20 Reasons not to see Gods & Generals at the Theater

sean_harris

Cadet
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
1.Robert Duvall repeats every word as if Lee is trying to convince himself of what he says. Martin Sheen did not, in the same role for the movie, "Gettysburg," . As a reviewer for the Dallas Morning News noticed, Robert Duvall repeated the wording of his script as if thinking aloud. Duvall, like his famous ancestor, actually had to convince himself to believe in that horrid script.

2. Horrible box office numbers will give writer/director Ron Maxwell no leverage needed to secure funding to complete the film trilogy of which this is one part. Thank God for small favors!!!

3. Many professional critics would rather you watched something else.

4. As Daniel McCarthy wrote recently for this site, "Gods and Generals is more or less explicitly Forsaken, Southern, and even libertarian."

5. If you like accents, this is a famine: both regional dialects and the Bible-soaked patterns of nineteenth-century American speech are laughingly reproduced.

6. Confederate General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in prayer, need we say more?

7.If you haven’t been to a movie with an intermission since "Lawrence of Arabia," you’re not overdue, be thankfull!!

8. Ron Jeremy as Burnside!

9. Kevin Conway as Union Sergeant "Buster" Kilrain. No, we can't say anything bad about him

10. Frankie Faison as the loyal but conflicted cook, Jim Lewis.
Less prayer more "Big Jim"

11.The poignancy of the battlefield clash between northern and southern Irishmen. Men, up and to your posts! Wait I have spotted Patrick Cleburne!!!

12. The mid-river meeting of Johnny Reb and Billy Yank on Christmas Day. hey, if it was up to Ted Turner they would still be standing there in the next movie!

13. The performance of the song, "Bonnie Blue Flag." That guy was umm, "speacial" My vote goes to "Silent Night" performed by the Confederate Command with speacial "Electric" slide performed by Jeb Stuart!

14.The regimental (read: state) flags under the opening credits, which offer silent but eloquent testimony to Confederate notions of patriotism and or made you fall asleep after 3 minutes of that dribble!

15.Few movies take philosophy or religion as seriously as this one does, right,then Jackson should be played by Charlton Heston!

16."Gods and Generals" director Ron Maxwell had nice things to say about Ang Lee’s "Ride with the Devil," another under-rated movie about the War Between the States. I would say nice things to when comparing what I attempted to what they acomplished!

17.Ken Burns’ famous "Civil War" mini-series needs company. Wait, Ken Burns will find better company than this!!! Give em Hell 54th!!!

18.Intelligence, passion, and fair-mindedness on the big screen is a good thing. Wow, I must have missed it!!

19. Rubber Bayonets

20. Ted Turner
 
Here's hoping that your life is not as miserable as one might suspect from your obvious inability to appreciate a film with errors and inaccuracies but, nevertheless, full of quality acting and terrible (that's a good terrible) battle scenes.

Good luck to you, I hope things get better.
 
I've read so many plus and minus comments, on this movie, I've looked forward to seeing it. But, I found out that our local theater, is owned by one of the movie companies, and only their movies, are allowed to be shown. Gods and Generals, isn't one of theirs. So I will have to wait till the video comes out.Expired Image Removed
gunsmoke
 
Wow! To have rated twenty comments from a poster, this will definitely be a MUST SEE movie for me! Thanks!

}}} Personally, I love Robert Duvall. I have loved Martin Sheen in many things, but not the travesty that was Gettysburg.}}}
 
(Sigh) Sean oh Sean, for all the movie's faults and there were some I grant you, it still was a great CW flick. I'd see it again if It was still playing here. I will purchase the DVD when it comes out and continue to enjoy it as I have Glory, Gettysburg, Andersonville, Blue and the Gray.The Fredricksburg portion was one of the best battle scenes I have ever seen.

Everybody loves Glory it seems but there were just as many if not more problems with that film's accuracy. They had the Yanks going the wrong way in Glory. If you recall they were facing south with their left shoulders toward the sea. In the original attack, they were headed north because they were dropped off south of Wagner. Don't get me started on how screwed up Glory was that will be an entire thread in itself. But in spite of its inaccuracies, I enjoyed that movie as well.

Life is to enjoy, please do it. Your review sounded cranky :smile:

Bill
 
You cannot believe how refreshing it is to be on a board where people can have honest differences of opinion and the discussion not wind up in verbal assaults!

My advice, Sean, enjoy the popcorn and rent Gettysburg again!
}}}
 
If Sean has not seen a movie with an intermission since Lawrence of Arabia (point #7), then I would have to assume he didn't see Gettysburg in the theatre, either.
 
As I said in another post... I'm just glad I know who surrendered at Appomotax. It was no Glory as it lacked the quality acting present in that movie. There were many things I didn't care for in G&G but all in all it was better than most of the drival Hollywood produces.

