Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

fredroyer Holy cow, is this a terrible movie. Maxwell got the title right but got everything else wrong. I've read all 3 books countless times: Gods and Generals, The Killer Angels, and The Last Full Measure.This movie is 4 hours long and there are long, long, long stretches where Maxwell made stuff up. This movie has nothing to do with the book. There's nothing about Hancock and Armistead in California, Jackson going to see his mothers grave. Why would Maxwell cut out the Battle of Sharpsburg just so he could write endless scenes of Stonewall Jackson that never even happened?The point of view is entirely from the Confederacy - the movie smacks of "Lost Cause". The whole point of the book was to establish the point of view from both sides: here we get nothing but Jackson and little bit of Chamberlain.The death of Jackson is endless. I think it goes on almost 25 minutes. By the way, Robert E. Lee was a Lt. Col when he resigned from the US Army, not a full bird Colonel.

Absinthevideo I can understand why this failed at the box office and in the theatres; where people with the attention span of goldfish start reaching for their phone after 15 seconds, but as a movie to watch on your own time in your own pace; it holds up pretty well after a little shaky start.I must disclaim that I don't know anything about the American Civil War; apart from the fact that it was a nasty business and about that slavery business; it is probably for the best the Union won. Otherwise, every movie claiming to be absolutely 'truthful' about a war has to be taken with a grain of salt. For some reason the moral high ground in the film does seem to be occupied by the Confederacy; as a film about the conflict it simply didn't investigate enough the reasons for or indeed why the war started. We simply see Lee refusing command of the US. army in an opening scene and that's about it as to politics. Indeed the war just starts and everything else from that point onwards could be seen as propaganda seen from one side or the other.But - it is as a character portrait of general Stonewall Jackson and an investigation of the early course of the war itself where this movie really starts to shine. I found Stephen Lang's portrayal of a man who at one hand is a devout Christian given to compassion and prayer and on the other a merciless general; how those elements mixed up in him to be very interesting and compelling. The film does lean very heavily on his shoulders for depth and psychology, even Robert Duvall's general Lee story seem to be unable to do anything but to orbit around Jackson's character. There are a lot of long speeches and prayers going out left right and centre; but like Jackson the movie stands alone in the room like an antiquated piece of furniture and is very comfortable doing just that; being weird and slow and spiritual compared to our modern sensibilities. I liked that eccentricity about the film.Second; the battle scenes are just excellent, beautifully shot and choreographed and by the looks of it; historically accurate. Most movies can just afford about one large scale encounter; here you have a whole campaign. If you like that sort of stuff here's an abundance. Little details like fraternisation at Christmas between forces, the Irish ending up fighting their own down to the music and plays they enjoyed at the time really adds to the dimension of conflict. We also see examples where the bad decision making of high-end generals mean certain death for the foot soldier. As a side note; as a European I admit to having had an image of the southern armies being a provincial rabble; I can see clearer now that they had some excellent leadership and quality to them; it was a refreshing revelation to me.The entirety of this film is a strange nest of different story lines weaving in all sorts of different directions. I liked the inclusion of Chamberlain's story. It may seem an odd match up against Jackson's story; but they were both teachers and fought out of a sense of duty to their country. The film also includes a play with in the play, where we see actors playing actors playing at war within a war. It's a nod to us the audience about what we ourselves see on film; that we have a responsibility to make our own minds up about who was right or wrong. Everyone was playing some part in that war and we all project our own thoughts and fears into a story. I am not one for glorification and I am fully aware that the film may have a rosy-tinted view of the Southern states in the war; but I wasn't watching it for political reasons. As a slow-paced war film to watch in your own time while pondering about the human consequence of conflict; it is time well spent and enjoyable too.

Paul Someone I could only stomach so much of this movie. I found this movie to be sickening the way they put the southern soldiers, particularly the leaders, way up on some high platform, you would think they were angels or something of such a lofty position that God himself was lower than these leaders. The constant speeches from all the 'innocent' leaders, trying desperately to justify the actions of the south. Mind you, I am no hater of the south, but let's have SOME reality. Even the way they portray the blacks, cheering the southern soldiers on to war in the streets, yea, I believe that. Interesting how we do not see any of the harsh treatment that the slaves endured, only pretty pretty dresses and glorious, Godly endeavors to secure the pure and righteous south from the hideous demons of the North. If you want to see an entirely false and glorified picture of the way the South was, then by all means, enjoy. If you are expecting to see some semblance of reality, look elsewhere.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com As a prequel to Gettysburg (1993), one of the greatest war epics ever made, I expected director Ronald F. Maxwell to make another film just as great. He did make good film in a sense, but with some minor flaws. Once those flaws are recognized, the rest of the film is almost as great as its predecessor. It is unfortunate this film was a financial failure because I really wanted to see this civil war trilogy end and not just be left in the corner to collect dust. Right now though, this franchise is going nowhere. I blame Ted Turner for this because if he had not forked out so much money, maybe there would be another movie on its way. I would like to know what was needed for the budget to be raised by $30 million dollars. It doesn't make sense to me.First on the list is getting the bad things out of the way. What doesn't work in this motion picture? For the most part, viewers will complain that the point of view on this film is more one sided than the other. I won't deny it either, this film does focus more on the Confederate troops than it does the Union troops. But there is a reason for this; the Confederate States of America were the ones who lit the fuse of starting the civil war. So it is they who should be focused on, not the Union. I think it's good the way the story starts off. Then as the second movie, the story slowly shifts more of its focus to the Union side. As a suggestion, if the last installment is made, the point of view in that film should be like the first but more on the Union side. That is who wins in the end right?The only other thing that people have problems with this film is the use of dialog. Sorry folks, I'm not a historian or civil war buff, so I can't clarify which is more accurate, the dialog in this movie or in its sequel. I will say though, most of the dialog is normal, it is just some parts where it seems like what is supposed to be said is drawn out in a extremely excessive way of talking. It was almost like they were quoting Shakespeare. But this doesn't happen frequently, so I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.As for the cast, most of the actors from Gettysburg reappear again, although some may be playing different parts. Jeff Daniels still is Lawrence Chamberlain, but for the other main characters, they are all different. Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee has replaced Martin Sheen. For Lee's old war horse, James Longstreet, is now played by Bruce Boxleitner. Unfortunately, I really liked the performance of Longstreet by Tom Berenger and it is a little weird to see Alan Bradley from Tron (1982) with a beard and talking with a southern accent; but it works I suppose. Playing Stonewall Jackson is Stephen Lang and I'll admit he does good job. His speeches may not be moving but they are well performed. Besides these characters, everyone else stays the same.The reality of this movie has been raised as well in this movie. Gettysburg (1993) was rated PG, but this has been bumped up to PG-13 for extended battle sequences. Even so there are only some parts that are graphic and they're for brief moments. If this is the reason why the budget was raised, I'm sorely disappointed. The music, although the themes were made by Randy Edelman, were carried out by John Frizzell. Although I prefer Edelman, Frizzell does have some nice tunes. I assume this is because the first couple years of the war were made to sound mournful and gloomy. All in all, Gods and Generals was a good film and should have gained more respect for what it's worth and not what it displays.Even though Gods and Generals is long in running time and has some small weak points, that does not make this film not worth seeing. This film is held up by its good performances, and excellent battle sequences.