GODS AND GENERALS / *1/2 (PG-13) (Or Movie Review by an Idiot - my title)

Chicago Suntimes ^ | February 21, 2003 | Roger Ebert

[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.

[L_Von_Mises]

Roger Ebert is an a$$. I have not seen the movie yet, but am looking forward to it. Ebert complains because history was not rewritten to fit his conception of political correctness. I moved to Virginia about five years ago. Growing up in New England I was not exposed to a lot of Civil War history. I knew all about the Revolutionary War - at least those battles that took place in New England, the Pilgrims, etc. Here in Virginia I have had the opprtunity to visit many battlefields and have read a little about the strategies and the men who fought in it. Regardless of anyone's sentiments about the reasons for the war one cannot overlook the bravery and sacrifices made by those that fought on both sides. One cannot visit these battlefields and walk along the routes taken by both sides and not get emotional. Seeing where Jackson got his nickname at the first Battle of Manassas or seeing the trenches that go on for miles that were made during the battles of Spottsylvania give you a real sense of the history and the men.

The historical accuracies are what intrigues me about this movie. That is something that is rare coming out of Hollywood today.

Ebert, through his idiotic review, has convinced me even more that I want to see this movie.

[Travis McGee]

Ebert is just a fat commie simp fairie. His idea of a great movie is "The Life and Loves of Robert Maplethorpe."

[dead]

I don't care whether Ebert liked it or not, I'm not shelling out my hard-earned cash to see a Ted Turner production with a cameo by KKK Byrd.

[xzins]

Eberts illiterate.

Had he read the books, he'd know the effort is about portraying the history of the Civil War. It wasn't about who got what speaking role.

It was about the War. Not about his fantasies, beliefs, or politically correct notions.

[Maedhros]

The nature of art dictates that it is entirely possible to appreciate art without appreciating the artist.

[Shralp17]

If you want to go see a movie that will piss off liberals, and the Left go see Gods and Generals.
There is alot of Christian influence such as Bible reading, and praying.
Protrayed both sides as fighting for a just cause. For example it didn't protray the South as a bunch of slave owning rednecks.
Showed that Blacks and Southern could live with each other and have friendly relations.
Also showed that a grow man and a 5 year old girl can have a friendship with out pedophile.
Plus no cussing, sex, nudity, or unnecessary violence.
So if you want to see a good film that will piss off liberals go see this one.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, as the Confederacy was its paramilitary wing.

[Maedhros]

Although I must admit, Ted's cameo is pretty goofy. The audience was laughing at him.

[jlogajan]

"both sides trust in God, just like at the Super Bowl."

Gotta admit, that was a great line.

[goodnesswins]

I'm the same as you....if Ebert LIKES a movie....we don't see it....if he doesn't....well, get out the popcorn...it must be a REALLY GOOD ONE!

[Maedhros]

Eberts illiterate.

lol!

[goodnesswins]

But....these are JUST the kind of movies we should support - we complain about all the crap out there.....this one isn't crap - it's good, conservative, without stupid gratuitous sex and obscene language....which we need more of!

[jlogajan]

Showed that Blacks and Southern could live with each other and have friendly relations.

Oh please. A black slave had no choice but to be "friendly" even in the face of a whipping. How hard was it for some slave owner to be occasionally "friendly" with his slaves. Hardly deserving a medal.

[ggekko]

Roger Ebert is well known in the Chicago area as a politically correct shill. In general, the more more morally degenerate, the more a film mocks traditional values, and finally the more just plain weird a film the more Roger likes it.

A real jerk.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Buster was originally a reference to someone who "busted" or tamed horses.

[SShultz460]

No matter what Ebert Says, it's a horrible Movie. I wasn't expecting that much, since it's Ted Turner's baby, and was prepared for the marathon.

Yes the religios themes shown were historically accurate and well shown, but the movie still sucks.

I plead with you fellow Freepers, DO NOT go see this movie, it will be on TnT in 8 months, and seeing it on the bigscreen isn't what it was in Gettysburg.

[Maedhros]

I believe he was referring to a scene involving a freed black and Stonewall Jackson, who talks about how he thinks, and many of the Confederate officers, including Lee, agree, that emancipation should be the reward of slaves serving in the Confederate army. He also says that slavery must necessarily and inevitably be abolished, and he hopes that the Confederate government will come to the same conclusion. Jackson and the free black actually pray about this.

[jlogajan]

I stand corrected.

[Maedhros]

I thought it was worthwhile.