Gods and Generals

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I know this is a little late, but I saw Gods and Generals for the first time a few weeks ago. I know it got a lot of bad reviews, but I didn't think it was that bad. I like Gettysburg a lot better, but I thought the portrayal of Stonewall Jackson was pretty good. I think the movie kinda bounces around a little bit (going from Jackson to Chamberlain to Hancock then back to Jackson, etc.), but aside from that, I didn't think it was too bad. Am I crazy?

 

[CW Spook]

G&G, as well as Gettysburg are two of the very few movies I've actually bought to keep. We watch G&G once in a while, but Gettysburg gets watched at least annually, on the 4th of July weekend, sometimes a second time during the winter.

 

[forindooruseonly]

Martin Sheen makes Gettysburg unwatchable to me and it's not because of his political stance. The man single handedly turned Lee into an insufferable fatalist. Then again, I suppose it's not so much his portrayal but his accent that bothered me the most.

G&G is too long for its own good, and squanders some of the better talent available like Duval. Still, I take it over Gettysburg. And I'd rather read The Killer Angels than watch either movie.

 

[Faulkner]

I think I prefer God's & Generals over Gettysburg. I do indeed like the way Jackson is portrayed.

 

[snafu177]

I watch both at least one time a year.
If G&G would of done better at the box office they would have made the third book The Last Full Measure into a movie also.
That would have been a great one.

 

[steamloco76]

The movie Gettysburg uses the book "The Killer Angels" as its script nearly word for word. Two performances in the movie are sub par-Martin Sheen is indeed terrible as R.E. Lee and tom Berringer and his groundhog on the face fake beard stink as General Longstreet. The rest of the cast do a fine job indeed.

Gods and Generals is a good book, not as good as The Killer Angels, but a son taking on a prequil to his father's work is very ambitious! The movie made from Gods and Generals dismisses too much of the back story for each character and dwells on Thomas Jonathan Jackson in a much more politically correct light than the tone of the book. Still a fair movie, but not nearly what it should have been.

The book that should be a mini series is Last Full Measure, a tour de force novel of the final grinding, bloody, nasty years of the War Between the States. The Wilderness, Petersburg and other conflicts come to life. The Sub par movie made from Gods and Generals killed any chance of Last Full Measure making it to the screen.

 

[CajunBass]

I enjoyed both movies. I've heard Sheen criticized for his portrayal of Lee before, but to me he played Lee the way Lee was portrayed in the book "Killer Angels".

Having lived all my life in the area where "God and Generals" takes place I enjoyed that one quite a bit too.

Went to see "Gettysburg" with my son when it first came out in the theater. While we were waiting for the movie, we wandered into a nearby bookstore. As we were looking at the books in the Civil War section we struck up a conversation with a fellow in the store. Turns out he had been one of reenactors in the movie. He told us where to watch for him to be front and center on the screen. Sure enough, there he was. We later spotted him in one other place also. That was sort of neat.

 

[redlevel]

Turns out he had been one of reenactors in the movie. He told us where to watch for him to be front and center on the screen.

I tried to join a reenactors group once.
They said they already had enough bloated bodies.

 

[jlrhiner]

I liked them both, own them both, and periodically watch them both. I'm sure I would have don the same for the third one, too.

 

[Muley Gil]

I felt that G&G was a decent movie. I think Jackson was protrayed fairly.

Were you aware that Robert Duval comes from good Virginia stock? His father's family was pro Union and he is actually related to Marse Robert on his mother's side of the family.

I had a G&G magazine where Duval stated that he felt that he was destined to play Lee at some point in his career. He wasn't avalable during the filming of Gettysburg.

 

[stanws6]

I was in Gettysburg for a reenactment when Jeff Shaara was finishing G & G. He asked me and a friend if we could pose for him in our Cavalry uniforms. We did and had a nice visit with him and some people with his crew. Never did see the pictures.

 

[Dennis The B]

As most of you who've studied the War of 1861-1865, Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia went a "bridge too far" (thank you, Cornelius Ryan). He violated the prime directive of the Confederacy, which was to force the Union Army to conduct an expensive offensive war, and allow the Confederacy to fight defensively, a far less expensive method of conducting war.

