Gods and Generals review and reactions?

josiahcy

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2002
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Anyone had the opportunity to catch Gods and Generals? What are your thoughts? Your rating? Reactions?

I went to watch it last night, expecting to be treated to a full comprehensive coverage of the first two years of the war.

Contrary to Gettysburg, there was no discussion of strategy, or tactics. (maybe 30 seconds per battle) Which would lead one to question what the movie was doing for four hours? (actually 6 for the tv version) The answer still eludes me after 24 hours, and I am still at a loss as to how in the world this movie took four hours to cover something that could have been covered in one hour. (people charging and dying for no purpose) In addition, there was a lot of disjointed scenes. For example, in one scene, Jackson was making love to his wife, and in the next scene, he is up riding his horse in the Wilderness and about to fight the battle of Chancelorsville. I had no idea what happened in between, and what prompted the battle of Chancelorsville.

The movie did not even cover the battle of Antietam for crying out loud or the Battle of Seven Days??? Weren't these two battles highly important to the first two years of the war? Plus, this movie did not do justice to Robert E. Lee. He had three lines (excluding his speech to the house of Reprs. of Virginia) in the entire movie, while Jackson had a million useless verses of prose that had no bearing on Southern strategy, operational conduct of the campaign or tactics. Does anyone know whether those two battles would be covered by the TV version?


The only good part of the movie was the battle of Fredericksburg, and Daniels' recitation of Caesar prior to his charge. The only thing worth watching in my mind. The camera work was pretty impressive, and I adored the pose by the actors.

But quick question. I am no expert on 19th Century infantry tactics, but when you try to storm an entrenched position, but was it standard practice to stop a full infantry charge 15 yards shy from that position and start loading your rifle to shoot at that position instead of storming it by bayonnet? I am asking this question, because throughout the movie last night, the Union soldiers would just run up to Southern position, carrying a lot of momentum and to my incredulous belief, stop 15 yards shy of the position, take their time to form a line (while by slaughtered by incessant accurate Southern fire) and shoot and to my amazement, reload and shoot again! (No wonder it took them 5 years to win that war)

Anyway, for those who are thinking to watch it, my recommendation is don't waste your $$ and 4 hours. Wait until it comes out on video, and watch Daniel's recitation of Caesar, and then return the video. (Yes, only 5 minutes of this 4 hour movie is worth watching or watcheable)

To those who disagree with me, I would love to hear why you like that movie and point out some of the stuff that I may have missed.
 

GROGnads_USA

Recruit
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
In YOUR conscience
Country
llUnited States
I concur with your 'assessment'

Yes, I too would have to agree with you about this movie and there's STILL the '3rd' part of it to be released sometime next year I believe! In a way, it's almost as if Tarentino directed these, since the timeline's are out of sync, since you have the 'Gettysburg' Movie first, then this one, I suppose the '3rd' part will begin during the "Mexican-American" War or maybe even the "War of 1812". THAT, by the way is going to be a *SPECIAL* presentation on Sept. 12, '04 from 'The History Channel' and I've seen some programs of "behind the scenes" of this just yesterday(actually, it was this morning from 4-5AM!)
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
josiahcy said:
But quick question. I am no expert on 19th Century infantry tactics, but when you try to storm an entrenched position, but was it standard practice to stop a full infantry charge 15 yards shy from that position and start loading your rifle to shoot at that position instead of storming it by bayonnet? I am asking this question, because throughout the movie last night, the Union soldiers would just run up to Southern position, carrying a lot of momentum and to my incredulous belief, stop 15 yards shy of the position, take their time to form a line (while by slaughtered by incessant accurate Southern fire) and shoot and to my amazement, reload and shoot again! (No wonder it took them 5 years to win that war)

Anyway, for those who are thinking to watch it, my recommendation is don't waste your $$ and 4 hours. Wait until it comes out on video, and watch Daniel's recitation of Caesar, and then return the video. (Yes, only 5 minutes of this 4 hour movie is worth watching or watcheable)
I liked the move, but admit that I watch it with the "fast forward" button under my thumb. Reason: My family is from Fredericksburg and I grew up in No. VA -- I have been every place in that movie. A relative even commanded the Frederisburg artillery later in the war.

As for the trick question -- left out of the movie is that there was a wooden fence 30 feet (yards?) ahead of the stone wall. The Irish Brigade got that far, but never got over the fence. No one else reached it. BI'm not sure what doctrine was in Dec 1862, but by the attackon Ft Stedman in Apr 1865, Confedeate forces advanced with unloaded weapons to preclude the "stop and fire" thing. That said, Pickett's charge did nopt stop and fire, but did stop to dress the line, which is just as stupid in my book. By the end of 1863, commanders knew better than to do that.

