*** Official "GODS AND GENERALS" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Mark Pfeiffer]

What an interminable bore. I haven't seen Gettysburg (and have no desire to after seeing this), but I recall it's reviews being better.

I thought the acting was bad and the dialogue worse. Obviously there's been a lot of attention to detail, but there's not a single compelling moment in the film. (I take that back. The opening credit sequence was nice.) If I didn't have to review the film, I think I would have checked out of this one well short of its end.

There are also some things I found eyebrow-raising, but that stuff isn't up for discussion here.

Simply dreadful.

 

[Nathan V]

Just got back.
Without a doubt, the worst film of the year, by far. I have never before left a theatre visibly angry. The dialogue was absolutely atrocious, the interminable scenes crammed with forgettable lines. Absolutely no sense of structure. The battles were lacking in energy and form, there was little sense of placement and direction, similar/identical shots were used over and over and over. The cinematography was weak- nearly all were head-level shots, no swish-pans, no zooms, no tilts, LAs, AS's, just many repetitive tracking shots of crowds cheering/shooting. Also, a character was named 'buster'- this couldn't be true, to my understanding Buster Keaton was the first "Buster." This movie is for civil war nerds- not civil war fans, but civil war freaks who have no sense of serviceable filmmaking. I can say without a shred of doubt, the vast, overwhelming majority of the folks here at HTF will definitely not like this movie.

Nathan

 

[Chris Atkins]

There are also some things I found eyebrow-raising, but that stuff isn't up for discussion here.

The unmentionable things you mention are the major reason I liked the film.

Technically, the film is inferior. Thematically, the picture explores issues that really resonated with me--especially Jackson's character--and it's refreshing to see at least ONE FILM show some of the things that this film did.

I can see why others would not like the movie, but I loved it.

 

[Bill J]

The end credits mentioned something about Gods and Generals being the first film in a trilogy. Does that mean there is another film coming?

 

[Robert Crawford]

That's what it means! The events after Gettysburg to Appomattox Courthouse.

 

[Bill J]

I think they might have given a title for the final film, but I can't remember it.

Anyone?

 

[Chris Atkins]

"Last Full Measure"

 

[Robert Saccone]

I believe the next one will be called "The Last Full Measure".

 

[Bill J]

Yes, that was it. Thanks.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I loved the film. It's obvious there's a ton missing, but that will be rectified on the DVD

We had the people in front of us leave, but that's it. The movie had a wonderful epic pace to it I really enjoyed, and also shot in beautiful anamorphic instead of low-resolution Super35 which really brought out all the wonderful detail in the costuming and environments

 

[Joshua Moran]

All I can say is that Scorpion King is a much better film. I couldn't make it past the intermission, I felt I suffered enough and promised my brian that I wouldn't subject it to any more suffering. My eyes are still bleeding from the torament they called matte paintings. This movie acted like it was made from the bible channel, which if you feel you can sit through 4 hours of that be my guest. However I was amazed I sat through as much as I did. I just wanted to give it 2 battle scenes before I walked out.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I'll agree the relgious angle was a bit overbearing, but from what I've read is quite representative of Jackson, therefore is entirely appropriate.

I expected historical accuracy, and except for a few boners (when Jackson is saying goodbye to the 1st, there's a guy with VERY modern glasses in the front row )and some weak FX in places I got what I asked for.

 

[Chris Atkins]

but from what I've read is quite representative of Jackson, therefore is entirely appropriate.

Having read a biography of Jackson written by a man that served with him (Dabny), I can say that Jackson's character was extremely accurate in the film. He was a man who had a personal relationship with God., and that was reflected in the film.

 

[Joshua Moran]

Well if that is the case then fine. I just felt like they were shoving down our throats.

 

[Chris Atkins]

I feel the same way with other movies, Josh, so I can understand. Filmmakers certainly have a right to tell a tale from a certain point of view, but you don't have to like it.