Lee was very much out of his element at Gettysburg. He was blind, since his cavalry commander, JEB Stuart, was out of contact, and he had a poor location for a fight, since the Union was able to reinforce and resupply its troops by rail, within a day. Not that Lee intentionally picked a poor location, but it was a poor location nonetheless.

Lee would have been tentative, but I agree that Sheen's downfall was the accent. The other "over-emoter" was Stephen Lang's George Pickett.

There were lots of subsidiary actions during the three days, but Brigadier General John Buford's actions the first day, and stopping the Confederate Army, is the most underrated accomplishment of the entire battle.

 

[redlevel]

I used to be big into CW/WBTS literature. I mean serious, scholarly, primary source stuff. Wrote my Masters Thesis on some local Baptist Churches that were founded before and right after the War. I got access to some great old Church records from 1828 on up to the years right after the War, as well as letters from some brothers from here in my county. I gained some great insights from those records. I read books, took classes, and taught classes until I just burned out on it. I finally donated all my books to the small college where my daughter teaches.

 

[meaneyedcatz]

I believe Gods & Generals did not get good reviews simply because it portrayed Christian soldiers as Christians. Biased media also lives in movie reviews.

 

[redlevel]

As most of you who've studied the War of 1861-1865, Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia went a "bridge too far" (thank you, Cornelius Ryan). He violated the prime directive of the Confederacy, which was to force the Union Army to conduct an expensive offensive war, and allow the Confederacy to fight defensively, a far less expensive method of conducting war.

Lee was very much out of his element at Gettysburg. He was blind, since his cavalry commander, JEB Stuart, was out of contact, and he had a poor location for a fight, since the Union was able to reinforce and resupply its troops by rail, within a day. Not that Lee intentionally picked a poor location, but it was a poor location nonetheless.

Lee would have been tentative, but I agree that Sheen's downfall was the accent. The other "over-emoter" was Stephen Lang's George Pickett.

There were lots of subsidiary actions during the three days, but Brigadier General John Buford's actions the first day, and stopping the Confederate Army, is the most underrated accomplishment of the entire battle.

Jeb Stuart would probably have been court martialed or at least relieved if he had been anyone else.

Lee should have listened to his "Old Warhorse," disengaged, and struck out for "Washington City," forcing the Federals to follow him, and he could have chosen the ground for a fight.

You are probably correct about the Confederate need for a defensive war, but Lee realized that politically, a swift, decisive victory on Yankee soil would probably have resulted in a clamor for the Feds to seek terms with the Rebels.

Here I go again. I always say, "No, I ain't going to get involved in this discussion."

 

[the ringo kid]

I know this is a little late, but I saw Gods and Generals for the first time a few weeks ago. I know it got a lot of bad reviews, but I didn't think it was that bad. I like Gettysburg a lot better, but I thought the portrayal of Stonewall Jackson was pretty good. I think the movie kinda bounces around a little bit (going from Jackson to Chamberlain to Hancock then back to Jackson, etc.), but aside from that, I didn't think it was too bad. Am I crazy?

Nope, not crazy. I thought it was good especially the talent of the Gent who sang Bonnie Blue Flag:
The Bonnie Blue Flag - with lyrics - popular Civil War song from the movie: Gods and Generals - HQ - YouTube
However I too liked Gettysburg much more: Some of the boys you saw in the above snippet, sang the following a well.
2nd South Carolina String Band - Dixie's Land - YouTube

 

[LTC]

Myself and a few of union reenactor friends signed up with G&G for a day of filming outside Harpers Ferry. It appears we ended up on the cutting room floor though.

LTC

 

[CptCurl]

Stonewall.

 

[vigil617]

Gods and Generals the movie was, as is so common, unworthy to the book with which it shares a title. The book was riveting. if you like Civil War history, it's a must-read. You won't be able to put it down!

