Movie: Gods & Generals (2/21/03)

[rbrunsman]

I just saw my first preview of this movie on TV last night. I can't wait! It will be between 3 and 4 hours long (considerably shorter that Gettysburg was).

Set before and during the early days of the Civil War, this historical epic tells the true stories of the battles of 1st Manassas (AKA the Battle of Bull Run), Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, using a mix of historic and fictional characters. One of the most important figures portrayed will be Confederate General Stonewall Jackson (Lang), around whom much of the story revolves, leading up to tragedy for him at Chancellorsville...

Read the book first, then see the movie. It is very good!

[showboat1]

Will this be a theatrical movie or a TNT original kind of thing?

[Veldor]

They've been showing the preview here for weeks.. I've gotten sick of it.. The only thing they play more often is "Final Destination 2" which made every single commercial break starting about a week before release..

"Gods and Generals" is a major motion picture that comes out in February...

You can see trailers for that and other upcoming movies at:

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/g/godsgenerals.php

Usually a month or more before they hit Television.

[DavidW75]

Comes out Feb 21. Can't wait

[rbrunsman]

It concerns me a little when a movie is advertised so much before it is released. To me, it means they want to get all the people they can to see it during the opening weekend, so that they don't have time to tell their friends the movie sucked.

However, Gettysburgh was so good, I can't believe this movie won't be awesome.

Also, I believe the movie has many more minutes of footage that can be added for the TV release. Ted Turner actually had a bit part that hit the cutting room floor, IIRC. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.:rolleyes:

[Kanon Fodder]

It's been out a week already.

I haven't noticed any comments / reviews.

[KG Erwin]

I haven't seen it yet, but a co-worker served as an extra, and of course he thought it was very well done. The movie is dominated by the character of Stonewall Jackson, and Stephen Lang apparently carries it off well. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone hated it, giving it one star, but he's obviously not a Civil War buff. If you're a CW fan, then I believe you'll enjoy it, but for the average movie goer, it may seem too long and overly talky. Writer/director Ron Maxwell was not about to project 21st century sensibilities on a 19th century period piece, so I have a feeling some folks may be offended by the Southern viewpoint. I'm thankful that he did so--no danger here of turning this into an updated "Gone With the Wind" with a modernist twist.

[Fallschirmjager]

Ive seen...no wrong word...endured it twice...I love this civil war...but this is terrible...looks like a massive $50 dollar rennactment


And please for the love of god keep your gf's/wives away from this one....if you do take them...then you have no buisness having female companionship again.

[Reiryc]

I saw it and enjoyed it...

Wasn't the best made film ever but did a good job with portraying religion as a central tennent in the lives of the men of the period.

The movie didn't flow as well as gettysberg and not just because it had multiple battles, but because it had a hard time linking events in a fluid stream.

I will be seeing it again in the theater and will buy the dvd when it comes out.

Reiryc

[RayM]

I saw it last weekend. Not very good although there were some good spots and aspects. It just so happens that I am reading and studying the Battle of Fredericksburg (for my trip this Spring) and I could see that they got a good number of things right. But they also left as much out if my reading is accurate. I also plan to study and visit Chancellorville.

The biggest negative for me was that there was no context presented for any of the three set piece battles (First Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorville). The questions that sould have been answered by showing more maps or having character dialogue explaining are:

- Why did these battles occur?
- Why here in these locations?
- What were the overall strategic goals of the opposing forces that led to each of these battles? And did they achieve them?
- How were these battles (particularly the last two) connected to one another?

On the plus side, the sets, costumes, and equipment looked great.

[Veldor]

This movie got 82 negative reviews. EIGHTY-TWO.. out of 90..

This is the type of film (long epic period piece) that normally would have every critic praising every last extra in it and self-proclaiming it the best film of the year etc etc...

"Pure agony", "Boring and as Bloated as a water-logged corpse",
and though I'm not an Ebert fan really I think he got this one perfectly:

"The kind of movie beloved by people who never go to the movies, because they are primarily interested in something else -- the Civil War, for example -- and think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute."

It's about as unanimous as it gets... This one sucks.. save your money and most importantly your TIME!

Read all the credible critics reviews here:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Godsand ... s-1120554/

[Reiryc]

Here's a decent review....

nedved

I usually find that the more a critic doesn't like a movie, the better it is