in such needless waste of men for two and a half years.

There were rarely events like the American Civil War in history. It was TRULY a unique event.

Looking at the chief players, you have officers who graduated at the top of their classes from U.S. Military institutes, and served faithfully for a number of years and fought for their country in the Mexican War. During those times they formed strong friendships with each other, serving as best-men at each other's weddings, they truly were a band of brothers.

But then, because of political bickering you have the Southern states seceeding from the Union that these men were sworn to protect. Yet a number of them, their homes and families were in what was then identified as the new enemy, the confederacy. It was a decision between their Union or their homes and many chose to defend their homes while some stayed to defend the Union. Perhaps the best example could be that of General Hancock and Armistead, truly a heartwrenching story of two 'brothers' on opposite sides finally fatally meeting again at Gettysburg.

Perhaps the great tragedy in this was they did not part as enemy, but parted as sad friends. I don't think they saw each other as enemies which probably hurt them a great deal as they attempted to kill each other. The other conflict was Christianity. They had to resolve their faith and their actions. People like Lee and Jackson believed that God had a plan and that it was in His hands. It is easy to see why Jackson was hero-worshipped. He was a devil on the battlegrounds. Lee was a different case, he was truly the gentleman general. A very devoutly religious man, honorable, dedicated, cosiderate, and furthermore a genius. In my mind he's that quiet leader, the most charismatic kind that you're willing to do silly things for.

In the Civil War, 600 thousand brothers died. That is the legacy of the Civil War in my mind. Brothers killing brothers.

Shinova : Which people are scary? The people who have an interest in the civil war of the generals of that time? The Generals, if you read your history a little bit it's not too hard to see why they're hero-worshipped. I love Robert E. Lee for the reasons described above. I don't believe there has ever been a General like him that could instill that type of love and devotion in their troops. He wasn't one to coerce his men, he LEAD them. And eegads that they be fundamentalists too. The horror, horror [sarcasm].

Durran : Southern Apologism? I think not. There is too much PC sugar coating on American history. Being a person of color and having grown up in liberal California, even I can see that. Read your history.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I'm sure Canadians would obsess over a civil war of that magnitude if it ever had one. Hell, ANY nation would obsess over a civil war of that scale.

Not really.

The Wars of the Roses isn't as highly revered in England, nor is the English Civil War much either.

Shinova wrote:Supposedly I guess it's because it was Americans fighting and killing Americans that makes the Civil War so obsessive, but then there's that weird hero worship of people like Lee, Jackson, or Grant.

And yes, these people are scary. I used to have one for a classmate, who is now on his way to West Point. And he was a biblical fundamentalist as well.


Bad combination.

Lee, Jackson, Sherman, Sheridan, Longstreet, and Grant deserve every bit of credit they have recived over the years because they were damn good officers. And I used too be a Wackco Fundie going too West Point. No, I'm an atheist going too West Point possibly.

Trytostaydead wrote:
Shinova : Which people are scary? The people who have an interest in the civil war of the generals of that time? The Generals, if you read your history a little bit it's not too hard to see why they're hero-worshipped. I love Robert E. Lee for the reasons described above. I don't believe there has ever been a General like him that could instill that type of love and devotion in their troops. He wasn't one to coerce his men, he LEAD them. And eegads that they be fundamentalists too. The horror, horror [sarcasm].

You'd honestly not be scared of a guy who, in history class, would almost preach about the Civil War almost every day? A guy who, apparently cause the class didn't have enough Christianity content, dropped out of AP Literature even when he had good grades in that class? A guy who carries a bible, in a frickin-CASE, in his backpack EVERY day?? Who READS it and often PREACHES it to people in his class!!?? A guy who said something like that he's proud to go to West Point cause, "It's the only place that has any honor left in this country." ?????

Shinova wrote:
You'd honestly not be scared of a guy who, in history class, would almost preach about the Civil War almost every day? A guy who, apparently cause the class didn't have enough Christianity content, dropped out of AP Literature even when he had good grades in that class? A guy who carries a bible, in a frickin-CASE, in his backpack EVERY day?? Who READS it and often PREACHES it to people in his class!!?? A guy who said something like that he's proud to go to West Point cause, "It's the only place that has any honor left in this country." ?????

Well, when you put it that way.. I was thinking fundamentalist as in maybe a simple proud protestant, not a Jehovah's Witness lol. I thought going to West Point would've been cool, but my parents vetoed that hahaha.

I hear there is not a single depiction of slavery in the movie. (Mind you I have not seen it I could be wrong) I would call that being an apoplogist. Frankly I'm getting sick and tired of pro-Confederate folks focussing the issue on states rights and ignoring that VERY BLACK MARK on US History.

