Gods and Generals (2003)

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

35% - The filmmakers fanboy-ing over their fantasy iteration of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. His demise marks the end of the film.35% - Blatantly revisionist 'Lost Cause' propaganda masquerading as 'history'. Depicts blacks in the confederacy as a collection of Uncle Remus and Aunt Jemima characters serving the cause of their own free will. Shows only major battles which were counted as confederate victories (completely ignores the Battle of Shiloh).10% - A subplot involving two stage actors mostly so the film-makers can allude to President Lincoln's assassination, includes a particular lurid performance of the murder scene from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.20% - Only this part is a true prequel to 'Gettysburg'; shows the pre-Gettysburg story of the 20th Maine and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, including their decimation at the Battle of Fredricksburg**tl;dr** 80% pro-confederate Hogwash; go re-watch 'Gettysburg' instead

Director Ron Maxwell's "Gods and Generals," the prequel to "Gettysburg," appears far more polished than his initial American Civil War movie. In "Gettysburg," lots of critics carped about the bogus beards that the actors sported, principally Tom Berenger's Longstreet. Maxwell made sure that his prequel didn't suffer the same fate in the facial hair department. Indeed, the beards look far better. Indeed, lenser Kees Van Oostrum's widescreen cinematography looks immaculate as does most of the sprawling sets. Of course, the Virginia Military Institute looks contemporary for its day because dirt has been put down to cover the asphalt road. Nevertheless, despite the sheer brilliance of this lengthy spectacle, "Gods and Generals" has some problems that some Civil War buffs, particularly historians, may not charitably tolerate. For example, the film refuses to address the issue of slavery, and most of the slaves seem more reminiscent of the loyal slaves from "Gone with the Wind" and "So Red the Rose" era. Basically, this epic war movie was designed to showcase Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Confederate General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson, Union General Winfield Scott Hancock, and Union Lieutenant Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. Maxwell devotes the bulk of the film to Jackson, and Stephen Lang performs splendidly in the role as the pugnacious but religious leader who died accidentally at the hands of his own men.. Robert Duvall replaces Martin Sheen, but Duvall resembles Lee more than Sheen. The action unfolds with Lee's refusal to take Abraham Lincoln's offer to command all Union forces. Lee explains to Preston Blair that he cannot take up arms against his home state of Virginia. Meantime, Jackson serves as an instructor at VMI when he notices cadets tearing down the Union flag. Later, at the Virginia secession convention, state officials vote to secede from the Union and they offer Lee the job of commanding all their troops. Naturally, Lee accepts this offer without a qualm. When Maxwell shifts his attention to the North, he takes us to Maine, where Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain explains his views about the complicated issue of slavery to his class at Bowdoin College. This is Chamberlain before he entered the Union Army, and this time around we meet his concerned wife, Frances Caroline 'Fanny' Chamberlain (Oscar winning actress Mira Sorvino). Unlike "Gettysburg," women play a larger role in this Civil War film.The film takes place between April 1861 and May 1863, and Maxwell depicts the battles of First Manassas, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and concludes the action less than two months before Gettysburg. This magisterial film will no doubt be a chore to sit through, but it does have its rewards. If you don't know much about the Civil War, prepare to be changed. For example, one seasoned military officer shows Chamberlain and his brother the proper way to load a musket, using a nine step method. This same officer impresses upon Chamberlain the necessity for rigorous discipline and training so the soldiers can responds to commands in an expeditious manner. If you saw "Gettysburg," you will learn, too, how the Chamberlains met Sergeant Buster Kilrain (Kevin Conway) and came to be fast friends. Most critics lament the long speeches, but this is a chessboard movie. Unfortunately, Maxwell is probably more ambitious than he should be and the narrative becomes quite unwieldy at times.

I could only stomach so much of this movie. I found this movie to be sickening the way they put the southern soldiers, particularly the leaders, way up on some high platform, you would think they were angels or something of such a lofty position that God himself was lower than these leaders. The constant speeches from all the 'innocent' leaders, trying desperately to justify the actions of the south. Mind you, I am no hater of the south, but let's have SOME reality. Even the way they portray the blacks, cheering the southern soldiers on to war in the streets, yea, I believe that. Interesting how we do not see any of the harsh treatment that the slaves endured, only pretty pretty dresses and glorious, Godly endeavors to secure the pure and righteous south from the hideous demons of the North. If you want to see an entirely false and glorified picture of the way the South was, then by all means, enjoy. If you are expecting to see some semblance of reality, look elsewhere.

Gods and Generals does not have the impact that Gettysburg had for viewers and historical enthusiasts. Gods and Generals is a long, boring movie that takes too much time trying to show sympathy to the southern army rather than tell the complete story. The consistent bible pounding, preaching, "thou art" dialog that Stephan Lang spouts takes a lot out of the movie. There could have been one scene where the film showed his devotion to his religion, rather than take every chance to preach to the audience. Face it--it is hypocritical to even try since these folks were abusing slaves, selling men and women, and treating other human beings as cattle. You can talk the talk, but the south never walked the walk of a Christian. To try and show that the southerners were Christians in the eyes of the Christian god is ridiculous. Secondly to have Jackson portrayed as this good fellow who has free slaves who follow him in pure devotion was beyond ridiculous. Jackson was the same as all slave owners. Even by any remote chance he did not beat his slaves, he still had them living in poor conditions, he still owned and traded human flesh and he was as guilty as every other southern gentlemen who fought to keep people in bondage. Any film that tackles the slavery issue and tries to bring sympathy for the southern devil isn't worth the film it is printed upon. More should have been spent on the battles and the slavery issue should have been avoided unless you wanted to portray it correctly.