 

[williamlayton]

You just cannot do justice to a book in a movie. The mind is allowed to wander and think in a book---on the screen you are told what to think.
That is the way Hollywood tricks people----even the actors become tricked, thinking they are the characters they play and never coming back to reality.
Blessings

 

[Donn]

I'm one of the few people on the planet who paid to see Gods & Gens the night it opened. Liked it and Gettysburg enough to buy them. The troubles I had were 1) Lang playing Jackson. To fans of Gettysburg like me, he's Pickett. And, 2) A prequel that's made years later. All the characters that appeared in Gettysburg are visibly older in an event that's supposed to have happened first, Jeff Daniels in particular.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I'm one of the few people on the planet who paid to see Gods & Gens the night it opened. Liked it and Gettysburg enough to buy them. The troubles I had were 1) Lang playing Jackson. To fans of Gettysburg like me, he's Pickett. And, 2) A prequel that's made years later. All the characters that appeared in Gettysburg are visibly older in an event that's supposed to have happened first, Jeff Daniels in particular.

Jeff Daniels looks like he took his check from Gettysburg and went out to the buffet a few times before shooting Gods and Generals.

I thought Lang played a pretty good Jackson, but I agree I hate seeing actors play character A in one movie and actor B in another. I really want them to make the 3rd movie.

 

[GJH77]

Stonewall.

Note that the location of this statue is the campus of the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va. The building in the background is the VMI barracks (dormitory in regular college terms).
Gary-Class of 77

 

[CptCurl]

Gary,

This should look familiar:

Curl

 

[Faulkner]

I've heard Sheen criticized for his portrayal of Lee before, but to me he played Lee the way Lee was portrayed in the book "Killer Angels".

Sheen didn't really do a bad job playing the part of Lee, he was just the wrong person for the part.

 

[PA Reb]

When I was a little younger, I was heavily into ACW re-enacting with a local group. When Gettysburg was made and because it was being filmed so close to my location, several of us went down to live in tents for a week and take part in the movie as extras. A good friend of mine can be seen on screen as Union troops vacate the Devil's Den area. He can be seen on top of a rock handing the Union flag down to another soldier. We switched uniform colors all the time to fill the fields with whatever "color" they were filming that day. Only two scenes were filmed on the actual battlefield - Devil's Den and Pickett's charge for which Ted Turner paid big time for. Most of the filming took place on a property down past the Eisenhower farm and the barn that was used over and over (seen many times in the movie from different angles which makes it look like a different area) is till there. Other buildings that the crews built such as Meade's headquarters were torn back down. I think the costuming and makeup are much better in G&Gs but they are both good movies. I also got to meet all the "big name" actors and here is my impression of a few of them;

Martin Sheen as Lee - a very nice man that is cordial and a gentleman.

Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain - a nice enough guy but a little clumsy at times.

Tom Berenger as Longstreet - played a good part with a bad looking beard. A really neat guy to be around.

Sam Elliott as Buford - my opinion of him changed after I saw him in action. He was nice enough until there were a lot of women around him, then he got a little obnoxious. I believe he played a great part though.

Stephen Lang as Pickett - I think I'll just leave that one alone.

Got to meet just about all the people that played the roles of generals. All in all, fun times!

 

[Muley Gil]

CptCurl,

Do you have a picture of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

 

[shouldazagged]

"Gettysburg" on VHS was my late wife's gift to me on what we knew would be her last Christmas--she died less than a month later--so it has sentimental value. Good movie, I thought, except that much of the dialogue among the officer characters often was the stilted, formal Victorian speech I suspect the actual officers described in writing their memoirs later. The re-enacted battle scenes were well done.

I haven't seen "Gods And Generals", but my vote for the best Civil War movie I've ever seen goes to "Glory". Superb acting, especially by Washington, Braugher and Freeman. One fanatically meticulous Union re-enactor told me the uniforms, gear, etc., were the most accurate he had ever seen in a movie.

 

[CptCurl]

CptCurl,

Do you have a picture of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

This is from the rear.

Curl

 

[Donn]

Sheen did an adequate job as Lee in Gettysburg, but IMHO, Duvall nailed the part in Gods & Gens.