Gods and Generals (2003)

That was an excellent one.

Strong and Moving!

best movie i've ever seen.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Not nearly as good as Gettysburg, or the book on which it is based.I watched Gods and Generals thinking it was going to be similar to Gettysburg: historically accurate, full of realistic battle scenes, and a wide and even spread of characters from both sides, with characters deep enough to understand their motivations, and the motivations of either side in the Civil War. With the same producers, director and many of the same actors, Gods and Generals promised to be similar. While the movie was historically accurate and the battle scenes quite realistic (though not to the point of Saving Private Ryan, say, ie it avoiding being gory), the characters were not evenly spread, mainly concentrating on Southern generals, and in particular Stonewall Jackson. The movie seemed more like a Stonewall Jackson biography than a recounting of the first 2 years of the war, up to Chancellorsville, which it pertains to be. Yet, if it is a movie about Stonewall Jackson, why not include Jackson's Shenandoah campaign, surely, after Chancellorsville, his greatest contribution to the Southern cause?The other problem I had with concentrating on Jackson was that Stephen Lang was probably not the best choice of actor for the role of Jackson. His acting seemed wooden and forced, like many of the actors in the movie, and I could not stop myself from thinking of him as Major General George Pickett, the character he played in Gettysburg. Pickett was a very different character to Jackson, and to think of Jackson as Pickett does Jackson no favours. Clearly the producers wanted to retain as many of the Gettysburg cast as possible, an admirable idea when they are playing the same characters as before (eg Jeff Daniels as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, the same actors for Gen Hancock and the 20th Maine sergeant), as one recognises them immediately and can fathom how their characters fit in the time-line of the war. Yet having Stephen Lang play Pickett in Gettysburg and Jackson in Gods and Generals makes no sense, for the reasons outlined above. Maybe they wanted to reward him for his role in Gettysburg, and he couldn't play Pickett here, as Pickett was not a significant figure in this part of the war.Another miscasting was Jason London as Jackson's adjutant, Captain Pendleton. He was not believable as a military character, especially one in authority.As Jackson was the central figure, there seemed not enough time, or inclination, to develop the other characters involved. Jeff Daniels probably has the 2nd most screen-time and does a good job of showing us Chamberlain's motivations and philosophies. Nobody else really appears for long enough for us to get a handle on what they are about. I thought Robert E Lee would be explored significantly, as he was a more important figure than Jackson or Chamberlain, especially in the context of the entire war, and especially as a he was played by a major actor, Robert Duvall, but we just scratch the surface of his character. Robert Duvall did an excellent job in the role, though.The most irritating aspect of the entire film is the amount of grandiose speeches. Hardly a scene goes by without someone waxing lyrical about what the war is all about, and means to them, all with accompanying stirring music. It all becomes so predictable after a while - the movie starts starts to resemble a musical, with every scene geared towards leading into a speech/song. While each sides motivations for fighting the war need to be explored, there are more subtle and less pretentious ways of going about it.The producers clearly wanted to fit in as many of the famous quotes of the period too, sometimes they seem to appear in dialogue for no rhyme or reason, and, like the speeches, whole scenes are geared toward just being a platform for the quote.This all said, there is a lot of good to be said about the movie too. As mentioned, it was historically very accurate and it does stay pretty much on track as regards the flow of events, only wandering off for the inevitable speech-scenes. The battle scenes are very well re-enacted and do give you a good insight into the battles of First Manassas/Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Fredericksburg was especially good, as one got to really experience how futile, pointless and courageous the Union attack was, and see how the topography of the area played a major role. The confrontation between the two Irish brigades was an especially emotional moment.The book by Jeff Shaara was far better. It covered a wide spread of characters, and didn't get bogged down in sentimentality and speeches, unlike the movie.Overall, a reasonable attempt, but it could have been a lot better. By spending less time on speeches and more time on the battles (maybe adding Jackson's Shenandoah campaign, to show where he really made a name for himself, and Antietam, the ultimate demonstration of callous death and destruction) and the major characters involved, and getting the right actors for the parts, the producers would have had a great movie on their hands.

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.

In general, this was a nicely done Civil War film. In a somewhat unusual plot, the South is not shown as a rebellious people, but rather a group of prideful men fighting to protect their homes and families. The movie shows several battles that occurred in the South, all of which were won by the South. However, it does not promote the idea of slavery. At several points, different characters on both sides denounce slavery. The movie does a good job at letting us see the humane side of southerners. It mainly follows Confederate General Jackson and his life during the early stages of the Civil War. Through his encounters with his wife, and a touching friendship with a young girl, we are able to watch and understand that these people had private lives away from the camps and battlefields. Finally, the movie shows the importance of religion on both sides. God is used to explain some of the horrors of the war, as shown in the repeated use of the phrase "Thy will be done," and in some cases, it was the only thing that gave men the courage to fight. The prominence of religion is accurate for this time period. The only downside to the movie is its length. The battle scenes, although engaging, were somewhat uninteresting due to the lack of emotional attachment to the characters actually doing the fighting.

Just sometimes critics get it completely wrong. This film is one such instance of that. I guess a well made Civil War epic with astounding acting, well put together convincing battle scenes. Accurate uniforms and weapons and a film which takes full advantage of it's budget etc counts as bad these days. Personally as a historian and someone who enjoys long epics I was invested in this one. To me it is more of a character study of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and his actions as a Confederate officer than a war film. This film has all the tropes which makes a great war film of course but I never really knew who the man Jackson was, just what he did as a General. I'm glad this film was made because it gave me an insight into the man's psyche, someone here said Stephen Lang deserved an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and I agree. I do prefer Ronald F. Maxwell's other epic Gettysburg but taken on it's own Gods and Generals is still worth sitting through despite its four hour running time. I want to see Maxwell's proposed third installment in his trilogy The Last Full Measure and I think people will agree with me the audience is there and want to see it get done. God's and Generals is criminally underrated and one which critics missed the mark on.Solid 10/10