Slavery is an incredibly complex issue. First of all, a lot of the Southern Generals (who make up this movie) thought slavery as deplorable. Jackson, the main character, while he wasn't as disgusted by it as Lee he believed that it had a purpose and that a day would come when slavery would be phased out, he just believed it wasn't man's decision.

Second, if they wanted to portray the issue of racial bigotry, my god.. the North REALLY treated blacks FAR worse than the South during those times. There were active mobbings and lynchings in the North. The South also thought about arming their blacks as well, but when the North did it first, it kind of pissed them off.

So what it boils down is that there were racists on both sides of the war. I'm sure people would not be happy to see blacks hanging from lamp-posts in the North, would they?

But as for the issue of slavery, IMO while it was a big part of the civil war it was just the catalyst over the big issue of state rights and the electoral process. The boiling point. And since this movie is really about the Generals and other big characters of the armies of the North and South.. well, what do you want?

And from all accounts, during the Civil War the Southern Army behaved MUCH more admirably and gentlemanly than the North.

Yes, we've all heard the Southern States' apologist bullshit before. They just loved blacks, as long as they knew their place and remained slaves And the slavery issue was just the catalyst, which somehow erases the fact that the South unrepentantly fought to keep slavery.

AdmiralKanos wrote:Yes, we've all heard the Southern States' apologist bullshit before. They just loved blacks, as long as they knew their place and remained slaves And the slavery issue was just the catalyst, which somehow erases the fact that the South unrepentantly fought to keep slavery.

Yet 90 years prior, the North was basically fighting to keep slavery with the South against the British, who were in the process of declaring slavery illegal and phasing it out.

Mind you I'm not saying paint the Southern generals as monsters or characture villains or racists, all I'm sayng is that not showing one of the main reasons for the war (the Emancapation Proclamation is NOT dealing with states rights, slavery WAS a central issue for Lincoln and many Northerners.) is like having an elephant in the room and not talking about it.

Part of the reason why the civil war was so complex a story is because you had honorable men defending a horrid instutition. You cannot paint Lee as a saint and ignore the slavery he was defending. Nor can Northerners say they wer enlightened and pure. Check out Gangs of New York, there was a very stark depiction of racial tension in the movie with lynchings going on from pissed of Northerners during the Draft Riot. A movie like Glory showed that PERFECTLY. It showed the horrors of slavery from the black characters and all that they endured YET showed racism among the Northerners and the despicable behavior of Northern officers. Glory was a well balanced civil war movie IMHO.

If what I read about Gods and Generals is correct, this movie is NOT.

Who said they loved blacks? Who said the North loved blacks? The whole issue was not social acceptance but legality.

The issue was whether or not a handful of States could dictate their demands over the rest of the country because of population votes. Before the civil war there were a number of compromises that tried to resolve these issues but failed. And even Lincoln tried to shy away from the slave issue until the war started (explained brilliantly in G&G).

I strongly suggest you read your history before claiming bullshit.

And as I said before, this movie is about the top Generals and soldiers of the Civil War, and most of them did not agree with slavery, doesn't mean they LOVED blacks though, neither did the North.

Stravo wrote:Mind you I'm not saying paint the Southern generals as monsters or characture villains or racists, all I'm sayng is that not showing one of the main reasons for the war (the Emancapation Proclamation is NOT dealing with states rights, slavery WAS a central issue for Lincoln and many Northerners.) is like having an elephant in the room and not talking about it.

Part of the reason why the civil war was so complex a story is because you had honorable men defending a horrid instutition. You cannot paint Lee as a saint and ignore the slavery he was defending. Nor can Northerners say they wer enlightened and pure. Check out Gangs of New York, there was a very stark depiction of racial tension in the movie with lynchings going on from pissed of Northerners during the Draft Riot. A movie like Glory showed that PERFECTLY. It showed the horrors of slavery from the black characters and all that they endured YET showed racism among the Northerners and the despicable behavior of Northern officers. Glory was a well balanced civil war movie IMHO.

If what I read about Gods and Generals is correct, this movie is NOT.

First of all, the emancipation proclamation was made DURING the war. Before the war Lincoln tried his best to shy away from dealing with slavery.

Secondly, yes.. that is a bit of trouble. But Lee was not defending slavery. God knows neither was Longstreet nor Jackson. They were devastated men when they had to leave their Union that they fought so long to protect and serve, that they gave an OATH to, and these men were VERY honorable men. What they were fighting for was their home. To them, home was the most important.