He must have left the theater for a smoke during the depiction of Fredericksburg, the git.
What about the arrogance and callousness of the Northern generals, who senselessly wasted their troops on futile charge after charge?
Did this guy actually see the movie?
He must have been in line at the snack counter then.
Some great links here:"He's given me my country back." A REAL Review of 'God's and Generals' (Post your review here)
Thanks for 'Gods and Generals': Michael Medved's open letter to Ted Turner
"It is well that war is so terrible -- or we should grow too fond of it."
Gen. Robert E. Lee
That kind of sums it up – the libs just don’t get it and never will.
Saw G&G this past weekend. Was glad to see the theater was packed. Everybody was socializing before the movie and during the intermission. It was like seeing a movie with a couple hundred friends. We really enjoyed it!
Hilariously ironic comment.
I found that scene to be the most unbelievable in the movie (beating out some strong competetion). It seems highly unlikely to me that a Confederate general's cook would be spending any time at all socializing with him - let alone risking pissing him off with prayers for emancipation at a time when the Confederate president was so enraged by Lincoln's emancipation proclamation that he threatened to hang any white commander of a Union negro regiment.
Stonewall Jackson was part of an army that captured and enslaved any able-bodied negro that that army found when they invaded Pennsylvania. There is an accout in the regimental history of my great great grandfather's Illinois cavalry regiment of one of their surgeon's black assistants becoming Stonewall Jackson's "body-servant" upon being captured by the Confederates. There is also an account therein of the harsh treatment that was inflicted by Jackson's men on the wounded Union soldiers that were under that surgeon's care, which included violently ripping blankets and clothes off of the wounded, stealing their food, and refusing to allow them to leave the area controlled by the Confederates even though they had all been paroled.
"Gods and Generals" probably is the best illustration of what physically happened before Gettysburg - the strategy, the movements of troops, the bravery of men led into the valley of death - that you're likely to see. And yet, even with nearly four hours of screen-time, it still feels like so much is missing.
I agree. It was as if the Peninsula campaign and Antietam had never occurred, since no mention was made of those battles whatsoever. Meanwhile, a huge chunk of movie time is devoted to trying to make Stonewall Jackson and the Confederates sympathetic characters by showing his fictitious relationship with a little girl and some ridiculous Christmas carolling and partying (one scene of which seemed to be included for no other reason than to give Ted Turner some screen time).
What about the arrogance and callousness of the Northern generals, who senselessly wasted their troops on futile charge after charge?
I disagree with this criticism. The only Union commander who had a bad habit of wasting his troops with charges was Ambrose Burnside, and he was certainly portrayed accurtately as a bungling general who was far from arrogant. The main problem with McClelland and Hooker as Union commanders was their timidity, not their arrogance.
Where's the bald-faced greed of the Southern generals, who were willing to risk everything to maintain a luxurious existence on the backs of millions of blacks?
Even though most of them held slaves (including Jackson), most Confederate generals (as opposed to Confederate political leaders) seemed to be motivated by misguided duty to their homeland and their lust for warfare and glory, not greed or a luxurious existence.
We want - no, we need - to see the blood, the death, the mistakes and the horror of war to remind us what it really is.
There was plenty of gore in Gods & Generals.
Leave the generals' long-winded, righteous speeches to the camera to the History Channel, and show us how it really was.
I didn't mind the speeches to the extent that they were historically accurate, it's just that many of Jackson's were not. The best "speech" of the movie, though, was not spoken by a general but sung by Bob Dylan (`Cross the Green Mountain) during the closing credits.
As much as I found the Confederate glorifying distortions in this movie laughable, though, I really enjoyed the movie because the battle scenes and strategy discussions seemed accurate and helped put the war in perspective.
I disagree with the author's comment that he wishes to "see the dirt under the well-manicured fingernails of these self-righteous warriors"
For me, it was nice to see the Generals as civilized men as I believe they were. The plethora of war movies portray war-makers as war-mongers and I liked seeing a bit of honor portrayed.
The battle scenes were "realistic" without being disgusting.
Lang really "stole" the scenes in the role of General Thomas "Stone Wall" Jackson - you had to get the since of the real Jackson.
The entire movie exudes authenticity as far as the human interactions are concerned.
Long (4ish hours- with an intermission) - but if you can find the time it's a must see. Remember the little square screen at home is not where you want to see this - this is one of those movies that needs and deserves a "Big Screen."
The rest of it is a sermon and 'sux big time' as my teen age son delared just before he walked out at intermission.
BUMP
By the way, though I'm critical of much of the movie's social content, I do agree with its portrayal of Southern women as encouraging their husbands, sons, and boyfriends to go to war and Northern women discouraging their men from doing so.