Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Cover art for GODS AND GENERALS


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
30 replies to this topic

#1 of 31 OFFLINE   Jack _Webster

Jack _Webster

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 166 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted July 11 2003 - 03:59 PM

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.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#2 of 31 OFFLINE   Sam E. Torres

Sam E. Torres

    Second Unit



  • 439 posts
  • Join Date: May 31 1999

Posted July 11 2003 - 06:53 PM

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

#3 of 31 OFFLINE   EdA

EdA

    Auditioning



  • 7 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 19 2000

Posted July 11 2003 - 07:31 PM

Nice cover. The downside is that it is in a snapper case Posted Image

#4 of 31 OFFLINE   John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer



  • 4,467 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted July 11 2003 - 08:18 PM

Quote:
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...
So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#5 of 31 OFFLINE   Jack _Webster

Jack _Webster

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 166 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted July 12 2003 - 03:08 AM

Quote:
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.

#6 of 31 OFFLINE   Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Producer



  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted July 12 2003 - 09:51 AM

Quote:
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

#7 of 31 OFFLINE   Bill J

Bill J

    Producer



  • 3,970 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 2001

Posted July 12 2003 - 10:51 AM

I think the poster art was much better.

#8 of 31 OFFLINE   Julian Lalor

Julian Lalor

    Supporting Actor



  • 976 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1999

Posted July 12 2003 - 11:24 AM

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.

#9 of 31 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Studio Mogul



  • 25,384 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted July 12 2003 - 12:38 PM

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

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#10 of 31 OFFLINE   Randy A Salas

Randy A Salas

    Screenwriter



  • 1,348 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 25 2002

Posted July 12 2003 - 01:13 PM

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!"

Posted Image
Randy A. Salas
DVD Columnist & Feature Writer
Minneapolis Star Tribune daily newspaper

#11 of 31 OFFLINE   Jack _Webster

Jack _Webster

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 166 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted July 12 2003 - 06:51 PM

Quote:
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.

#12 of 31 OFFLINE   Joel C

Joel C

    Screenwriter



  • 1,635 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 1999

Posted July 12 2003 - 08:38 PM

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.
Joel
woemcats@hotmail.com
"Why I laugh?"

#13 of 31 OFFLINE   Karl_Luph

Karl_Luph

    Supporting Actor



  • 974 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 2002

Posted July 15 2003 - 10:56 AM

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.

#14 of 31 OFFLINE   JasonTil

JasonTil

    Agent



  • 46 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 31 2000

Posted July 15 2003 - 03:32 PM

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.

#15 of 31 OFFLINE   Garrett Adams

Garrett Adams

    Supporting Actor



  • 931 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 27 2000

Posted July 16 2003 - 10:59 AM

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


Rotten Tomatoes reviews

#16 of 31 OFFLINE   Julian Lalor

Julian Lalor

    Supporting Actor



  • 976 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1999

Posted July 16 2003 - 11:00 AM

Quote:
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.

#17 of 31 OFFLINE   Karl_Luph

Karl_Luph

    Supporting Actor



  • 974 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 05 2002

Posted July 16 2003 - 11:35 AM

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

#18 of 31 OFFLINE   JasonTil

JasonTil

    Agent



  • 46 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 31 2000

Posted July 16 2003 - 01:10 PM

Quote:
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.

#19 of 31 OFFLINE   Julian Lalor

Julian Lalor

    Supporting Actor



  • 976 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 1999

Posted July 16 2003 - 01:19 PM

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.

#20 of 31 OFFLINE   Jack _Webster

Jack _Webster

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 166 posts
  • Join Date: May 13 2003

Posted July 16 2003 - 02:15 PM

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.


Back to DVD



Forum Nav Content I Follow