 

[Matt Pasant]

The film got caught in the reel and it burned at our showing... in the last 10 minutes. I was so made to sit through such a long movie and to have that happen.

But..

Luckily they could finish it. And we got free passes due to the technical error.

So depsite it was 4 hours long, it was raining, my dad wanted to go, I got some good shut eye, and the movie was a wash money wise due to the passes.

-- Matt

 

[Rob Willey]

I was really disappointed when I read they had removed the battle of Antietam from the original six-hour cut of the movie to get it down to a more "manageable" running time of 230 minutes.

That coupled with the poor reviews has convinced me to wait for the DVD (when the original cut will be restored).

Rob

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Chris, my objections weren't to the depiction of Jackson's religious beliefs but rather the politics of the situation. The handling of slavery was, err, curious.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I finally got back from a matinee viewing of Gods and Generals, and I must say I was pleasantly surprised given the negative reviews of the film.

If there is one thing that's a general consensus amongst both people who either love or hated the movie, it's the historical accuracy. The one clear example that stood out in my mind is the use of belts. I remember my History teacher (who's one of my favorite people of all time) and Civil War re-enacters would came to our school and showed us how Confederate troops would wear their "Union" belts. The belts would be turned upside down and the U would turn to an n to signify nullification. I saw that in the movie, and I thought it was a neat little touch.

It's certainly understandable that people are going to be sickened by the dialogue and religious nature of the characters portrayed in this film. But the fact remains that you're watching a film that takes place during a time and an era in which people had a different way of acting and a different paradigm of thought. Even a film like Glory, one of my favorites of all time, is an example of showing the way people talked and acted.

I thought it was extraordinarily gutsy of the filmmakers to be impartial in their portrayal of the Civil War. I vehemently disagree and dislike the politics of the South during the Civil War, but I think that G&G was fair in portraying each side's view/perspective of the war.

I can't remember who, but somebody made a point about how they didn't like the way the South and North were portrayed in battle. What people don't realize are some of the key important factors involving early Southern victory/early Northern defeat. General Robert E. Lee was a tactical genius. He finished first (or second) in his graduating class at West Point. U.S. Grant (where the hell was he in this film?) finished pretty low in the same class I think. It wasn't like some complete dumbass was leading the Confederate armies.

Then there's the whole deal with the North severly underestimating the South. I can't remember if it was the battle of Bull Run in which this happened, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Thinking nothing of the South, the Union army planned their first attack against them. Thinking the manner would be an easy victory and that it would not take long, normal civilians gathered around and picniced, hoping to catch an easy victory. Of course, it turns out the South came for a fight, and everybody there was gently surprised.

I can see why some people would have a problem with this film due to its nature. However, if anybody wanted to see a truly "awful" film, they need to see D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. Now that is really awful.

If there are problems that I had with the film, they include, or more appropriately lack the Battle of Antitem and any appearance of General McClellan.

As for the violence, you simply can't win in this day and age. If you go for PG-13, you're accused of not showing the brutal nature of violence and/or its consequences. If you have an R rating, you're accused of glorifying violence and pandering to gore mongers.

 

[Stephen_L]

I'm a Civil War nerd and I really didn't care for the film. The attention to detail in costuming and dialogue was fine, but the storytelling was a mess. I felt the plot wandered aimlessly over the historic events with no sense of flow. Perhaps if the story had just followed "Stonewall" Jackson and his rise and career it might have been more coherent. Also the film was far from impartial in its presentation. It is true that many blacks were devoted to their owners and even assisted the Confederate War effort, but the only blacks we see are smiling, seemingly happy with their slave life. Such folks existed but were hardly the majority. I was also unaware of Jackson's enlightened view toward the slaves. Seems like a little glossing over to me. It seemed like a film determined to present the South's view of itself and the institution of slavery and not the ugly reality. I say this as a 'son of the South' (South Carolina born and bred)