[Caipirabob]

Ted Turner-financed film...

Yeah, it's a good film and all, but I'm not going out of my way to subsidize Ted Turner.

[MrFred]

already posted here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/872179/posts

[WhiskeyPapa]

bump

[what's up]

I absolutely loved the movie. It deeply affected me.

The christian depictions were uncynical and awesome.

[Restorer]

The problem is that this is a crappy movie.

And I say that as a card-holding member of the VRWC.

Way too long. Skips over long periods of Jackson's and Lee's history, then spends huge amounts of time dwelling on minutiae.

Very disappointing.

Also thought it was rather funny that apparently the Army of Northern Virginia was primarily made up of middle-aged, pudgy, clean-shaven men.

[BfloGuy]

I think this movie killed itself.

My brother and his wife, both are rabid conservatives and he's a Civil War buff, left at intermission. The speechifying and the excruciatingly slow pace of the film outwore their interest in that era.

[AUsome Joy]

My husband and I really enjoyed it and did not get tired watching it at all. My reasons for going were to support a film that was not afraid to show the spiritual side of the people of that generation and to see a historical movie about the Civil War. The fact that it gave a Southern perspective was another plus for me. I can't wait for the next movie in the sequel.

[giotto]

There's no conspiracy. Most people just don't want to see serious movies. Just take a look at the huge box office successes: Austin Powers, Dumb and Dumber, that idiot Adam Sandler's movies (I couldn't even name one if I tried), Spiderman. People want fantasy, stupid comedy, anything that takes their minds off their own reality for 90 minutes, without requiring them to think or pay attention for too long. My policy is that I don't tend to watch movies I've never seen before. But I'll probably see this one.

[nutmeg]

My husband and I want to see this movie, but haven't been able to budget the necessary 4 hours on the weekends since it has opened.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The PC crowd have demonized it the same as "Ride With The Devil" Which portrayed the part of pro-southern Missourians in the civil war.

I am from Missouri and have extensively read the history of the civil war and it's aftermath on that part of the country. It was the closest movie in realism I have ever seen for our own American Balkans.

In 1895 they were still back shooting and murdering each other, don't ever think it cannot happen again.

[nathanbedford]

GODS AND GENERALS is the Robert Bork of movies. It is significant in the history of film. And it is certainly historically significant in the history of film criticism.

The film is historically significant because it is faithful to its time; It is unashamedly Christian; It does not compromise its vision to Hollywood contrivance. In short, the movie is grounded in integrity.

Robert Bork was a significant figure in the history of the judicial nomination process. He was faithful to his coservative philosophy, he did not compromise to pander for votes, he too had integrity.

The "borking" of his nomination has corrupted the constitutionally mandated confirmation process for a generation. It was replicated in a slightly modified form in the Clarence Thomas confirmation and it has modified like a virus to erupt once again in the Estrada nomination.

Say what you like about the left, they know a mortal enemy when they see one and they know how to react like a demon at an exorcism.

So they crucified Bork.

They tried to electronically lynch Thomas.

They are trying to filibuster Estrada to death and in the process they are forever distorting the constitution.

Now the left, ever acute to threats to its survival must crucify GODS AND GENERALS. The director is right: These reviews are ideologically motivated (although not conspiratorial - they don't need to corrodinate becaus it comes naturally) not just to denigrate the film but to destroy it. They do that by telling you that you are a fool if you find it moving, poignant, compelling or edifying. If christian piety as portrayed in this film does not strike you as bizarre you are a fool. If open, unselfconscous profession of faith (or patriotism - it matters not) do not make you unconfortable, you are a bumklin. If you draw physical courage and serenity from your faith, you are a Phillistine or are at least in need of a bath.

So they set out not just to criticize the movie, but to devalue it, to so put it beyond the pael that it can never be credited. They will crucify it so that it can never rise again, even in DVD form. I believe they will fail in this because I believe ultimately in good over evil. This movie will be seen as a major and important treatment of the time which is artistically significant because it is historically true. Unlike its reviewers or Bork's Senators, it has integrity.

I had this to say in a previous post:

I find this cant about the length of this movie more tedious than any 4 hour film. The shallowness of the observation is reminiscent of the scene in AMADEUS wherein Mozart is told by the king that his music has " too many notes." Either a film is long enough to tell the intended story or it is not. Either it is good or bad but it is never bad merely because it is too long and it is never good because it is short. It must, like Little Red Riding Hood's porrige, be just right and that is determined by length needed to tell the story the film maker intended to tell.

