Reviews

... I think this is a good film in the hands of the right person but in the hands of neo-Confederate southern apologists, particularly those with an agenda to distort history, it could be a problem.

It's obvious that Ron Maxwell (writer, director and producer of this film) truly loves history and put a lot of thought and care into this movie. But the problem is he messed with the wrong period of history. The Civil War is the Holy Grail of American history, and the battle for its legacy is still being fought. To one side, the bottom line of the conflict was southern black slavery- to this opinion, it doesn't matter if the Confederate soldier owned no slaves, the economic system which sent him off to war was fueled by slavery. To the other side, the War Between the States- or the War of Southern Independence- or the War of Northern Aggression- was about state's rights versus the federal government in DC telling people in Georgia or Arkansas or wherever what to do. A lot can be added to the opinions on both sides in this debate, and neither side looks to back down anytime soon.

"Gods and Generals" has been so roundly criticized for being soft on slavery and too pro-Confederate. This was supposed to be the first part of a Civil War trilogy (1. Gods and Generals 2. Gettysbug/The Killer Angels 3. The Last Full Measure) based on books of the same names by Michael and Jeff Shaara. I think the intention of Ron Maxwell was to present both North and South with dignity and respect, to show that there were heroes on both sides. But this movie was a bigger bomb than the explosion of the Crater in 1864. As a result of the flop, "Last Full Measure" has been canceled and will probably never be made. And I must say... I don't think I've ever seen a film so hated before in my life. Some people who wrote reviews here come off like watching this film was not just a waste of their time, but their lives have actually been ruined as a result. I almost think that if Ron Maxwell goes around introducing himself as the director of "Gods & Generals," he will be severely beaten.

Anyway, I can't respect the Confederacy at any time for wanting its independence while enslaving people. The deal's off at that point. But there is something fascinating about those who are willing to risk it all- their lives, for a cause, even if that cause lacks nobility. In other words, I study the Cofederacy as social and military history rather than condemning all things southern.

As I said, I personally liked this film. I liked that many of these scenes were very accurate, such as John Janney's speech before the Virginia Secession Convention and Stonewall Jackson speech to his soldiers. Lt. Col. Chamberlain's speech (this movie has a lot of speeches) to his brother before Chancellorsville is tremendously powerful. This is the first Civil War film I've ever seen that has shown black camp servants, which were used by both sides. I've seen a lot of camp photos from the war and these African-Americans are clearly visible, yet they have been omitted from so many "accurate" films with "attention to detail." I loved the film's Christian theme. And I appreciate that the movie included a lot of people- Janney, Francis Preston Blair, Sr. Mary Anna Jackson, Jim Lewis, Sandie Pendlton, Dr. Hunter McGuire, and Colonel Adelbert Ames- that previous films have left out. This movie gave me a lot to think about, as it was intended to do.

But like many, I do think it sugar-coated slavery and even went so far- I think unintentionally- to make the north look like the evil aggressor. One example is the comparison presented in the film of the soldiers' behavior. In one inspiring scene, General Jackson salutes his men and commends their respect for the "rights and property" of citizens. Then, during the battle of Fredericksburg, Yankee soldiers are seen looting and vandalizing in the streets of the small southern city. The truth is, BOTH of these events are factual. The speech was recited virtually word for word, and Union soldiers did engage in drunken vandalism. But this is only part of the war. Starving southern soldiers stole food and clothes on frequent occasions and the movie mentions nothing about the fact that General Robert E Lee, who I still believe was a Christian man, allowed soldiers in his army to kidnap free blacks in Maryland on their way to Antietam. Splicing history to this effect is like one of those crazy YOUTUBE videos where somebody takes "Mary Poppins" and turns it into the exorcistic, possessed "Scary Mary." Neo-Confederate apologists will walk away thinking theirs was the just cause. I can think of one of them. A few years ago, I visited the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia. While touring the museum, I observed a white woman look at the exhibits and then bow down to her young child and remark, "See, honey? It's too bad the south didn't win- we would have been better off!" Furthermore, she made this comment while standing next to a black man.

If you see Gods and Generals, make sure it is not the only Civil War film you see. Please include PBS' "The Civil War," "Amistad (pre-war)" "Andersonville," "The Day Lincoln Was Shot," "Gettysburg," "Glory," "The Hunley" and "Ride With the Devil." Even these will not tell you everything about the war. There are many great books, such as James McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom" that will give you more education than these movies ever will.

I love US history. One of my favorite stories of the past is American soldiers in WWII Britain, so I have always had an interest in this movie, and I've seen it several times.

However, I think this movie has always been underrated. It would be great to see one of the classic movie channels like AMC or TCM feature "Yanks," followed by "Saving Private Ryan." Because "Yanks" ends rather abruptly, as the soldiers are on their way to battle (D-Day) and because "Private Ryan" begins with the landing craft approaching the Normandy beaches, these films would be great together.

Another reason I applaud "Yanks" is for featuring Black GIs (unfortunately, "Private Ryan" doesn't do this). Is it necessary every American history movie be "multicultural?" Maybe not, but the truth is that some 5000 African-Americans were a part of the Allied effort that put 156,000 soldiers on the Normandy beaches to begin the process of freeing Europe from Nazi tyranny. These men deserve to be recognized, and I'm glad for any film that does that (I also recommend the HBO Original film "The Affair" on this subject).

As I said, the movie ends suddenly. It would have been nice if the movie had done a "what happened" epilogue, like we see in "American Graffiti" or "Animal House." Do Matt, Danny and John survive the war? Do Jeanie, Mollie, Helen or the Moretons survive, or are any of them killed by the V-1 or V-2 rocket attacks that came after D-Day? Do Matt and Jean marry? The movie leaves you longing for answers.

