
Okay movie with some serious flaws
Review created: 03/01/07(updated 09/03/08)
2 of 2 people found this review helpful.
I am an avid Civil War history buff as well as a serious reenactor so I might look at this movie a little differently from your average movie watcher. First, I think Ron Maxwell made a serious mistake by attempting to use some of the same actors for the same roles as he used in Gettysburg. Gods and Generals technically should have been the first movie made in the Shaara trilogy since it deals with the beginning of the Civil War but since The Killer Angels (the book the movie Gettysburg was based on) was written first in the 1970s that work actually predated Gods and Generals, which was not written until much later. I thought Jeff Daniels portrayal of Col. Joshua Chamberlain was exceptional in Gettysburg but in God and Generals when Daniels reprised that role he looked older, heavier, and basically uninterested and unmotivated. Why would he look this way? Because he actually is older and heavier in this film in a role that if anything he should have looked younger and more fit in than Gettysburg since he is portraying a more youthful Chamberlain in Gods and Generals. That is just one example but there are several others in the film as well. Also, how does one make a Civil War movie about the first two years of the war and completely omit the Battle of Antietam (Sharpsburg) in 1862? That battle still earns the honor of being our nation's single bloodiest day in its history but yet it is not included at all in the movie! Terrible mistake! I understand it was filmed but it ended up on the cutting room floor in order to make the movie shorter in length! But yet they included way too much footage of the Battle of Fredericksburg, which just seemed to drag on and on. Also, on a technical note, when Robert E. Lee went to Washington, DC in 1861 to meet with Mr. Blair on President Lincoln's request to offer Lee generalship in the Union army, Lee would have actually appeared much younger than the gray-headed and bearded Lee that Robert Duvall portrayed. Maxwell decided to use the image of Lee that everyone is most familiar with but it is not historically accurate as Lee actually had brownish-red hair at the beginning of the war and it did not turn significantly gray until well into the war. On the positive side, the movie is beautifully filmed and the soundtrack, although not nearly as powerful and memorable as the music in Gettysburg, is for the most part well done. The high point of the movie for me is Stephen Lang's portrayal of General "Stonewall" Jackson. Lang had a small role in Gettysburg, playing General George Pickett but in Gods and Generals he completely dominates the movie. Jackson's character is complex to say the least (see James I. Robertson's monumental book "Stonewall Jackson"). Robertson's book was used extensively to accurately portray Jackson in this movie and Lang seemed as if he knew Jackson's spirit and personality completely. There can be little doubt that Lang took this challenge very seriously to recreate an American legend as faithfully correct as possible and he succeeds. I would have to rate Lang's role as Jackson as one of the best all-time performances of an actor portraying a historical figure. Robert Duvall or Martin Sheen as Lee? Personally, I would have liked to have seen Sheen brought back to reprise his role as Lee as he did a commendable job in Gettysburg but I understand he was unavailable or just not interested. In summary, a movie worth watching if for no other reason than Stephen Lang.
Review ID: 10000000003030259

Thank you for voting. If your vote meets our
guidelines, it will be posted within 24 hours.
You cannot vote on the helpfulness of a review you wrote.
Your request cannot be processed at this time. Please try again later.