[.ca] Gods and Generals [HD DVD]

From Amazon.com:
The more you know about the Civil War, the more you'll appreciate Gods and Generals and the painstaking attention to detail that Gettysburg writer-director Ronald F. Maxwell has invested in this academically respectable 220-minute historical pageant. In adapting Jeffrey Shaara's 1996 novel (encompassing events of 1861-63, specifically the Virginian battles of Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville), Maxwell sacrifices depth for scope while focusing on the devoutly religious "Stonewall" Jackson (Stephen Lang), whose Confederate campaigns endear him to Gen. Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall, giving the film's most subtle performance). Battles are impeccably recreated using 7,500 Civil War re-enactors and sanitized PG-13 violence, their authenticity compromised by tasteful discretion and endless scenes of grandiloquent dialogue. Still, as the first part of a trilogy that ends with The Last Full Measure, this is a superbly crafted, instantly essential film for Civil War study. For all its misguided priorities, Gods and Generals is a noble effort, honoring faith and patriotism with the kind of reverence that has all but vanished from American film - but provides abundant proof that historical accuracy is no guarantee of great storytelling. --Jeff Shannon

candy for the history buff:
I like to study history, and the civil war is one of my favorite points in American History. Mainly because it was so controversial, the reasons, the bad guys, the death toll, etc..... It was one of the bloodiest battles in our history, not because both sides were american, but because of the percentage of dead per battle, sometimes reaching 30%. I do believe that the South got a raw deal for a long time. They weren't blameless, but they also weren't the evil group of racists that were potrayed. Plus this delves into the fact that the war wasn't about slavery until the later stages, something the North didn't even want. But that is all up for debate in another forum. This movie is well filmed, the characters feel more three dimensional and close to their real life counterparts, and the recreation of some of the battles are done in an almost loving fashion done by those who spend their pasttime recreating major events. It shows two major early battles where the confederacy won stunning victories causing heavy losses for the Union. The battle of Fredericksburg cost over 17,000 troops on the side of the Union. The main complaint from people who like this movie was that it left a lot out, there were a lot of smaller battles that where, but it would have added another 2 hours easily to the already 4 hour movie. Maybe we can hope for a special edition some day. This movie is very pro southern, so if your views tend to favor the union, this is probably not for you. If you don't love history or recreations of battles, especially ones using Napoleonic Tactics and weapons, it probably also is not for you. It is like marzipan, not a lot of people like it, but those that do, love it.

Underrated:
Even though I can understand where the bad press about this film comes from, I believe that those that are fairly knowledgeable about the Civil War will enjoy the historical accuracy in this film. Real, oftentimes famous quotes are used by the main characters. The KFC eating southerners present in Gettysburg are absent in Maxwell's movie as well. Even though it's fairly long and takes some appreciation of the fine details, this film is underrated and doesn't deserve the bad reputation that it has received.

So much preaching you can skip church for a year!:
Save your $ and just watch the excellent "Gettysburg" again. This one is simply terrible, almost painful to watch. If this was an accurate portrayal of Gen. Jackson, then I'm amazed that his troops waited until after Chancellorsville to shoot him. Returning actors are ten years older than in "Gettysburg" while playing in action that happened months+ before. The only positive was Robert Duvall as an excellent Gen. Lee.

I keep wanting to like this movie, but....:
Glory was a great civil war film, it had characters with character, it had a story with a story, it had a believable premise. But, this movie I don't know what this movie was all about. The acting was like a cross between stage acting and politicians trying to act emotional about their causes on a debate stage. And to have it centered in the 19th Century south in this format is like having the cast of the Andy Griffith Show deliver their lines with Shakespearean drama, it just doesn't work. I really don't think General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson would be proud to be remember for his endless droning philosophy on lemonade. This movie has been playing endlessly on cable for the last few months, and I admit I keep getting drawn into watching it, and if you turn the sound down it's not so bad as a silent movie, but the dialog is, well it's what it is. I could care less about the message personally. The facts about the motivation of the Confederacy are so muddled due to southern pride and political correctness I really don't expect a movie to portray them accurately. Glory did at least make an effort not to sugar coat the reality of the time to a degree. You can't be politically correct about a time that just plain wasn't politically correct, and unfortunately in the times we live in this means that our history is being rewritten all around to either exaggerate the "bad" guys or glorify the "good" guys in whatever perspective the author seems to think those "guys" are. The simple fact is that 19th century America was a terribly racially divided place and it went much further than skin color and the South. I guess I keep watching it trying to figure out how someone could bankroll so much effort in costuming and location shoots and battle scenes and all and wonder if they actually watched it before they released it. Does the director of this movie actually have conversations like this? I think the real problem with this movie is that it tries to hard to be politically correct, and that the Author, the Director, the Producer, the Editor, or someone feels that you can't portray the glorious careers of men who don't fit into the political correctness mold of the modern day. This is a serious disservice to historical fact.

Gods and General?:
They should have titled this film 'Gods and General' as it focused primarily on Stonewall Jackson. After seeing such films as Glory, I had high hopes for this movie. Unfortunately it failed miserably. The audience is subjected to constant soliloquies from the main characters, complete with stirring string accompaniment. The battles scenes themselves seemed somewhat sanitized with little blood and unstained uniforms. A low point was Ted Turner's cameo as a Confederate General. Stroke your ego somewhere else, Ted, you took me right out of the film. Robert Duvall's performance was a high point. I would rather have seen more of him than Jackson craning his neck to the heaven's to once again pray. The one touching scene I took from the film was the Union and Confederate soldier trading tobacco and coffee in the river. The silence of the exchange itself said a lot. Overall though, very disappointing.