I saw this film in the theater in 1975 when it came out. It bothered me a lot then, because I was a 10-year old, insecure black boy and I believed the things I saw on film. I was really sensitive to violent images on screen in those days (not that they mean nothing now, but I'm definitely more desensitized). Anyway, seeing an 18-year old black man shot and killed on screen really made me feel insecure about my own future.

Anyway, I just watched this movie again for the first time in 30 years. This movie sucks!!! All of the black characters are like "Ohh, Lawd... we in de ghetto, sho nuff!" All the white characters are horribly racist and every time they open their mouths, no matter what they say, it seems to come out as "nigger!" I'm sure some will say, "Well, that's the way it was in 1975 and these blaxploitation film paved an importance on the way to current progress. Well, whatever. This movie is so bad it's more of a joke than Saturday Night Live.

I'm truly sorry I watched this film. I do think Charlize Theron's performance was incredible as far as acting goes. But this film is just a sick, twisted depressing story about a very unfortunately messed-up individual and her naive and confused lover. The director called it a "love story." If Aileen Wuornos had ever known how to love, she probably would not have been sentenced to death!

If this film did anything for me, it made me realize how blessed I am that in spite of my troubles and trials, I have Christ in my life and a family that loves and supports me. I don't say this out of self-righteousness or holier-than-thou arrogance. I truly wish Aileen Wuornos and her girlfriend had had these things.

Some people actually dismissed this film as racist, and others like to minimize the history of whites enslaving blacks by pointing out that Africans sold one another into slavery... as this film shows.

Sadly, these people just don't get it. For one thing, it really doesn't matter who enslaved these people: it was immoral for anyone to take part in dehumanizing others. As far as being a racist movie, that is completely absurd. Though this film has some inaccuracies, it is necessary and important because it tells the bigger story of "you enrich me; I enrich you."

One of the most symbolic moments of cultural enriching in the movie is when Baldwin has to tell Cinque that they have to try the case again. Cinque is enraged by this because he does not understand the American system of appellate courts, and he believes Baldwin has lied to him. Through a translator, Baldwin tries to say "I should have said..." but the translator tells him he cannot translate this because there is no word in the Mende language for "should." "You either do something or you don't do it." While this comment is meant to be funny, it serves as a reminder that no culture has all the answers. Previous films on slavery have too often depicted whites as "I'm here to save these poor, unfortunate people. They need me to fight for them." It is refreshing that this film does not display that condescending, subtly racist attitude. While it is possible that such an attitude may have been present in the real story, it is healing to see something different here.

"Amistad" shows a moment in the 244 years of African slavery where blacks fought back and won, with the help of white and black abolitionists. In the end, people of different cultures and languages work together for righteous good. Please see this movie.

I always intended to watch this movie for a long time but I kept putting it off. I was really surprised at how excellent and well-written this movie actually was. If you enjoy films where a group of diverse people are put into a situation and then left to deal with each other (eg "Twelve Angry Men"), then you must see this movie.

This film was also very intelligent. I think too many people believe that if you get a group of black men together for anything, they'll soon be calling each other "nigga" and violence will erupt, not necessarily in that order. About halfway through the movie, I told my wife that the n-word had not been used at all, and no punches had been thrown.

But I was wrong.

What made it even more interesting was the way the men responded to the person who called everyone "nigga," and there was a fight, which occurred between a homosexual and an arrogant, big-mouthed guy who kept calling him "faggot." I don't condone violence, but the gay guy knocked him down a peg or two, and he certainly had it coming.

This film also solidifies Andre Braugher as an incredible actor. He has taken on such diverse roles and here, he was outstanding. So many of these actors were. Almost every scenario and discussion is covered in two hours well spent.

I really enjoyed this film because I have a tremendous interest in American History... the Antebellum years and the Civil War in particular. I purchased it recently from a rack of previously-viewed videos on sale at the supermarket and I was very glad to add this one to my history video collection. Though not of the caliber of Civil War films such as "Glory" or "Gettysburg," provides a lot of history on the pre-Civil War brotherhood among cadets at West Point.

Maybe it's the gray uniforms, the youth, or the military discipline, but I am fascinated by the story of the Corps of Cadets from around 1830 to the brink of the War. I imagine what it must have been like to sit in a classroom with other young men, learning how to make war, then later putting the lessons to use against your own classmates!

Actually, there were two classes graduated in 1861: one class in May, the other in June. the movie makes no real mention of this, except to mention Henry A. DuPont, first graduate of the May Class; and George Custer, last grad of the June Class. the reason for the two classes was not so much about the war, but it was the result of switching back to a four-year course of study, after a few years of experimenting with a five-year course (I think the first class had attended five years, the other for four). As the movie portrays, cadets were like brothers and often had nicknames for each other... George "Fanny" or "Autie" Custer; Alonzo "Lon" Cushing; James "Beauty" Stuart (for J.E.B. Stuart, class of 1854), etc.

I say this film is "Santa Fe Trail" as it should have been because that 1940 film, while enjoyable, really fudges history. Cadets from several different classes are all graduating together. JEB Stuart and George Custer are portrayed as the best of friends and are side-by-side in stopping John Brown's 1859 insurrection at Harper's Ferry. In fact, Stuart and Custer were never friends, but enemies during the War. They faced each other (for the first time, I think) at Gettysburg in 1863 (Stuart was at the Harper's ferry Raid, but Custer was still a cadet at the Point when it took place).

"Fanny" Custer plays a role in "Class of '61," though his classmate chums, Dev O'Neill and Shelby Peyton are fictional. I believe they are respectively based on Partick Henry O'Rorke and John Pelham, two people you can look up.

Anyway, I truly enjoy this film or any film which provides a window into mid-19th Century America.