Cover art for GODS AND GENERALS (1 Viewer)

[Larry Schneider]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The Birth Of a Nation is a great movie; G&G is just incredibly boring.

 

[JasonTil]

The South relied on the enslavement of human beings to sustain these States existence. I can't think of a more abhorrent, baseless, inhuman form of society than that, regardless of what one thinks of State's rights.

I'm not going to do your research for you but you might want to check on what percentage of the population in the Southern states actually owned slaves. The vast percentage of soldiers in the Southern army didn't own slaves. Those soldiers didn't fight and die to preserve slavery, they fought (right or wrong) to preserve the ability to live independent of a centralized government.

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate over slavery, just cautioning against a casual dismissal of the Southern cause as meritless.

 

[Jack _Webster]

It's all a matter of opinion. I found the Hulk to be extremely boring. I thought this was amazing. I may only be in a group of a select few, but I still think it's one of the greatest epics I've ever seen.

 

[Julian Lalor]

I'm not trying to turn this into a debate over slavery, just cautioning against a casual dismissal of the Southern cause as meritless.

Perhaps meritless is perhaps not the best word to use as the concept of State's rights is not without merit in and of itself. But neither is positioning the South as the "underdog". The South deserved to lose the war and America is much the better and unified for it.

The above stated, I did not find Gods and Generals in the least bit racist or offensive. Just banal and, ultimately, boring.

 

[JasonTil]

Perhaps meritless is perhaps not the best word to use as the concept of State's rights is not without merit in and of itself. But neither is positioning the South as the "underdog". The South deserved to lose the war and America is much the better and unified for it.

No one with half a brain would argue that we aren't better off because the South lost the Civil War. Merriam-Webster's primary definition of underdog is "a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest" and based on that definition (which was the basis for my initial post) the South was most certainly the underdog in the same way that the Texans were the underdogs at the Alamo.

PLEASE DON'T FREAK OUT, I'm not suggesting that the South in the Civil War and the Texans at the Alamo were on equal moral ground, just providing an analogy for my use of the word underdog. No one really cares about the Alamo from the Mexican army's point of view, the point of view of the Texans is simply more interesting. Hence the logic behind my original post.

 

[JasonTil]

Perhaps meritless is perhaps not the best word to use as the concept of State's rights is not without merit in and of itself. But neither is positioning the South as the "underdog". The South deserved to lose the war and America is much the better and unified for it.

No one with half a brain would argue that we aren't better off because the South lost the Civil War. Merriam-Webster's primary definition of underdog is "a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest" and based on that definition (which was the basis for my initial post) the South was most certainly the underdog in the same way that the Texans were the underdogs at the Alamo.

PLEASE DON'T FREAK OUT, I'm not suggesting that the South in the Civil War and the Texans at the Alamo were on equal moral ground, just providing an analogy for my use of the word underdog. No one really cares about the Alamo from the Mexican army's point of view, the point of view of the Texans is simply more interesting. Hence the logic behind my original post.

 

[JasonTil]

sorry about the double post

 

[GlennH]

the concept of State's rights is not without merit in and of itself. But neither is positioning the South as the "underdog".

Exactly where in the definition of the word underdog do you derive the implication of merit? An underdog is simply one who is expected to lose or who is at a disadvantage. Nothing about merit or lack thereof.

Maybe you're somehow equating the term with the tendency of many to root for an underdog, presumably because the rooters perceive some merit in their case? Often that's not the case either. I know lots of baseball fans who would root for nearly any team playing the Yankees in a World Series, not because of that underdog's merit but because of their disdain for the favorite. (Or maybe the underdog's merit is that they aren't the Yankees?)

Anyway, this is my favorite underdog.

 

[Randy A Salas]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. The Birth Of a Nation is a great movie; G&G is just incredibly boring.

That's what the main criticism of the movie is and has always been in published reviews. Sure, there are historical nits and some complaints about its depiction of the South, but those are mostly quibbles.

As I note in my review of the DVD, the commentary track (a good one) features director Ron Maxwell and two Civil War scholars over selected sections of the movie. They talk for a stretch and then the track automatically advances to their next spoken passage. Their commentary totals less than half of the film's running time.

Get that? The film is so incredibly tedious that even its filmmaker and two history buffs couldn't sit through the whole thing.

Still a fantastic DVD presentation, though.

 

[Randy Korstick]

Hmm.. I saw this in the theatre and was glued the whole time and was never bored. I was only dissapointed that it wasn't the longer 5 and 1/2 hour version. I really want to see the longer cut. Hopefully it will be released later. I felt this was one of the best I have seen this year and never boring. It holds up as an equal to Gettysburg and will make a great trilogy if the make the planned 3rd part.
A great epic if you like epics. Don't miss out because of critics. Judge it for yourself .

 

[Joel Vardy]

I sat through the 'whole' thing in one sitting...what an experience. Despite all the nits and detractors it was entertaining enough for me to learn a thing or two as well as enjoy some of the performances.

As much as I 'love' Gettysberg, this helps to set the stage with many of the same actors. Oddly enough I didn't care for Duvall's performance. It was 'tentative'. He is at his best when he plays confident or at least deluded zealots. Seeing him try to play an introvert was not as fulfilling as Martin Sheen in that role, despite his more natural accent. The other performances were just fine though I thought that Jeff Daniels didn't match his energy of Gettysberg. The sets were more elaborate and the picture and sound quality was heads and shoulders superior to the 2nd installment filmed 10 years ago. I guess that shows the changes in technology and perhaps the budget for this project.

Joel