Gods and Generals

[Beale the Rippe]

This film was awesome. The acting was superb and the battle scenes were spectacular. Robert Duvall blessed this film with his usual brilliant acting,(not to mention twinkle in the eye), Jeff Daniels gave a surprisingly powerful monolougue on Caesar, and Stephae Lang gave a jaw-droppingly good performance. Ron Maxwell has given us another great civil war movie.

**** out of ****

One thing puzzled me though. In the end credits, it mentioned Gods and Generals being the first part of a trilogy. I know Gettysburg was filmed for TNT in 1993, and that this film was its prequal. But for some reason, it mentioned Gods and Generals as being the first part of a trilogy. Could this mean they are re-filming Gettysburg for the big screen? Or am I taking the wording to seriously.

Sidenote: Gettysburg was so succesful on television that it recieved a short theatrical run.

[Holden Pike]

Gettysburg is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. Michael's son, Jeff, has written two other novels in a similar style, taking up where his father left off: Gods & Generals - being the early parts of the War, and The Last Full Measure - the end of the War.

And for the record, Gettysburg was released theatrically by New Line first, before it premiered on TNT, thus it was elligible for Oscars and not Emmys (it didn't recieve even one nomination). It ran 250-some minutes and had a twenty minute intermission. It was shown on TV a few months later, before it went to video.

[Beale the Rippe]

Sorry about that. I bow before your superior knowlege.

[Austruck]

One little correction: It's Jeff Daniels, not Jeff Bridges. For shame! (Daniels looks a lot like my husband, so I notice this sort of thing.)

Also, I haven't seen it yet, but the reviews are all around the C+ or C range. No one seems enthusiastic about this. Bummer.

[Yoda]

C/C+ at best. RottenTomatoes.com has 7 positive reviews, and 73 negative ones. :eek:

Couple that with the fact that it's almost four hours long, and there ain't no way I'm seein' it in theaters.

[Beale the Rippe]

My bad again. I always get Bridges and Daniels mixed up. But the movie is good. Why there are so many bad reviews is beyond me. Maybe it was a tad bit ponderous at parts, but the film was to my knowlege increadibly accurate, looked and sounded like it was taking place during the civil war. THIS coupled with the sheer power of this movie and its performances is more than enough reason to spend 4 hrs at the theatres. Has anyone else seen this movie yet?

[Beale the Rippe]

You know...the more I think about this movie...the more I think it does suck. Is it possible that I was wrong about my own opinion? Did I give the movie enough time to sick in to maybe grasp hold of the suckiness? Did I like it because the thought of sitting 4 hrs for a bad movie brain-washed me into thinking it was good? Or am I letting everyone elses opinion get too me too much. Could I get another opinion from someone who has seen this movie and maybe an evaluation on my movie judging problem?

[n7of9]

i can't tell you about the movie, i ain't seen it (and could NOT imagine Jeff Daniels giving any sort of suprising monologue :))

but it does sound like you're letting your opinions be marred by others...if when it was over you enjoyed it, then let it be...if after a couple of days of having it sunk in (which happens to me too) you think, nah it wasn't that good, then you just won't watch it again whn it comes out on video ;)

[jamesglewisf]

The review I read of this movie said it was awful, but I have a friend who has already seen it twice.