As to Glory being all wrong... yep it's not the most historically accurate film I've ever seen but it was far more entertaining than G&G or Gettysburg by quite a lot. The plus side to all of the movies I just mentioned is that hopefully they will encourage research...

Maybe I'm too hopeful...
 
Actually, I detect a tongue firmly planted in Sean's cheek... that whole original post may be just a big joke to get us flummoxed... wasn't he the one who posted the thing about Grant and the decoder ring??

Zou (who has not seen GAG and probably will not, until the DVD comes out)
 
I liked it and would see it again. BTW Jackson was in fact somewhat of a religious zelot.
 
smile.gif
Hmmmmmmm. Lets see here.
1. I think the reason folks liked Glory is simple,Glory was good old movie making.
2. Blue and Grey oh god I have that one to. It was a great comedy,I consider this one the civil war equal to the 'Night Of The Living Dead' It is so bad . Love those 1870's sack coats.
3. The critics did not like G.A.G.? Hey I only listen to honest movie critics like Tom Servo , Crow T. Robot , Joe Hodgsen,Mike Nelson. Or other Pro Critics from the Satelite of love.
4. On the good side the sunday I watched G.A.G. I missed church, yet with all the religion in G.A.G. I felt my soul was saved.
5. For all those who get upset because some of us are critical of your new favorite movie I suggest putting you energy into defending a worthwhile cause like your right to better Civil war movies.
6. Now here is a good question .How did somebody who makes so many war movies ever get hitched up with Jane Fonda?If he really wants to tick Jane off he can make a move about Vietnam.
As always in a goofing mood providing the answer to nothing.Brian
 
....."If he really wants to tick Jane off he can make a move about Vietnam."..... Or perhaps he can make a documentary of Jane's visiting the "Jewel of Southeast Asia"....and her point of entry into that country. Some of us haven't forgotten....
 
That is correct a lot of us have not forgotten.
Maybe Ted and Ron can do a Rev.War movie . She can get a sex change and play Benedict Arnold.
 
My initial reaction to Sean's post was "WHAT th....???" I am firmly convinced that Sean was exercising his own brand of sardonic humor. In the G&G Review thread, Sean posted several comments that showed he did take the movie at least somewhat seriously.

As a relatively new and somewhat less fanatic Civil War "buff," I can say for myself that the effect of these Civil War movies (remember, we're still talking Hollywood and the Mass Market...) is to awaken my interest and give me new topics to go out and read up on. The only film I have ever seen that truly claims to be an accurate historical representation is Ken Burns' monumental work - as soon as I'm not broke, I *WILL* get that on DVD - my VHS tapes made from the PBS broadcast are not exactly the best copy I've ever seen... Like Glory, and Gettysburg too, G&G provides plenty of opportunities to ask the question: "Did they really do that?" or "What were T.J. Jackson's religious views?" etc. etc... In bringing such a crucial part of our nation's history to the public's attention, G&G - like all of the others - is an admirable exercise, flaws and all.

When the DVD comes out, I will be there at my local Wal-Mart with money in hand - even if I have to roll 20 years' worth of pennies to do it.

Smilodon
 
Ah yes, Hanoi Jane, many of us will never forget. The only Navy length line I will ever stand in again will be the one to err... water Jane's grave.
 
I've not yet had the chance to see G & G; I'm waiting for a chance to go with my high-school age and generally busier than me son. I have no problem with the movie reviews I've seen and read about the movie as it's stuff you can pretty much expect given the sources. Rather, it's the folks who write on boards such as this fine one whose views I value. I appreciated Sean's comments, his criticisms and witticisms, as well as those who followed. The criticisms of folks like us I hold much more valid than any Hollywood or 'professional' critic. (And I too opine that any Jane Fonda orifice would be a fine target for a Cruise missile, or Scud missile, as luck would have it.) As to the length of the movie and intermissions, in movies of a historical nature, the longer and the more, respectively, the better! I'm still waiting to get hold of the 9 hour version of Dances with Wolves. As to historical accuracy/inaccuracy. To me, it is wonderful that movies such as this are made with an eye toward being as historically accurate as possible. That there are errors or embellishments is just something inherent in the nature of movie-making for profit. We must appreciate what we can get, and I'm delighted to get movies like Glory, Gettysburg, and Gods and Generals,historical inaccuracies and all, (though not to the point of making a farce of the subject.) One recent movie that I marvel at is Enemy at the Gates, which is a story about two bad guys with little to no redeeming qualities, (and Hollywood made this a movie?!?!- just marvelous!!)- to wit, Nazi Germany and Communist Russia at the Battle of Stalingrad. For the joy of seeing that 3-hour movie, I was quite willing to put up with a nonsensical Hollywoodesque love story as the price a history buff must pay to get the story on film.

