Advertise here.
 |
Title: Gods and Generals
|
/ 
/ | CONSUMER ADVICE |
Parents, there is a substantial amount of war violence in this movie. Not to mention the history is completely wrong, so showing this movie to pre-teens could mess them up on their history test. Recommended for ages 13 and up. |
Back in 1993, Ronald F. Maxwell's highly praised and Oscar worthy epic "Gettysburg," a movie that chronicaled the epic battle at Gettysburg, which was the major turning point in the Civil War. The movie was more then four hours long, it was historically accurate, and it was entertaining with some gripping battle sequences. "Gods and Generals", which was made in 2003, was set to be the new generations "Gone With The Wind." It was an epic Civil War movie, being produced and controlled by a big wig (Ted Turner replacing David O. Selznick), it was four hours long, and early reports were saying that everything from the costumes, music, and actors were all being handled with kid gloves.
 |
Yet the movie ended up falling flat. EXTREMELY flat! How could a movie that had so much going for it fail so miserably? To understand why "Gods and Generals" was a massive failure we must discuss what the movie is about. "Gettysburg" is self explanitory: That movie was about the battle at Gettysburg. "Gods and Generals" isn't really about anything at all. In a an early scene that had me groaning out loud, General Stonewall Jackson (a general for the South) has a conversation with his Afraican-American cook. Jackson promises his cook that one day the South will free him. The cook looks cautiously optimistic. There'd be hell to pay if World War II was handled this way.
 |
This scene right here tries to convince us that the Civil War was not fought for the rights of slaves. So what WAS the Civil War fought for then?! Well, the North fought for it's proffits, and the South fought for it's land. Since the slaves would have been freed by the South anyway, the war seems extremely pointless in this movie, like everyone is fighting just to kill and be killed. It makes you even more uneasy to hear about the war in this movie then the current Iraq war. Of course, when I say fighting I mean verbal fighting. Despite all the work that went into the movie with the costumes and sets, there's only fighting in about fourty-five minutes out of this four hour monstrosity. The rest of the movie is a bunch of speeches.
 |
Oh yes, apparently Ted Turner thinks we all pay $9.50 a ticket to hear a bunch of people make really long speeches that go on and on. The longest speech I encountered, which was done by Jackson, was around fifteen to sixteen minutes (yes, I got so bored I started timing the speeches). Jimmy Crickets. These speeches aren't even the least bit interesting. Well, I take that back. When the war is beginning they are interesting because we want to hear the battle strategies and everything, but once we're a couple years into the war itself, shouldn't the generals have found better ways to tear down their enemies then talking them to sleep? Oh, and the North tells the South to free the slaves and the attacks will (for the most part) stop. The South says no.
 |
If the South are going to free the slaves one day, then why not now? The movie fails to address this issue. There are so many problems with this movie, it's hard to know where to really begin. The first problem is that this movie is so biased, so slanted, so ignorant of how the Civil War really worked, that the movie feels like propaganda for the South. In this movie, the South can do no wrong. Heck, in this movie, the South is the peaceful side of the country, and the North are the big bullies who are picking on the South for no reason what-so-ever (remember, the South was GOING to free the slaves). The South is shown as being these nobal saints who are caring and compassionate, and the North is shown as ignorant pigs who aren't very socialable.
 |
The speeches go on forever. I cannot stress this enough. The over blown speeches are almost as insulting as the "eventually freeing the slaves" thing I keep harping on. Oh, there are some good things about this movie. The battle sequences, what few there are, are spectacular. The costumes and set feel as authentic as they can feel, and the acting is pretty good. But the movie is a mess. For Civil War buffs, the movie has fact error holes so big you could fly space shuttles through them. Despite the fact that Stonewall Jackson is shown as being a saint here, history has shown him to be less then perfect, with somewhat of a kinky behaiver at parties, and (take notes) was someone who believed that being a slave was the proper place of all African-Americans.
 |
Yes, Stonewall Jackson was against freeing the slaves above all else. They can't film that though, because we're supposed to like him in the movie, so his personality had a PC makeover. The movie gets so many facts about the Civil War outright wrong, that I doubt there are many Civil War buffs out there who would find things to defend about this movie. The movie romanticises the South so much, that there's little room for arguements in this movie. People who aren't into history as much will wonder why the speeches take so long to get done. Worst of all though, this movie just isn't entertaining. It's ironic that I criticize "Gods and Generals" for romanticising the South too much, as I just got finished watching "Gone With The Wind," which does the exact same thing.
 |
The difference is that there are multiple points of view in "Gone With The Wind," and at least that movie knew that it was entertainment first and message second. "Gods and Generals" seems to be aiming for a point of view, and if people also happened to be entertained...well, then good for them. But it doesn't feel like "Gods and Generals" was meant to be entertaining as much as it was for the filmmakers to voice a biased opinion about the Civil War, one that has weak roots in this movie. If you're a Civil War buff stay away from this movie. If you're not a Civil War buff, stay away from this movie. If you love movies, stay away from this movie. If you hate movies, stay away from this movie. But for everyone else this should be fine.
Side Note: An interesting bit of movie trivia I found to be quite interesting is that Russel Crowe was original signed on to play Stonewall Jackson, but had to pull out of the movie because his wife went into labor early on during production. Since most of the movie revolves around Stonewall Jackson, the producers had to replace Crowe over waiting for him to be available again. I'm not a big fan of Russel Crowe, but I couldn't help but wonder what the Stonewall Jackson chracter would have been like had Crowe been available to make the movie (and whether or not his pressence would have greatly improved the box office or not). Just something to ponder.
 |
