Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GODS AND GENERALS / *1/2 (PG-13) (Or Movie Review by an Idiot - my title)
Chicago Suntimes ^ | February 21, 2003 | Roger Ebert

Posted on 02/22/2003 7:53:23 PM PST by ZULU

GODS AND GENERALS / *1/2 (PG-13)

February 21, 2003

Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson: Stephen Lang Gen. Robert E. Lee: Robert Duvall Lt. Col. Joshua Chamberlain: Jeff Daniels Sgt. Thomas Chamberlain: C. Thomas Howell Sgt. "Buster" Kilrain: Kevin Conway Gen. John Bell Hood: Patrick Gorman Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock: Brian Mallon

Warner Bros. Pictures presents a film written and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell. Based on the book by Jeffrey M. Shaara. Running time: 220 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for sustained battle sequences).

BY ROGER EBERT

Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy. Less enlightened than "Gone With the Wind," obsessed with military strategy, impartial between South and North, religiously devout, it waits 70 minutes before introducing the first of its two speaking roles for African Americans; "Stonewall" Jackson assures his black cook that the South will free him, and the cook looks cautiously optimistic. If World War II were handled this way, there'd be hell to pay.

The movie is essentially about brave men on both sides who fought and died so that ... well, so that they could fight and die. They are led by generals of blinding brilliance and nobility, although one Northern general makes a stupid error and the movie shows hundreds of his men being slaughtered at great length as the result of it.

The Northerners, one Southerner explains, are mostly Republican profiteers who can go home to their businesses and families if they're voted out of office after the conflict, while the Southerners are fighting for their homes. Slavery is not the issue, in this view, because it would have withered away anyway, although a liberal professor from Maine (Jeff Daniels) makes a speech explaining it is wrong. So we get that cleared up right there, or for sure at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.

The conflict is handled with solemnity worthy of a memorial service. The music, when it is not funereal, sounds like the band playing during the commencement exercises at a sad university. Countless extras line up, march forward and shoot at each other. They die like flies. That part is accurate, although the stench, the blood and the cries of pain are tastefully held to the PG-13 standard. What we know about the war from the photographs of Mathew Brady, the poems of Walt Whitman and the documentaries of Ken Burns is not duplicated here.

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.

The actors do what they can, although you can sense them winding up to deliver pithy quotations. Robert Duvall, playing Gen. Robert E. Lee, learns of Jackson's battlefield amputation and reflects sadly, "He has lost his left arm, and I have lost my right." His eyes almost twinkle as he envisions that one ending up in Bartlett's. Stephen Lang, playing Jackson, has a deathbed scene so wordy, as he issues commands to imaginary subordinates and then prepares himself to cross over the river, that he seems to be stalling. Except for Lee, a nonbeliever, both sides trust in God, just like at the Super Bowl.

Donzaleigh Abernathy plays the other African-American speaking role, that of a maid named Martha who attempts to jump the gun on Reconstruction by staying behind when her white employers evacuate and telling the arriving Union troops it is her own house. Later, when they commandeer it as a hospital, she looks a little resentful. This episode, like many others, is kept so resolutely at the cameo level that we realize material of such scope and breadth can be shoehorned into 3-1/2 hours only by sacrificing depth.

"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. Ted Turner is one of its prime movers and gives himself an instantly recognizable cameo appearance. Since sneak previews must already have informed him that his sudden appearance draws a laugh, apparently he can live with that.

Note: The same director, Ron Maxwell, made the much superior "Gettysburg" (1993), and at the end informs us that the third title in the trilogy will be "The Last Full Measure." Another line from the same source may serve as a warning: "The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here."

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: civilwar; gg; movies; rogerebert
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-176 next last
"Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy."

Is that supposed to have a negative connotation??? Ebert, I nevery knew you were part of the Streisand/Julie Roberts/Ed Asner crowd. I guess you are.

"Less enlightened than "Gone With the Wind,"

Gone With the Wind was an American Classic Novel based on the civil war. Brighter people than you have lauded it.

"obsessed with military strategy,"

HUH??? This is a civil war novel based on the characters and battles of the war. Read the book, Idiot.

"impartial between South and North,"

SO??? You expect movies with Southerners all portrayed like Simon LeGrees and Northerners like saving Christians?? It wasn't that way, boy.

"religiously devout,"

Again, what's wrong with this??? You find religiously devout characters repellent?? I guess you never about Civil War figures - Northern OR Southern.

"it waits 70 minutes before introducing the first of its two speaking roles for African Americans;"

?????? You are a moron, Ebert. This is a movie about the main military characters in the Civil War, so why on earth should they have any dialogue including blacks at all??

"Stonewall" Jackson assures his black cook that the South will free him, and the cook looks cautiously optimistic."

Hmmmmm A little literary license. Jackson did start up a scholl to teach the children of black slaves to read and write, so he was hardly a Simon LeGree.

"If World War II were handled this way, there'd be hell to pay."

??????

I'd hardly characterize Southerners as Nazis anyway, would YOU??

"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."

So what's wrong with historical accuracy in a historical movie?? Should we have politically correct revisionism?? Your comment about this movie appealing to people who don't usualy go to movies says loads. Considering the kind of mindless bull that is in MOST Hollyweird Movies, such an audience must be composed of individuals of higher intellect than normal movie audiences.

