Gods and Generals

[tugmcmartin]

Saw this this past weekend. I was pretty disappointed. As it was supposed to be a prequel to Gettysburg and done by the same director or producer (can't remember which), i was hoping it would've been stylistically similar to it in many ways. The only thing similar to Gettysburg where a couple of the actors returned (C Thomas Howell and Jeff Daniels mainly). Way too many longwinded orations and the movie dragged too much. Too much character development and not enough action. I was kinda bummed that the film seemed to be more of a biopic about Chamberlain and Jackson than it did about the battles and story of the war itself. They were both great men and great soldiers, but they were but a couple out of many great characters from the war. I guess i shouldn't have too high of hopes though when it comes to portraying the Civil War. To truly tell the whole story in a movie format would be near impossible. Just too many substories going on with too many people and places. A couple of things i did like about the movie: a majority of the battles depicted in the movie took place in places i was very familiar with and with battles that i was very familiar with. I went to school in Fredericksburg and spent a great deal of time getting to know the battles that took place around the town (Wilderness, Marye's Heights, etc.) so it was pretty cool to see these areas i knew depicted so well. Though you could tell that the town the scenes were shot in were not really Fredericksburg. At anyrate, for any Civil War history buff, this movie is definitely worth seeing. But for someone with little or no interest in the War, it'd be a colossal waste of time. At four hours long, i was ready for the movie to end long before it actually did.

T-

[Worf101]

If you remember my review from the old message board you know how I felt about this film. Irregardless of one's political leanings on slavery, race and the south, my biggest problem with this film was the fact is was 4 hours of absolute drivel. How can you render what can arguably be called the 3rd most important conflict (behind both world wars) in the history of modern man.... boring? Sigh whata monumental waste. Thanks to this turkey you won't see another Civil War movie for another 20 years...

Da Worfster

[tugmcmartin]

If you remember my review from the old message board you know how I felt about this film. Irregardless of one's political leanings on slavery, race and the south, my biggest problem with this film was the fact is was 4 hours of absolute drivel. How can you render what can arguably be called the 3rd most important conflict (behind both world wars) in the history of modern man.... boring? Sigh whata monumental waste. Thanks to this turkey you won't see another Civil War movie for another 20 years...

And yes, i do remember how you felt. But me, being really interested in the Civil War, thought it might do me some good to see it anyway. The two biggest problems i had with the movie were the length and the way they seemed to go out of their way to try and make the southern generals more appealing. I think it was good that they tried to do that and put another light on some of those folks, but not with so much forced dialogue and so many unnecessary scenes.

Anyway, there is supposed to be the third movie coming out here at some point and i'm sure i'll see it too. I'd probably see anything put out about the Civil War.

T-

[Swerd]

I'm looking forward to next Civil War movie coming out soon - Cold Mountain. The book told the flip side of the standard "battlefield and hero" epic. It took the point of view of a single soldier who decided he had enough and it was time for him to head for home. This was apparently common during the Civil War (despite the efforts of some story tellers) and was especially true for Confederate soldiers forseeing their only way out of the Petersburg trap that was closing on them.

I hope the movie doesn't louse it up. Previews and TV trailers, with their emphasis on the stars Renee Zellweger and Nicole Kidman, are usually meant only to attract an audience, so I will ignore that little voice in my head that is warning me to stay away, and hope for the best.

Worf and tug - you guys have any thoughts on this?

[headknocker]

I have to agree...this movie bored me to tears..and then I fell asleep(I'm not lying). I usually love Civil War flicks but this one was endlessly boring and tedious. Three word...TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. My friend bought it and we watched it on his HT. We agreed that it was a waste of money.

IMO, Glory blows this movie away.

[tugmcmartin]

Worf and tug - you guys have any thoughts on this?

I'm split on "Cold Mountain" Swerd. The book was simply great. Its going to be hard for a movie to portray the beauty of the book in a way that i'll like. But i will see it. Its been a while since I read the book (and seen the trailer), but from what i remember of the trailer, my immediate thoughts were "whoa, this doesn't look like anything from the book". Like i said though, i will see it.

T-

[Worf101]

last night and they both gave it the toes up. I find that they're usually a pretty good judge of films if you split the difference between em. I will go see it but not for a while... I'm way behind in my movie seeing and have to hit some and right now.

Da Worfster

[headknocker]

last night and they both gave it the toes up. I find that they're usually a pretty good judge of films if you split the difference between em. I will go see it but not for a while... I'm way behind in my movie seeing and have to hit some and right now.

Da Worfster

Yeah, you can usually rely on those two guys but they really blew it on Ghosts of Mars.They gave it two thumbs-up and it was absolutely hideous. I got to the midpoint of the flick and I kept telling myself that it HAS to get better..it didn't. I'm not overly critical of too many movies but GOM was dreadful. I'm convinced that Ebert and Roeper hit the local bars before they viewed this flick.

That being said, I'm looking forward to Cold Mountain.