I think it's a very good movie -- haven't seen it on the big screen, only on video, but liked it.
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Janos said:
I liked the move, but admit that I watch it with the "fast forward" button under my thumb. Reason: My family is from Fredericksburg and I grew up in No. VA -- I have been every place in that movie. A relative even commanded the Frederisburg artillery later in the war.

As for the trick question -- left out of the movie is that there was a wooden fence 30 feet (yards?) ahead of the stone wall. The Irish Brigade got that far, but never got over the fence. No one else reached it. BI'm not sure what doctrine was in Dec 1862, but by the attackon Ft Stedman in Apr 1865, Confedeate forces advanced with unloaded weapons to preclude the "stop and fire" thing. That said, Pickett's charge did nopt stop and fire, but did stop to dress the line, which is just as stupid in my book. By the end of 1863, commanders knew better than to do that.

I think it's a very good movie -- haven't seen it on the big screen, only on video, but liked it.
I agree.
Well from my experience in Napleonics is that they would do things like that and definetely if their was an obstacle like a fence... the lines must be re-dressed, and then marched forward... You'd be a madman to stick to that doctrine.
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Many people say it was geared more towards the total CW buffs and the re-enactors... which it was. I think that was a good call to do their best not to Hollywoodize the storyline.
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
I agree with a post I saw quite some time ago. It wasnt the best....but being a Jackson fan, I enjoyed it. I believe that anyone with a collection of films on the War should have it, as there are so few out there.

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

GeorgiaDixie

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
0
Location
Savannah, GA
Country
llUnited States
RichardS said:
Thank God for fast forward. :D You need to watch the movie entirely from front to back ONE time. Then skip to the good parts for the rest of the movie.
Exactly. That's the way to do it. The battle scenes are great!
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
I liked the move, but admit that I watch it with the "fast forward" button under my thumb. Reason: My family is from Fredericksburg and I grew up in No. VA -- I have been every place in that movie. A relative even commanded the Frederisburg artillery later in the war.
Of course, you realize, Jeff, that Harper's Ferry filled in as Fredericksburg in many, if not all of the outdoor senes of the fight.

Janos said:
As for the trick question -- left out of the movie is that there was a wooden fence 30 feet (yards?) ahead of the stone wall. The Irish Brigade got that far, but never got over the fence. No one else reached it. BI'm not sure what doctrine was in Dec 1862, but by the attackon Ft Stedman in Apr 1865, Confedeate forces advanced with unloaded weapons to preclude the "stop and fire" thing. That said, Pickett's charge did nopt stop and fire, but did stop to dress the line, which is just as stupid in my book. By the end of 1863, commanders knew better than to do that.
Emory Upton's famous attack (and the next day's follow up) on the Mule Shoe at Spottsylvania also went in with muskets unloaded.


Janos said:
I think it's a very good movie -- haven't seen it on the big screen, only on video, but liked it.
I think the movie would have succeeded if it was more like the book as written and less like a biopic of Stonewall. A good biopic of Jackson would be melding Robertson's bio and a less gushing book about Jackson - in much the same way "Patton" was produced.
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
Of course, you realize, Jeff, that Harper's Ferry filled in as Fredericksburg in many, if not all of the outdoor senes of the fight.
Roger. I'm not sure though, how that's relevant to my point.
Emory Upton's famous attack (and the next day's follow up) on the Mule Shoe at Spottsylvania also went in with muskets unloaded.
You're right.
I think the movie would have succeeded if it was more like the book as written and less like a biopic of Stonewall. A good biopic of Jackson would be melding Robertson's bio and a less gushing book about Jackson - in much the same way "Patton" was produced.
Probably true.
 

Cdubb23

Recruit
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
Country
llUnited States
I think that this movie was made more to see the perspective that both sides had on the war. As a result, the focus is more on the leaders rather than the actual battles and action. Since I am in a military academy, I was watching it more to see the motive behind the actions and the character of the leadership behind it all. With that being said, I liked it because it took such an unorthodox approach.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Lance Williams said:
I thought that Harper's Ferry's (as Fredricksburg) architechture was one of the real "stars" movie.
I agree. I visited Harper's Ferry the day before our Round Table's trip to Antietam. It was beautiful.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Cdubb23 said:
I think that this movie was made more to see the perspective that both sides had on the war. As a result, the focus is more on the leaders rather than the actual battles and action. Since I am in a military academy, I was watching it more to see the motive behind the actions and the character of the leadership behind it all. With that being said, I liked it because it took such an unorthodox approach.
I think that Gettysburg tried to be more balanced than G & G. To many here in the North (mostly uneducated about the War and some educated about the War), G & G was openly pro-Confederate. Even if one doesn't think so, there are things in the movie to suggest that notion. The Bonnie Blue flag scene, the fact that until Chamberlain comes on the scene, the only side you here is the Confederate side. Even the ending gives the false impression that the Confederates were winning the war (they were not).
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
I think that Gettysburg tried to be more balanced than G & G. To many here in the North (mostly uneducated about the War and some educated about the War), G & G was openly pro-Confederate. Even if one doesn't think so, there are things in the movie to suggest that notion. The Bonnie Blue flag scene, the fact that until Chamberlain comes on the scene, the only side you here is the Confederate side. Even the ending gives the false impression that the Confederates were winning the war (they were not).
Interesting comment, Tom. Maybe the reason G&G did so poorly is because it's swimming upsteam against the constant flow of anti-Southern movies, books, press etc. that have been hitting us for 50 years or more (e.g., that Burns guy).