The problem is the critics do not want you to see, hear or know the story as it is told. More, they do not want you to accept any part of this version of the story. So they do what the left usually does, they change the rules of the game. The film maker here is obviously asking to be judged in the historical context of the time. The critics object to the movie because the treatment does not fit their time warp.

These objections are ideoligically motivated. The left, in the context of George Bush's unselfconscious Christian piety, cannot pass benediction on a time and place where it was the norm for such Christian committment to animate reasonable and compelling historical characters to exraordinary nobility.

So the Borking of GODS AND GENERALS proceeds apace.

[small voice in the wilderness]

My husband and I went last Saturday and we thought it was great. Started looking everywhere for Gettysburg, the sequel. We finally found it on Amazon.com, and excitedly put it on tonight.

...martin sheen as Robert E. Lee...OMG...:*sigh*...

....martin sheen as Robert E. Lee..........

[nonliberal]

I don't think there is a conspiracy here. The film just was not that good.

[envision]

"Gods and Generals" is a stunningly outstanding film. It is truly sad if folks, especially Christians, have stayed away from this film. It is a deeply American, deeply spiritual, deeply heroic film.

Too long? Anyone who's thrilled to the uncut Seven Samari (it also has an intermission, or two) would find the objection unfathomable. Did kids stay away from the recent Harry Potter movie because it was too long?

Unnatural dialog? The US popular-culture speech styles of individuals presently aged 10-28 isn't how people talked 140 years ago. (Or 40 years ago.) The speech of that time has its own unique charm and dignity, appropriate to its time and place. Being incapable of appreciating it is no virtue.

[JimNtexas]

As a life long history buff, of course I saw the movie. I enjoyed a lot of it. But let's face it. As a movie, it wasn't very good.

It was far too biased in favor the South. Yankee sympathizers such as myself were put off by this aspect of the film. The almost pro-slavery blacks were over the top. Why they couldn't follow the even-handed model of 'Gettysburg' is beyond me.

The long long long drawn out little story of Jackson and history's most articulate five year old girl was so cornball that it was embarressing.

This is not a movie for general audiences, it's for history buff, especially the ones holding on to their confederate money.

It's not as good as 'Gettysburg', and can't hold the coat of 'Glory'.

[PatL]

I saw the movie and wanted to take my son. I was disppointed to see that it was not in the theater anymore.
I am a history buff, but have never been able to get interested in the Civil War. Then I read Gods and Generals and had to learn all that I could.
I was mesmerized by the movie, but it could have been better. It could have been tighter - down to 3 hours, and there were important parts of the book that were left out; he doesn't really capture Camberlain's frustration of being called back in the midst of a successful battle.
I would like to see Maxwell do some editing and rerelease it after the war.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I was very disappointed with G&G. I liked "Gettysburg" very much.

G&G has no strong story line, no development of character -- what screen writers call the "character arc." There was no clear protagonist, although Jackson got a lot of screen time. The protagonist in a classic American film will have a stated goal. Rhett Butler wanted to hear Scarlett say she loved him. Scarlett wanted never to be hungry again. Luke Skywalker wanted to "go to Alderan and become a Jedi like my father." Jim Lovell in "Apollo 13" wanted to walk on the moon.

You can see this in any number of films. Then typically, the protagonist (sometimes defined as the character who undergoes the most change during the story) is presented with a series of challenges, which he/she then overcomes. "Apollo 13" offers a great example of this. The one crewman is sick, an engine malfunctions during lift-off, the docking to the LEM is a challenge, after the explosion they might not have enough power, they have to align the capsule manually, the parachutes might not open, there is a storm in the recovery area, and so forth.

Once in a while, the protagonist is presented in full form and doesn't really grow or change. "Patton" is an example of this. Patton is pretty much the same from the beginning of the film to the end, but that is hard to pull off.

G&G had none of that. It was just a bad film, from what I understand is a bad book.

Walt

[Pietro]

I heard from a friend, a serious Civil War freak, that the movie was a yawner. If it's a bad movie no amount of favorable reviews will save it.

[Aurelius]

BUMP