So give me Gods and Generals, and I will give you plenty of reasons to be happy. And part of the fun is noting the inaccuracies and critiquing the story and actors.

Regards, friends, ewc
 
Zou,

You are very correct, I did place the information on the postings about Grant and the "secret decoder" ring. lol!

Shoot, was just messing around and never expected such a posting. In all truth, I have my actual post on thoughts about the movie on this site also. I simply found this information online and added some "extra" information.

AS for the movie, I saw it three times two for free at advance showings and once paying. If I really despised this movie I would not have taken my wife or friends. Everyone has to admit like it or not some of the movie was rather "over the top"

If ya cant take the fact Daniels looked winded just looking at the stone wall then I do not know what to say. Anyway, here is to the 6 hour DVD I will be buying at K-Mart!
 
My original post, also found right below on Gods and Generals Review!lol

CWT,

I went to the Indianapolis showing on Wed at the UA complex. I really am unsure of what to say about this movie after seeing it. Gettysburg is a cut below G&G that, I truly believe. However, I do not think this movie will have huge box office returns. I due believe it will due very well in DVD sales and on network TV. I think what we have here is another cult classic.

This is not a movie, but a journey. That, is were the problem will lie for most of the public. I would refer to it as something like "The Stand" something you watch on a Saturday afternoon in your home. We all realize it's nice to take a break and eat a snack. Hell, if you fall asleep you can always hit rewind!

Longstreet and Lee you ask, Well, you see them in rare glimpses on the screen. This is a story about Jackson. Longstreet plays as much of a role as AP Hill in this version. In fact, I think Hill has more lines and is in more scenes. That being said, Conway and Howell steal the show with the scenes they are in. Jeff, well, Jeff is J.L.C. only a little heavier, Hancock the same. Burnside reminded me of a thin Ron Jeremy for some reason! (LOL!) Also, we see the usuall cast of characters from Getty only a little older and wiser from the last 10 years.

This is not Getty, so if you go in thinking that, you will either be very happy or rudely awakened. As for people saying its choppy, yes, it is choppy in some parts. Roll with the punches you know the history and timeline. For those who dont they wont care anyway.

Finally, a Union army that actually gets dirty!! J.L.C. finally gets dirt on that pristine uniform before L.R.T. The guys look a lot more realistic in this flick compared to Getty. No chubby Rebs I could spot. Also, look to the Ist Brigade in training some are in old Revolutionary uniforms. (K, it may be war of 1812, but, you get the point) As for "comic relief" it is in the movie.

I have heard some say this is a very "Pro-Southern" movie, I really did not see it. We may follow Southern Characters however, I did not see the film as "Pro-Southern" I also did not see the film as "Pro-Slavery" if anything it brought into question the very issue of slavery.

I think what some are complaining about is the fact you could have black characters who cared for a family for years and really loved the family, but want to be free also. I guess this is not PC enough these days. Both Jackson and J.L.C. speak on the issue as well as a blach man. Between these three you see it is a complicated issue. Not black and white like we think today.

Battle scenes are better however, I wish they would have made the Stone Wall scenes more violent and with more men involved near the wall. I really though they lost something in sound quality during the Stone Wall scenes. Bull Run had stronger sounds of musket and cannon discharge. So after that, Fredericksburg was sort of a letdown for me. Shoot, it may have been the UA sound system.

I also thought they could have cut down on Fredericksburg, compacted it and gotten the same response from the crowd. They due make up for some of this in the night scenes. We also needed more Chancellorsville! I really was dissapointed when Lee showed up at the burning home! I have always thought of the men in celebration chanting Lee like in Getty. The type of shouting the Union would have heard on Stafford Heights. No such thing here! Well, maybe in the DVD!

All this being said I would give the movie a 3 out of 5 for Civil War buffs and a 2.5 for others. I really think the time and dialogue will turn off the younger crowd ( I really do not expect this to attract a younger crowd). Most people I saw at the movie were in the 40-50 age group. My problem is I cant get the darn movie out of my head! Well, seeing it on Friday also! tee hee!

I really think the DVD sales will be crucial to the making of LFM. I really want to see the other 2.5 hours left on the floor. I think it will only enhance the movie.

Guys, go see the movie yourselves and decide!
 
Sorry that I, like others, was a little too quick to take offense at what was meant as a humorous post.

I'm reminded of the stereotypical line from old Western movies, "Smile when yew say that, pardner."

I guess the modern equivalent is "Put a smiley-face icon on that thar post, pardner."
happy.gif
 
It is America and everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this film. But, with what I have read on this board and in other areas, I for one am going to wait for the DVD and the extra three hours!

Unionblue
 
Back
Top