Gods and Generals
- Thread starter Peters
- Start date
- Status
LadyCalvinist
Puritan Board Junior
I thought it was great. It actually portrayed Stonewall Jackson and faith in a positive light, I was quite surprized byt that. I thought it was fair, in that it tried to explain the motivations of both sides instead of being politically correct and trying to demonize the South which is what Hollywood usually does.
HuguenotHelpMeet
Puritan Board Freshman
In fact, I can't wait until my son, Jackson, is old enough to see the movie made about his name sake!
I found the acting weak, as well as the score. And what was the deal with Stonewall not taking cover from incoming fire? Was that supposed to show that he trusted in the sovereignty of God? I also agree with Bill that it was plodding and slow. I love the epic but this failed. Give me The Last of the Mohicans or Gladiator or Braveheart instead any day.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Stonewall not taking cover is well documented. His most famous quote in life was about God determing the length of his days. That is probably the most accuarate part of the movie. Stonewall was the Calvinist Warrior par execellent of the old Puritan tradition.
I liked the movie. I liked how they did Stonewall and Lee.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
A thousand times Amen. Duvall was the perfect Lee.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Originally posted by bigheavyq
I love the bob dylan song and video in the extras.
also the biography on jackson is pretty good.
Stephen Lang quoted huge chunks of Dabney's bio on Jackson. I double checked and was amazed at the accuracy.
What a great movie and testimony of God's saving grace. I loved it. It was better than Gettysburg In my humble opinion. I also agree that Duvall made a much better Lee. Great extra's also. I love the song 'Going Home'. Aint much of a Dylan Fan.
Plimoth Thom
Puritan Board Freshman
I commented on the previous thread about this, but basically I thought it was, like it's infamous predecessor "Gettysbeard," a mediocre film. When I was younger I was a huge Civil War buff, and Fredericksburg was my favorite battle to study, I've been to the city and battlefield (which is surrounded by city today). I thought the Battle of Fredericksburg was very poorly done, with substandard CGI, and with no blood it was very unrealistic and dishonest. As far as the rest of the film the uniforms and events depicted were fairly accurate, but the cinematography and overall quality of the film was mediocre. It might not be a fair criticism, but I guess I just don't really like Maxwell's style. It was good for a cable tv movie, except it wasn't a cable tv movie.
My
My
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
Great movie. Thom, with due respect, the detail in the movie - even down to how blood flowed from musket wounds was very exacting. A musket wound is very different from a high velocity round. Once paraphrase from a journal I read was - It amazes me the amoung of blood in the surgery when there is comparatively so little on the field.
Plimoth Thom
Puritan Board Freshman
Ok, maybe I need to look closer. I saw it twice, once in the theatre and once as a rental, and it's been a few years, but honestly I don't remember any musket wounds or blood depicted, period. I'm probably wrong, but I'd have to look again. If musket wounds were depicted, good. But the fact that I can't remember seeing them, and that the film got a PG-13 rating leads me to believe the depiction was pretty tame. In my opinon, "Glory" did a better job depicting the wounds and horror of the battlefield, and even that was less than completly accurate, in my opinion. For the record, I'm pretty familiar with what kind of damage a round or minie ball can do. I own and shoot several muzzleloaders including a repro. M1861 Springfield. I've fired live rounds through 2"x4"s, and have seen forensic recreations of musket wounds on shows like "Battlefield Detectives," or "Secrets of the Dead." I can't imagine a low amount of blood coming from the kind of exit wound of a .58 cal hunk of lead leaves. in my opinion, the pharaphrase cited about the surgery probably more demonstrates the horrors of 19th century surgeries and the amount of blood produced by all the horrific amputations compared to the battlefield. Again, just my opinion.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I read recently that Robert Duvall "is actually a relative of" Robert E. Lee.
jaybird0827
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Being a member of the league of the South and the SCV I have definate confederate leanings. I loved the movie.
JasonGoodwin
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, considering that Gettysburg was financed by Ted "Mr. CNN" Turner, I shouldn't be surprised at the outcome of that movie vs. G.A.G.
Turner is antagonistic against Christianity. He has called it "a religion for losers". I hate to say this, but unless he repents and confesses that Jesus is Lord, he will be the loser!
turmeric
Megerator
This is in the Picky-Picky-Picky category, but it bothers me that someone would suggest that people with Confederate sympathies would like a lame film, just because it was supposed to be about Jackson. I think said sympathisers would more likely be protesting to the skies about a lame film on such a sacred topic.
- Status