Tom -- have you seen G&G on DVD? If so, what do you think of the interviews that accompany it?
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
Interesting comment, Tom. Maybe the reason G&G did so poorly is because it's swimming upsteam against the constant flow of anti-Southern movies, books, press etc. that have been hitting us for 50 years or more (e.g., that Burns guy).

Tom -- have you seen G&G on DVD? If so, what do you think of the interviews that accompany it?
Jeff,
I don't think one could watch Gone With the Wind or Birth of a Nation (as old as they are) and conclude that they are anti-Southern. As a matter of fact, until many of the John Wayne cowboy movies of the 1950s and 1960s, I can't think of very many Civil War movies with one side's sentiments over anothers except for Red Badge of Courage, Disney's movie about the guys who stole "The General", and Johnny Shiloh.
The reason why I mentioned John Wayne is because in most of his movies he is a former Union soldier, exceptions to that are in El Dorado, The Searchers, True Grit (where he portayed ex-Confederates). In Sons of Katie Elder, nothing is said one way or the other, except we all know that they are Texans. On the other hand, there were movies like Alvarez Kelly (which I enjoyed a great deal), Journey To Shiloh, The movie with Jimmy Stewart as the Virginia farmer, where the main characters were basically pro-Southern. How the West Was Won had a very brief ACW scene, mainly to get George Peppard into the Union Army for character development. Movies like North and South and Blue and Gray had characters with divided loyalties.

Regarding that Burns guy, while as Northerners we were glad that a movie finally was released about the war with real characters, as midwesterners many of was were a bit dismayed that the only Western battle that was portrayed in any sort of depth was Shiloh. Battles like Pea Ridge got no mention at all, and Perryville, Iuka and Corinth got only passing mention by Ed Bearss. Chickamauga and Chattanooga received a little more attention than te normal western fight.

I saw G&G in the theaters (2x) and several times on HBO, so I did not see any interviews. I was holding out for a full six hour version to include 2nd Manassas and Antietam before buying a copy. One movie I left out was Glory which was pro-Union.
 

GeorgiaDixie

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
254
Reaction score
0
Location
Savannah, GA
Country
llUnited States
I don't think anyone educated about the ACW could really think G&G was biased towards the Confederacy. I see where some that only are fed the media stream of everything the South did during the war was horrible and the South itself is worthless, since the movie was pretty accurate showing the honorablness (is that a real word!?) of both sides and their causes.
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
If anything, Gods and Generals showed the "human" side to those men we still honor today. Both North and South.........from the beginning, with Lee refusing the command of the Union army and the turmoil he went through to reach that decision.......to Chamberlain revealing to his wife that he had volunteered and would be going to war.....to Jackson praying with his wife before he left Lexington.......and the relationship Jackson showed to the little girl (cant remember her name)and his reaction upon hearing of her death...........It showed the human nature of these 'soldiers' and proves that they were not warmongers or that they could show no emotion at such times.

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
One does have to admit, though, that one of the main differences between Gettysburg and G & G is that Gettysburg was more balanced. In G & G, you go a good 45 mins to an hour before a Northerner becomes a sympathetic character. In the first Bull Run scenes, the Northern soldiers are just so much grist for the mill. At Fredericksburg, it is pretty much the same thing except, that by now, Northerners can at least root for Chamberlain and the 20th ME. Because of their inactivity at Chancellorsville, the 20th ME is hidden from view, and the only characters to care about are Lee and Jackson.

As much as I love the opening credits with the flags, after that, the movie doesn't even act like it cares about Northern soldiers and their cause(s). The movie doesn't explain how Lee got himself into the pickle he was in at Chancellorsville. 2nd Manassas, Antietam and Seven Days Campaigns (where the fighting was a lot closer compared to the events Maxwell elected to keep in) were excised from the film. And the true reason(s) for Lee's Gettysburg Campaign are not even acknowledged.

I could easily see where some that are uneducated about the war would be confused, and those Northerners who know something about the war would be a little dismayed.
 
Top