Film God's and General's

[Von Luck]

Anybody seen this-brilliant as far as im concerned and very accurate down to a lot of points the action scenes etc are great.IE American Civil War film with Robert Duval as Lee.

[Thor]

John,

Not many people saw it. :P

I was one of the unfortunates who did. I loved "Gettysburg" and waited with anticipation for Gods and Generals to come out. I am an enthusiastic ACW buff and have visited almost every battlefied in the Eastern Theater.

But I was sorely disappointed in the movie, which was lambasted by critics and audiences both. It had some decent action scenes for sure and a few good moments, but the four minute Karaoke rendition of the "Bonnie Blue Flag" with Ted Turner made we want to wretch.

Plus, Stephan Lang kinda butchered Stonewall IMO and made him look every bit the "Tom Fool", but not in the way he was known for. Lang hammed it up so bad that Stonewall looked more like Pee Wee Herman than one of the greatest American generals of all time.

That's more than my .02 of course, but I had really, really high hopes for that movie after the brilliance of "Ghettysburg" and came away from the theater on opening night stunned. :(

Our showing was packed and very quiet for about 20 minutes or so, aside from a few intermitent chuckles, when out of the silence a sixty year old man in the center of the theater proclaimed loadly: "This SUCKS!" and walked out.

Unfortunately, most of the folks there readily agreed with him and about half the crowd left before the end of the movie.

John, if you have not seen "Ghettysburg" with Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger and Jeff Danials -- check it out. It's a much, much better movie with more action and a far better plot thread. :thumbs_up: Many southerners have criticized Sheen for a weak portrayal of R.E. Lee, but I liked him ok in it and thought the movie was overall excellent.

Of course it is based on Longstreet's memoirs, so you have to take a bit of the criticism of Lee with a grain of salt. Longstreet was real putz. :censored:

Take Care,
Mark~Thor

[Abatis]

I thought Gods and General's was weak in comparison to Gettysburg too, but didn't think it totally without value, though I agree with many of Thor's points.... Wasn't Gettysburg based on Shara's Killer Angels rather than Longstreet's memoirs? (Incidentally, IMHO Longstreet was right at G burg, Lee wrong. I understand the political pressure Lee was under to attack, but he must have realized attacking those hills across that ground was more in line with what he made Union troops do, rather than an act he needed to subject his own to. HOWEVER, Longstreet did make sure Lee failed by dragging his feet on day 2. Inexcusable. Had he moved fast, Lee might have come out on top. Could have fought to a draw anyway, and then found a better place to make a stand. Longstreet should have followed his orders regardless of his own views. Even though his view point was vindicated, his lack of haste puts a good share of the blame for the defeat on his shoulders. IMO of course!

On movies, I just picked up and watched the German film, Stalingrad from the mid or late 90's(don't remember) THAT is a helluva movie...there was a clip posted a few months back on that...wasn't even aware of that one till that post! Thanks whoever posted it!

[Rebel__]

very good movie ,i enjoyed watching it

[Charlie-66]

Like many, I waited for this movie with great anticipation. It was not as good as Gettysburg, but I still enjoyed it. I thought the Fredericksburg battle was well done. As for Longstreet on day 2, we could open a whole new MB on that subject!:smg: There are a couple fairly recent biographies on him that contend that he was scapegoated after the war for not advocating resistance to reconstruction.

[Copper]

Our showing was packed and very quiet for about 20 minutes or so, aside from a few intermitent chuckles, when out of the silence a sixty year old man in the center of the theater proclaimed loadly: "This SUCKS!" and walked out.

unfortuantely this is also my feeling about the movie, I watch it now only to see the brief if not somewhat lacking battle scenes, but it will be a dust collector.
I felt if that was the way Jackson was for real then how the hell did he do what he did for the rebel army. I expected a more Pattonic version of the man, not some bible thumping (not meant to be offending to anyone)hammed up Hollywood version. Nevertheless I watched the entire 4 hour movie 1 time only.

Gettysburg is worth any money you put down for it, as is Stalingrad & Winter War. Recent additions to my collection include Saints and Soldiers(an excellant movie BTW), When Trumpets Fade & Downfall (Subtitled, but very intense and riveting movie of Hitler's last days)

[Thor]

If it was just day two of Gettysburg, Longstreet would be a martyr.

But "Old Slows" screwed up and underminded just about very battle he was in. Starting with the pre-7 Days campaign where inexplicably his troops started off way late and then took the wrong road and seriously balled up Johnston's planned attack on Little Mac at Fair Oaks and Seven Pines; then Longstreet failed to push the attack at Gains Mill until Lee personally ask the Texans to push forward; to Glendale where Longrstreet pulled up short one mile from cutting off the federal retreat path; or 1st Manassas where he failed to engage in the main fight at all (remaining on the flank all day while Jackson and others moved to "the sound of the guns"); or 2nd Manassas where he failed to push the attack on June 29th when the federals could have been routed and Lee was strongly encouraging him to move forward; to the battle of Chancellorville -- which he completely missed because he refused to move to Lee's aid and stayed down on "foraging/light guard duty" in Eastern Virginia while the Army of Norther Virginia was on the verge of annihilation against overwhelming odds; to Nashville where he badly botched the Confederate pursuit of retreating federals; to the Wilderness where his again inexplicable slowness in showing up almost caused Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to be overrun by the federals in Widow Trap field. Then he got himself accidently shot by his own men. (Or was he fragged??)

