Allow me to first say that I have read the book by Jeff Shaara on which this movie is based, and I have found it to be one of the best historical fiction novels I have ever read. With that said, the movie version is by far the most insipid and lackluster historical film I have ever witnessed. You ought to know me well enough to know that I never criticize movies based on how they compare to the book on which they were based, but in this special situation, something just has to be said. Like I have already mentioned, the book Gods and Generals is a sweeping epic detailing the lives and events of four men during the first half of the American Civil War. The story is elegantly written and truly breathes life into these historical figures of who most people know little more than a few facts. I honestly felt that there was no conceivable way to butcher a great story such as this, but sadly I was horribly, horribly wrong. The movie version of Gods and Generals is awful in so many ways, I fear I might not be able to fully express my disdain.
As mentioned above, Gods and Generals focuses on four men (Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson, Winfield Hancock, and Lawrence Chamberlain) and details the personal tribulations that each experienced prior to and during the Civil War. The book is set up in a fashion in which each chapter is told from a different character's point of view. Once you finish with one character, the story switches gears and all of a sudden you're reading about a completely different character, sometimes even one from the opposite side of the battlefield. The technique used might seem kind of choppy and disjointed at first, but in book form, it works out surprisingly well. In fact, it gives you a rather good understanding of both sides of the issue of the war. Sadly, the same technique does NOT work out well on the silver screen.
Remember that I for one have read the book and am already very familiar with the characters and events that take place over the course of the story. Even after sitting for just 30 minutes in the theater, the jerky and confusing style already had me alienated and lost. And I have read the book! God have mercy on those in the theater who haven't, and even more so for those poor souls who have never really learned much about the Civil War and its participants. Honestly, I never heard one word of comment from anyone in the theater, and the 285 seats were nearly filled. I assume this is because they were either as baffled as me or were fast asleep.
Speaking of, Gods and Generals is BORING. My God, how can you take such a riveting story and emasculate it like this and still live with yourself? The whole production team for this film should strung up by their pubic hairs and boiled in molten dog shit. I think I even zoned out once or twice during the first hour of viewing, so physically and emotional enervating was this movie.
The film itself is a massive bitch of a long movie and requires you endure over FOUR HOURS of overacting and uninspired action scenes. It is so incredibly long that there is an intermission included over two hours into the film. The first half ends on an incredibly corny note, the occurrence of which served only to strengthen our decision to hightail it from the theater, screaming as we went. I'm serious, we didn't stay for the second half of Gods and Generals. I absolutely could not take the odious experience any longer. In fact, my fondest memory of this movie involves being granted the fortunate chance to flee from the theater with my sanity intact. We had already withstood more than any moviegoer should ever be asked to withstand.
Gods and Generals is one of those movies that makes you ask yourself lots of questions. Questions such as Why is this movie so damn long? or What have I done to deserve this torture? or Which is worse, over-acting or under-acting? Personally I found myself pondering the last of these three questions most, and to tell the truth, I am still not sure of the answer. Often, when most people talk about bad acting, they are alluding to those actors and actresses who under-act, or act with false motivations and a lack of emotion. However, in Gods and Generals, it's the exact polar opposite. Every last character in this film OVER-ACTS their part. It gets so bad at some points it becomes laughable, which is a very bad thing for a historical film. I swear, these characters act as though every word in the script should be read in a loud voice with wide, unblinking eyes. It may not sound so bad to hear about it, but once you see it on the screen, you'll understand. Actors are supposed to convince us that their characters are real people with real feelings, but in Gods and Generals, they only serve to discredit the great men of the era and make them all seem like scorned children. General Jackson (Stephen Lang) is the worst of the bunch, as he appears to be more of a psychotic pedophile than a fervid religious soldier. Indeed, in the book Jackson is involved in one of the most moving endings I've ever read, and I was so afraid that the movie would turn it into some obscenely laughable spectacle, and thus ruin my fond memory for the story, I was only too happy to leave the theater at intermission.
