Thank you for an interesting review of an interesting movie. I hope you don't mind if I put my two cents in ( actually 1.33 US Cents based on current Canadian exchange rate).

My first comment is on the Uniforms you questioned I have not heard of the unit you mention the Putnam Phalanx ?? but I know of the Louisiana Continental Guards later company a 7th Louisiana who wore replica blue continental army uniforms. Whether they or any militia unit actually wore their fancy uniforms in combat is another story but who knows for sure ?? Prewar militia uniforms encompassed all types I know of Polish Lancers, French Hussars, Turco Infantry, units in full bearskins, pith helmets, etc..

I think that the real problem with the film is that "Gettysburg" was a good movie and blew us away with its numbers, music and thrilling battle scenes. No offence to Jeff Shaara but he is not a good a writer as his father Michael. "the Killer Angels" Michaels' book on Gettysburg is a great book seen by it winning a Pulitzer prize. On the other hands "Gods and Generals" and the "Last Full Measure" are so books trying to cover too much in too little space. Gettysburg and Killer Angels cover one battle.

I think we went to see "Gods and Generals" and expected another "Gettysburg" and were naturally disappointed. The movie sticks fairly close to the book and tells a good story. It is my understanding that "Gods and Generals" will be expanded to a 6 hour mini series for Turner TV and later DVD release. That is when I think we will see the true movie. Like you I felt the movie dragging but was more "upset" by what was not there - for example the Valley Campaign and a little battle called Antietam but they are also not in the book . The role of the "Irish" was mentioned but not developed. I know that two scenes were cut from the movie showing Irish Confederates singing about "Lincoln's snakes" and the Irish Brigade pinning the green branches on their hats prior to Fredericksburg. (They are on a DVD included with the soundtrack album).

However the material presented gives a good impression of what the war was about up to Gettysburg.

Similarly the dialogue which you refer to as "21st century dialogue" is actually fairly accurate of civil war era newspapers, diaries and later memoirs. I am a rather serious student of the Civil War ( graduate level studies) and find it fascinating because of the availability of this material. Today modern historians are beginning to explore this aspect trying to see what the reasons were that caused both sides to fight . ( See James M McPherson's writings). Also as a Canadian I think I can bring a little less bias then a lot of Americans do today - witness the ongoing fight over display of the Confederate Battle Flag and the serious debate that is beginning over revised interpretative centres at battlefield centres.

I agree with you that the acting in some cases was dreadful but the words they spoke were indeed accurate and reflective of the time. I also agree with you that Jeff Daniel's role and his speeches are crucial to the movie as a balance to many pro Confederate scenes.

Ted Turner should be congratulated for his dedication to financing the two movies to date and hopefully will continue and make the 3rd concluding movie completing the trilogy. I do not feel that I was cheated and that the movie was more than worth both the money and time spent. This is because I went in knowing what to expect having read the book. I also expect that the final mini series will be much better and will be seen as a definitive portrayal of the war, this way you can watch it over a couple of sessions and see what is there.

Sorry for writing so much and keep up the good work in keeping Magweb.com as my favourite internet site.

Thanks, Ted, for your response. I agree. Gettysburg was a far superior movie. As I had not read the book, "Of Gods and Generals," I had no idea what to expect. What I saw, well, my review reflects what I saw, both on the screen and in the audience. Maybe I should have been harsher.

As for missing battles, well, what can you say. More mention of what Jackson did in the Valley would have helped, but that could be a movie/miniseries in itself. Antietam rather than Fredericksburg would have made the Emancipation Proclamation make more sense (not that it reverberated much in the film).

Whether another two hours will improve the film, I have my doubts. It may explain things a little better, but the idea of two more hours of yakity-yak-yak means I'm not going to be one of the watchers.

The trouble is, there's some real effective non-battle scenes within mixed in with a lot (a lot, a lot, a lot-a-lot) of bad ones. And the battle scenes and re-enactors are brilliant. So, what to do? Ted gets big points for Gettysburg (admittedly one battle, not half a war, in terms of timespan), but lost most of 'em with OGAG.

I do note with amusement the big quote used in adverts: "Best Historical Movie Release of the Year" or something like that. As I don't recall any other big historical movie releases in 2003... I've seen two reviews since mine. Oddly enough, Time magazine noted many of the same points, and the local paper dittoed that. A great follow-up half botched or half succeeded--I'll let the optimists and pessimists decide which one.

Original Review