Login

02-24-2003, 06:14 PM

I went to see this movie last night. Epic scope. brilliant costumes. story was incredible, 
but when at the end of two hours, the word 'intermission' popped onto the screen, I just had to go. 
I feel guilty. it looked so good, and yet, I couldn't remain in that seat one minute longer. Now I'll be waiting for DVD, or paying full price again, but going to the theatre when it's halfway done. 
oh well!

rekirts · 02-24-2003, 06:51 PM

Out of curiousity I looked up and read Roger Ebert's review of this movie (which I will never see because it will never come to our only theatre). Some of his comments really highlighted the difference between people who are interested in film and people who are interested in history: 
 
"Oh, it is a competently made film. Civil War buffs may love it. Every group of fighting men is identified by subtitles, to such a degree that I wondered, fleetingly, if they were being played by Civil War Re-enactment hobbyists who would want to nudge their friends when their group appeared on the screen. Much is made of the film's total and obsessive historical accuracy; the costumes, flags, battle plans and ordnance are all doubtless flawless, although there could have been no Sgt. "Buster" Kilrain in the 20th Maine, for the unavoidable reason that "Buster" was never used as a name until Buster Keaton used it." 
 
and: 
 
""Gods and Generals" is the kind of movie beloved by people who never go to the movies, because they are primarily interested in something else--the Civil War, for example--and think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute. The film plays like a special issue of American Heritage." 
 
I was chuckling as I read this, remembering discussions we've had on these issues in this forum. 
 
Wendy

Caius Fabius · 02-25-2003, 02:50 AM

Actually there are some real problems with the costuming, and the "history" of this film. The Robert E. Lee career path is not correct. I haven't read trhe book, so maybe it sticks closely to the book, but the historical shows otherwise, including R.E. Lee's own memoirs! 
Costuming... [url=http://pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm2.showMessage?topicID=544.topic" target="top]pub45.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm2.showMessage?topicID=544.topic[/url]

Thiudareiks Flavius · 02-25-2003, 11:46 PM

If [url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/GodsandGenerals-1120554/" target="top]its reviews at Rottentomatoes.com[/url] are anything to go by, the average reviewer thought it was awful: 
 
"As dry as a high school history book, solemn as a funeral service, humorless as a Politburo meeting, bloated as a waterlogged corpse and unbalanced as a bout between a debutante and a sumo wrestler." 
 
"Boring and bloated, this sanctimonious work will appeal only to warmongers and the religious right." 
 
"If the 3 hour and 49 minute Civil War epic Gods and Generals is any indication, the Union and the Confederate armies must have talked each other to death." 
 
"Ballooning, jingoistic goat spoor." 
 
"It's not that Gods and Generals is almost four hours long. It's that it's four hours of bad." 
 
"Nobody talks - they are either emoting lofty speeches, quoting Caesar, pouring forth heartfelt sentiments, preaching Bible verses or praying." 
 
That last comment was my major problem with Gettysburg as well. No-one talked, they all made speeches. One conversation between Chamberlain and his sergeant consisted of one making a speech at the other, the other making a speech in return, a further speech from the first etc etc. That and all the fake whiskers and obese 'starving' Confederates were a bit distracting. 
 
The fight at Little Round Top was a highlight, but in a movie of such ponderous length, there were also a lot of lowlights. 
 
It sounds like Gods and Generals suffers from some of the same problems. 
 
I think the same crew made Andersonville, which I got out with a couple of (non-history buff) mates one day. Big mistake. I found it one of the most boring movies ever made, but they actually voted it the worst movie they have ever seen in their whole lives. I'm still reminded of making them endure most of it (we switched it off after two hours of watching men shuffling around wrapped in blankets) and anything long and boring is still referred to as "being like that bloody Civil War movie O'Neill made us watch that time". 
Cheers, 
Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 
 
Visit 'Clades Variana' - Home of the Varus Film Project 
 
Help create the film of Publius Quinctilius Varus' lost legions

rekirts · 02-26-2003, 04:33 PM

Hubbie and I watched THE FOUR FEATHERS on DVD last night. I liked it. Don't know anything about the history of that period so I couldn't be critical of any innaccuracies, which was nice. Stars Austrailian Heath Ledger. 
 
Wendy

Caius Fabius · 02-26-2003, 11:22 PM

I was pleased that "Gods and Generals" didn't add a bunch of conversations and touchy-feely stuff. Some of the "speeches" were taken directly from the personal memoirs of people who were there. While the costuming and novelization weren't perfect, the way people interacted was different in the 1860's. Even they way they wore their clothing. A handmade replica of Robert E. Lee's original uniform (adjusted for size) was rejected by Martin Sheen, because it was too constricting and made him sit too straightly. 
The film did not show the gruesome violence of the American Civil War, and could have been much more disgusting in it's depictions of the results of cannister/grape, and shell, as well as the actual damage done by .54 cal to .69 cal projectiles. 
 
The love between General Jackson and his wife is an important story, told by most of the people who served with Jackson, as is his virtual adoption of the young girl of a family who hosted him. 
 
There are many first person accounts of these incidents available, from both sides of the Mason Dixon line. The film seems to portray the period well, except for the glaring costuming errors with General Jackson's hat. 
 
An example , the field at Fredrickburg, it is written that you could walk completely across the field on dead bodies, the film doesn't do justice to the carnage. 
 
If you want to write a film about war, this is a good example. War is boring for long periods of time, with people, politics, meetings and accidents, with only a few minutes or days of intense excitement, pain, death and confusion, which is remembered by the survivors for the rest of their lives. 
 
You can't set the story for non-historians in 90-120 minutes.

rekirts · 02-27-2003, 03:37 PM

To flim makers, being entertaining is more important than being realistic. And they have a point. Most of life is actually quite boring, and after a long day at the office doing the same boring stuff you did yesterday and the day before, you don't want to go to a movie that shows you how boring war really is. They edit out the tedious parts for good reason. No one would go to a movie that showed guys sitting around in their tent for hours waiting for something to happen, no matter how realistic that is. People who actually get to spend their days doing interesting things for pay are the lucky exception and the rest of us want some relief from the monotony when we read a book or go to a movie. 
 
Wendy

Caius Fabius · 02-27-2003, 05:59 PM

LOL 
 
Of course, that's why Gladiator was considered a great movie. 
The balance between making a historical epic (Gods and Generals, Gettysburg, A Bridge Too Far, The Longest Day) and a cool movie (Gladiator, Patriot, Braveheart, ...) is one that Hollywood doesn't even really consider anymore. 
 
That is why I really appreciate "Gods and Generals" even though they won't win any awards from hollywood, or be in the top box office, they made a wonderful historical film. 
 
 
(except for Jackson's hat!)

***Praefectusclassis*** · 02-27-2003, 07:43 PM

A Bridge Too Far an historical epic? Greets 
 
Jasper

Caius Fabius · 02-27-2003, 11:51 PM

Jasper, 
I know, but it was supposed to be....... 
It was pretty close to the book, and didn't have abunch of love interests or distractions. You can't expect the "allies" to do a great story about one of worst WW2 mistakes this side of Dieppe...... "Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me