As if the acting is not bad enough, the screenwriters apparently decided to take all the great lines from the men and apply them to the movie one after another, and not even at the right time!!! What you get is scene after scene of characters standing around, reeling off famous lines one after the other, competing for the right to make the audience go "Wow, how profound. Give this man an Oscar!!" It's pathetic and it's corny. Terribly corny. And as much as I hate to say it, Robert Duvall (Robert E. Lee) is the worst of the bunch when it comes to outright inanity. Not once does he seem like the great general Lee truly was; rather, he usually just stands there like some comatose statue waiting for his cue to spout some historically famous line. Also, is it just me or does Duvall make Lee look like some whacked out mad scientist? Dr. Wily, anyone? No? Sigh.
In fact, as important as Lee truly was to southern history, he hardly has any role in the movie. The entire film revolves around General Jackson, which is OK, except the filmmakers decided to take Lee's overbearing religious beliefs and add them onto Jackson's already present religious beliefs, turning Jackson into a lean, mean praying machine. It's difficult to go even 15 minutes without seeing Jackson throw down his sword and pick up a Bible. This is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone who knows history knows that both Lee and Jackson were religious men, but both of a different breed. Lee was a positive, happy man who took the good as a gift from God and the bad as a constructive lesson from Him. Jackson was very different in that he took the good with reluctance for fear that too much enjoyment would lead to him being punished by God to balance it out. Truly, he took the bad as punishment from God for taking to much pleasure in the good fortunes of life. This, I believe, is what made Jackson such a formidable crusader for the South, as he accepted death and killing as God's will, and he never let himself get too attached to thanking God, lest he be punished. So basically, Jackson is one bad dude, and one not afraid to take a few thousand lives. Lee, on the other hand, is the benevolent religious man, who would rather see the war end without bloodshed, as that is the way that God would want it.
What I'm getting at here is that the movie often distorts history. The screenwriters have in effect taken Lee's personality and added it to Jackson, making him this devout, amicable guy who thinks that slavery is bad but still wants to defend his home in the South. Lee, as mentioned previously, becomes this empty shell of a man who stands around and provides quotations. Guess what? It was Lee who respected the slaves as people (and even freed his own), and was always using the Bible to make his point and provide lessons. There's even a scene in the movie where Jackson is talking to a slave about freedom and such. Um, I don't recall Jackson doing anything of the sort. It was Lee. Obviously, the screenwriters are trying to make the audience like Jackson more, by showing that he loves the Brothers. Also, there is a reference in the movie that states that at the First Battle of Manassas, Jackson received his nickname of "Stonewall" because even under heavy fire he stood still as a stonewall. That's bullshit. He got that name because at the battle he stood all his men up in a stolid, unmoving row like a stonewall. Jackson was a hell of a man, but he and everything else deserve to be portrayed as they were in the book without any prevarication or fabrication. I absolutely hate it when Hollywood changes stuff to make the film easier to sell to the masses. It's just not right to fuck with history. Get it straight, and stop pandering to the idiots in the audience.
With all that said, I have two more things to mention about Gods and Generals. Perhaps I'm the only one that noticed this, but aren't the makeup jobs just the worst ever? Those beards, although historically accurate, look so goddamned silly on those actors. You could practically see the lines where the beard and covering makeup were applied to the face. One of the men looked like Janeane Garofalo with an applied beard, which probably wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were true. Apparently, a few people were under the impression that the Academy has created a new award category for WORST FUCKING MAKEUP. The effect this beard fiasco had on me was an uncontrollable chuckle every time a new character was introduced. Sigh, and just when I thought there was nothing else that could make respect for this film dip any lower.
The second (and last) thing I would like to mention is the lack of real violence and gore in this movie. Look guys, this is war, and war is not glorious. If you want the moviegoers to truly feel emotionally involved in these battles, you have to display some gore. Watching people go "OOF" and fall over clutching their stomachs like Old Western stars gets really silly after a while, and the battles just stop stirring up any feelings other than pure indifference. Take a lesson from Glory and blow the living shit out of someone's head with a cannonball once in a while. YEE HAW!
In summary, Gods and Generals completely butchers the book and is so disjointed and inconsistent you might as well just read a bunch of random facts in a history text. I'm glad I left the theater when I did, as I only escaped with minimal damage. If you haven't seen this assloaf of a movie yet, don't fucking bother. Just do yourself a favor and read the book by Jeff Shaara, then read the sequel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. You won't be disappointed. Both books are moving accounts of our nation's history, and both help to explain what was really felt during that tumultuous half-decade. |