"The same director, Ron Maxwell, made the much superior "Gettysburg" (1993), .."

Was that the movie wiuth that left-wing dirtball Martin Sheen disgracing the character of General Lee??

As a Civil War Buff, I will see this moive. Based on your assinine analysis, I'm positive I will enjoy it.

Get another line of work Ebert - like pimping for the liberal left on ABC, CBS or NBC.

1 posted on 02/22/2003 7:53:24 PM PST by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ZULU
According to the PC mentality, all Confederates were evil, racist, redneck pigs. Any attempt to portray them otherwise meets with resistance.
2 posted on 02/22/2003 7:59:11 PM PST by nonliberal (Taglines? We don't need no stinkin' taglines!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Michael Medved has written an exceptional review for this movie. I believe it's posted at WorldNet Daily and MichaelMedved.com. He says we all should support this film.
3 posted on 02/22/2003 7:59:21 PM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
The movie is essentially about brave men on both sides who fought and died so that ... well, so that they could fight and die.

This is an outrageous remark. Ebert dares to suggest that the War Between The States was fought in vain? On both sides? I think Ebert needs to read a little bit of history before he commits his ignorance to print.

4 posted on 02/22/2003 8:00:29 PM PST by calmseas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Ebert is such a prick.

The kind of people.....(that) think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute.

Whereas the Prick thinks historical accuracy is something to be sacrifices on the alter of Political Correctness.

Plan on going to see it.
5 posted on 02/22/2003 8:00:33 PM PST by tet68 (Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Anyone who would see a movie based on Ebert's opinion should have his head examined. He only loves movies that he can view through his rose-colored politically-correct glasses. I ceased listening to him years ago. Although I won't see this Ted Turner production, I can sense his snotty disdain for the "rabble."

BTW, no mention of Senator Robert Byrd's cameo. Reckon why?

6 posted on 02/22/2003 8:02:29 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Jeez, I have got to proof read these better.

Ebert is such a PRICK.

The kind of people.....(that) think historical accuracy is a virtue instead of an attribute.

Whereas the Prick thinks historical accuracy is something to be sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness.

Plan on going to see it.
7 posted on 02/22/2003 8:02:46 PM PST by tet68 (Jeremiah 51:24 ..."..Before your eyes I will repay Babylon for all the wrong they have done in Zion")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
LOL on your commentary of Ebert's inanities. I'm looking forward to 220 minutes of historical accuracy and plan to see this baby on the big screen.
8 posted on 02/22/2003 8:03:43 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Agreed. 99% of what Ted Turner touches is liberal crap. But from what I've heard, this movie is part of the 1%. I'm planning on seeing it--just as soon as I can get into the mindset to spend 3-1/2 hours watching a movie.
9 posted on 02/22/2003 8:03:52 PM PST by calmseas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
"religiously devout,"

If this had been a movie about a bunch of Muslims, he would be lauding the "religiously devout" aspect of the movie.

10 posted on 02/22/2003 8:05:19 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Get another line of work Ebert - like pimping for the liberal left on ABC, CBS or NBC.

AMEN!

11 posted on 02/22/2003 8:05:23 PM PST by rapture-me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Actually, GWTW's Simon Legree was a yankee, from Connecticut.
12 posted on 02/22/2003 8:05:24 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
I will be going to see this movie (I read the excellent book upon which it is based).

My rule of thumb, which is nearly always a pretty accurate measure, is that if Ebert dislikes a movie it has a very good chance of being outstanding. And if he likes a moview, it's likely chock full of weird sexual situations (he's a pervert through and through -- he loved Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut") and/or commie/pinko/nihilist messages.

Ebert isn't worth the chair his fat ass is always sitting on.

13 posted on 02/22/2003 8:06:02 PM PST by Scott from the Left Coast (HHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob
Well, I saw an interview of Ted Turner by CNN and he said the reason he forked out big bucks towards the production of the movie was to show people how folks suffer during war and this was a way of him protesting the Iraq war...GO FIGURE!! One reason I will not see the movie, only because turner the creep made that statement!! He is such a CLYMER!!
14 posted on 02/22/2003 8:06:37 PM PST by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: calmseas
What do Ted Turner and every single Confederate rebel have in common? All Democrats!

15 posted on 02/22/2003 8:06:58 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scott from the Left Coast
Roger Ebert likes almost any homosexually-themed movie that has ever been made. He is the one who wrote a nasty article about President Bush removing all of the R-rated movies from Air Force One. I'm sure he is angry over him removing Bubba's porn as well.
16 posted on 02/22/2003 8:09:42 PM PST by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Except for Lee, a nonbeliever, both sides trust in God, just like at the Super Bowl.

?

Lee was Christian.

17 posted on 02/22/2003 8:09:57 PM PST by Maedhros
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Simon Legree was in GWTW? I thought he was a fixture of Uncle Tom's Cabin...
18 posted on 02/22/2003 8:10:02 PM PST by HetLoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Hey, if this fat idiot gave the movie 1.5 stars, it's got to be good. I'll mark this one down as a "must see."
19 posted on 02/22/2003 8:10:20 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
...Buster was never used as a name until Buster Keaton used it.

?!?! I have an Uncle Buster and the name goes way back. Ebert got this wrong.

20 posted on 02/22/2003 8:10:54 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-176 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson