Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
bryanac625's rating
... 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.
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.
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.
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.