Cover art for GODS AND GENERALS (1 Viewer)

[Jack _Webster]

I can't wait for Tuesday. This is the best movie I've seen so far this year, and no matter what the PC critics say, this will always be a classic to me.

 

[Sam E. Torres]

damned nice cover, if i do say so myself. although, admittingly, i will never rent or buy this film.

 

[EdA]

Nice cover. The downside is that it is in a snapper case :frowning:

 

[John Hodson]

I can't wait for Tuesday. This is the best movie I've seen so far this year, and no matter what the PC critics say, this will always be a classic to me.

I have this on order. Excellent. But I must have missed something; has there some controversy I missed? The British critics were a little unkind (too long, too many beards, no-one mentions the slaves yadda, yadda yadda).

---
So many films, so little time...

 

[Jack _Webster]

I have this on order. Excellent. But I must have missed something; has there some controversy I missed?

Just pretty much because it focused mostly on the Confederate side of the war and had one of their generals, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, as the main character. Naturally, because of this it was impossible for the critics to like this film.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Just pretty much because it focused mostly on the Confederate side of the war and had one of their generals, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, as the main character. Naturally, because of this it was impossible for the critics to like this film.

I would think that it was impossible for critics to like the film because it was just a series of preposterously long and awful speeches (sometimes in the form of interminably long quotations from other speeches delivered during the middle of battle or people just quoting themselves, no less) interspersed with boring battle sequences. The social message that the film portrays, while also troubling, is secondary to the lack of basic filmmaking skills on show.

DJ

 

[Bill J]

I think the poster art was much better.

 

[Julian Lalor]

What's a PC critic? All I know is that the film bored the hell out of me (and I love Civil War stories, from whatever perspective they are told). And I suspect that is the reason most critics hated this film, not its politics. Personally, I can't believe the same man made Gettysburg.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The main problem they had with this film as oppose to "Gettysburg" is that they tried to cover too much ground. "Gettysburg" was confined to one battle fought in a three day period that told the story of the men that participated in that particular battle while "Gods and Generals" involves two years of war in which several major battles were fought along with introducing outside characters such as wives, family members, slaves and etc.




Crawdaddy

 

[Randy A Salas]

I'll be reviewing this in Friday's paper. Basically: middling movie (at best), great DVD.

The movie is best summed up by the comment made by a fellow moviegoer at the press screening once it (mercifully) ended:

"That's the longest Visitor Center movie I've ever seen!"

 

[Jack _Webster]

I would think that it was impossible for critics to like the film because it was just a series of preposterously long and awful speeches (sometimes in the form of interminably long quotations from other speeches delivered during the middle of battle or people just quoting themselves, no less) interspersed with boring battle sequences.

To each his own, I guess. It is a very religious movie to be sure, and there are alot of speeches (very true to the time). I found it awe-inspiring. Chamberlain's speech before the charge at Fredericksburg sent chills down my spine.

 

[Joel C]

I liked Gettysburg, but it took me a few days to slog through. WOM on this wasn'great, but I must say, that is a gorgeous cover.

 

[Karl_Luph]

Nice cover, I want to pick this one up. I'm surprised no one has started a review thread on it. I read some reviews on some dvd review sites and it sounds like a keeper.

 

[JasonTil]

Definately a keeper, just finished it. The DD track is incredible.

As far as the critics, it is a view of the war from one side. Let's face it, the underdog's side of the story is always more interesting. It's not everyone's cup of tea but getting through it is worth the effort.

 

[Garrett Adams]

I haven't seen it but it has one of the worst rotten tomatoes ratings I can recall seeing.


Rotten Tomatoes reviews

 

[Julian Lalor]

Let's face it, the underdog's side of the story is always more interesting.

I wouldn't call the South an "underdog". That implies some merit to their cause - which in this case, there was not.

 

[Karl_Luph]

That's it, I'm going to purchase the "GODS AND GENERALS" dvd tonight and see it for myself.

 

[JasonTil]

I wouldn't call the South an "underdog". That implies some merit to their cause - which in this case, there was not.

When you consider that the North was the home of almost all of the manufacturing capacity in the country at that time, the South was most certainly an underdog.

As far as merit to their cause (and I say this with all due respect), to simply dismiss their cause as being without merit doesn't indicate a great deal of education on the subject. It is quite easy to dismiss a cause 140 years later with the benefit of hindsight and a generation of politically correct education.

 

[Julian Lalor]

It is quite easy to dismiss a cause 140 years later with the benefit of hindsight and a generation of politically correct education.

It's now politically correct to condemn slavery? And as for hindsight, the case for abolition was around a long time before the Civil War and was the primary reason it started.

 

[Jack _Webster]

Dear o dear. I should have known this would turn into a Civil War debate. Oh well. The fact of the matter is, I love this film. I am not racist, nor have I ever been. I simply like this for the piece of art that it is.

There were alot of people back then who felt slavery was a horrible thing. I imagine if I lived back then, I would feel strongly on this notion. But of course, I can't know for sure. Despite what some might say, things were much too different for us to even begin to understand what people thought back then. Situations were too different.

There were many people who saw slavery for what it really was. Most of them joined the union. It was the right thing to do. However, what people must understand is that it was only one of the issues. Northerners were invading the south. Now perhaps nowadays, people's homes aren't as important to them as they were back then. During the Civil War, people's homes were part of who they were. They chose to defend those homes. Just because I understand their cause, does not mean I condone it.

I find this film interesting because it shows the war from a different point of view than we're used to. It's not an evil film. An "evil" film all about the South would not have the conversation that takes place between Lawrence and Tom Chamberlain about the wrongness of slavery.

Though I might be criticized for comparing history to fiction, I'll do it anyway. I find movies about the South during the Civil War interesting, just for the same reason I like Magneto in X-Men. He's wrong. I know he's wrong. I know he's not doing the right thing. But he doesn't. He believes he's right. I can't help but watch in awe.

That's it. I've spoken my opinion on the subject. Now the movie:

EXCELLENT!!!! Better than in the theater; the 5.1 digital sound mix was amazing. I can't wait for the eventual director's cut.