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.
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.