Oh well, enough spewing forth. The apologists are trying to blame his poor reputation on his post-Civil War political actions, but IMO "Old Pete" got far more credit than he was ever due. And he was good at blowing his own horn after the war and conveniently forgetting certain timelines and fact.

In my opinion, he undermined Lee at almost every juncture and failed to follow orders on a number of occassions. It was just that Day 2 at Gettysburg was so glaring that even his apologists could not fully explain it away. No doubt, Jubal Early had some axes to grind, but Longstreet really was not the sterling character he makes himselft out to be. And Shara's book "Killer Angels" was based on Longstreet's memoirs. So the movie of Gettysburg was to a large degree Longstreet's view.

And, in fact, Longstreet even actually ignored Lee's orders on the second day at Gettysburg by not moving up the Emettsburg road as ordered, instead veering off far right into Devils Den and Little Roundtop. And his "on-echelon" attack there was so disjointed that Hood's troops got decimated while the rest of Longstreets corps sat way too long in their starting positions waiting for him to give the order to advance on the Peach Orchard. That allowed Sickles and the Federals to concentrate their artillery on Hood's men almost exclusively for the first critical hours.

Prior to the war Longstreet was Major in the U.S. quartermaster corps and continued to draw his U.S. paycheck for some time after accepting a commission in the Confederate army. He also then went to a Southern state to enlist where he would be senior enough to get a star, rather than enlist in his home state as most confederates did.

In fairness, his men seemed to love him and he served well in the Mexican-American War, but in the ACW, other than Fredericksburg, I can find few examples of him shining. Even at Chickamauga, where he eventually spearheaded a major route of the Federals, he was hours behind scedule on launching his attack, disobeyed specific tactical orders -- and immediately began to incite a mutany against Braxton Brag, the grantedly inept, theater commander.

But Longstreet also felt and expressed throughout the war that he was a better general than Lee and often undermined Lee's decisions, actively or inactively.

Wrong ladder, I know. I know. Sorry.

Regards,
Mark~Thor

[Von Luck]

OK Sorry sorry to all you US players i thought the film good.Granted you have various thoughts etc on the movie being from America.My thoughts were based on a history prog called the Civil War where nearly all the comments and info came from poeple living there ie history buff's military historians etc.And from the series i watched thought the film was fairly accurate to a point.

[Thor]

John,

No offense intended. There were just a lot of things about this "prequel" that were sloppy. For example, in God's and Generals they had Joshua Chamberlain giving this droning, theatrical speech about Caeser, etc. and acting every bit the stern, experienced leader -- while in Gettysburg he was portrayed as a green, humble new commander, unsure of himself or at least displaying gentle, quiet leadership.

The rub? The battle of Fredericksburg (Gods and Generals) happened BEFORE Gettysburg -- thus Chamberlain's character was developing IN REVERSE. Totally inconsistent.

Plus, in G&Gs, they had a character getting whacked at the battle of Chancellorsville who had been the "rats" guy at Gettysburg ("Wer'e fighting for our rats.") It would have been tough for that guy to be at Gettysburg if he was killed a few weeks earlier at Chancellorsville. :)

G&G was just not up to par with the earlier Gettysburg by the same director and author. Even the author's son was disgusted with G&G and the sloppy job they did on the production.

Historically accurate, perhaps. But G&G was like a giant donut with a hole in the center that skipped HUGE, significant ACW battles/events during the period the movie covered, and it failed to remain consistent with its earlier (note: date-later) companion film, "Gettysburg."

For ardent fans and buffs of the ACW, like myself, it was a huge disappointment. Gettysburg had initiated a renaissance in interest in the ACW here in the US in the 90s and there were great expectations that G&G, produced by the same folks, would expand that interest much further into a populace largly ingorant to one of the most significant events in our nation's history.

Unfortunately, G&G had the opposite effect -- and likely killed public interest in the genre for some time to come. Ted Turner put up $90 million of his vastly shrunk personal fortune (down to 300 million from 10 Billion at one point) to finance the film and it grossed about 7 million I think.

Haven't heard much from Ted since. Maybe he's still drunk sitting around a campfire somewhere with a bunch of ACW reinactors singing "The Bonnie Blue Flag" . . . .

Ken Burns said the civil war was about freeing the slaves. The truth is far from that. The issue was much more complex and even Lincoln said that he would compromise on slaverly to preserve the union.

Gettysburg is a great film that explores with amazing accuracy that fascinating battle. There are also numerous subtle and accurate references in the Gettysburg dialog to other significant ACW events. If you have not seen that film, definately check it out. :thumbs_up:

Again, no offense intended John, although surely caused. My apologies. :bow:

But having majored in military history in college and studied it avidly for decades, I have found that the ACW provides an incredible opportunity to study the effect of weaponry, command decisions, communications, logistics, terrain and tactics on battle outcomes.

To me, it's a shame and inexcusable that G&G did not offer a quality sequel to Gettysburg and ingnite an even greater interest in the subject among the American public. :censored:

Because history speaks softly to those who will listen . . . and loudly to those who will not.

Best Regards,
Mark~Thor

[McIvan]

Haven't seen the film but enjoyed the Shaara's books, including the one on the invasion of Mexico with Lee as a young man. Do I take it that the negative comments apply only to the film and not to the book, or is the book also suspect?