Where are the "Gods and Generals" reviews?

[Dragnov]

Has anyone watched it yet? Thoughts?

 

[ggavinmoss]

Well anyone who went to see it today wouldn't be back until tomorrow sometime.

-geoff

 

[datalink7]

Appears to be completly rotten.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Appears to be completly rotten.

I heard the Movie guy on Good Morning America really ragging on it thismorning.

Too bad, I thought it would be good.

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: datalink7
Appears to be completly rotten.

Ouch.

How dissapointing. Gettysburg was such a great film.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

Originally posted by: datalink7
Appears to be completly rotten.

Ouch.

How dissapointing. Gettysburg was such a great film.

Yes, I love Gettysburg. Need to buy that movie at some point.

I was looking forward to Gods & Generals as well, but it looks like it is horrible.

 

[glen]

Ebert gave it a one half.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Amazing what you can do with a 15-20 second promo. The trailer looks great, but this thing is getting panned right down into Kangaroo Jack territory. The reviews are really bad for the new Kevin Spacey flick too. Old School stunk, DareDevil was disappointing and The Recruit wasted Pacino. Man, this is a pretty grim period, every movie that looks good doesn't deliver. How long until LotR3: Return of the King opens?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Amazing what you can do with a 15-20 second promo. The trailer looks great, but this thing is getting panned right down into Kangaroo Jack territory. The reviews are really bad for the new Kevin Spacey flick too. Old School stunk, DareDevil was disappointing and The Recruit wasted Pacino. Man, this is a pretty grim period, every movie that looks good doesn't deliver. How long until LotR3: Return of the King opens?

Next winter

But we have Matrix: Reloaded coming up semi-soon. Hopefully that will be good

 

[arod]

Well more proof that the reviewers dont know crap.... I really enjoyed the movie. It was long but so was gettysburg. To me it wasnt quite as good (as gettysburg) but all these reviewers dont know crap. Go see it and decide for yourself.

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Amazing what you can do with a 15-20 second promo. The trailer looks great, but this thing is getting panned right down into Kangaroo Jack territory. The reviews are really bad for the new Kevin Spacey flick too. Old School stunk, DareDevil was disappointing and The Recruit wasted Pacino. Man, this is a pretty grim period, every movie that looks good doesn't deliver. How long until LotR3: Return of the King opens?

Never trust the reviewers, I find a decent indicator the Yahoo Movies rating, and if I really wanna know I check at DVD Talk. BTW, you sound like a reviewer. Daredevil was decent and Old School was pretty damn good for a mindless comedy.

 

[Machupo]

well, i'm going to have to disagree with arod -- i thought the movie was complete and utter crap... probably one of the worst pieces of cinematography i have endured in a while...

I don't know what the heck i was thinking, going to this movie... a "Ted Turner Production"

Four freaking hours of proselytizing, baldfaced proselytizing, sappy proselytizing, oh, and did i mention the proselytizing?

Not to mention the horrific use of camera techniques, a script written by a five year old with a passive voice fixation (apparently the active voice was invented somewhere around 1870), and simply atrocious acting... Between some of the worst faked southern accents and the confused inability to convey emotion, i don't know if the actors / actresses even knew what the heck they were supposed to be feeling...

Methinks Stonewall knew he was ahead of his lines and purposefully blundered back into them just so he wouldn't have to endure any more of this celluloid disaster than necessary (though, he didn't die until 2-3 minutes from the end, so 3 hours and 45 minutes of sheer pain was impressive of him)...


i wish i had the foresight to have taken my flask with me... i'd be bombed off my butt right now (prolly in jail for tearing down the screen as well...)

anyways...


not to get all emotional about it or anything -- gettysburg was MUCH better!

 

[illusion88]

ITs four hours long. Some friends went today... I coulndt go cause I had plans that conflicted with the times. They are big history buffs so will probally enjoy it.

 

[exp]

Just got back from seeing it. Gettysburg is one of the best films I have ever seen. Gods & Generals is one of the worst. Truly a gawdawful POS (Machupo's post pretty much sums up my feelings).

A more accurate title would have been Soliloquys & Sermonizing. :disgust:

What a huge disappointment.

 

[Machupo]

Originally posted by: exp
Just got back from seeing it. Gettysburg is one of the best films I have ever seen. Gods & Generals is one of the worst. Truly a gawdawful POS (Machupo's post pretty much sums up my feelings).

A more accurate title would have been Soliloquys & Sermonizing. :disgust:

What a huge disappointment.

LOL, exp -- yep that title would pretty much cover it!

 

[GTaudiophile]

I enjoyed it a lot, thought it was well done. All these reviewers are pansy-ass liberals and can't stomach all the references to God, Country, Honor, Bravery, etc.

 

[Machupo]

it's not the references, but there is an appropriate way to portray true faith, and that sure as heck wasn't it... as i said in my above post, it was nothing but cheap, jimmy-swaggart-esque proselytizing... i can even take some of that (if it's 2am and it's either that or the turkey rotissiere infomercial), but 4 hours of it? I don't see the problem with references here or there, but when it starts to take the spotlight from the historical context of the movie, then it is definitely out of place...

 

[exp]

I enjoyed it a lot, thought it was well done. All these reviewers are pansy-ass liberals and can't stomach all the references to God, Country, Honor, Bravery, etc.

Yeah, Honor and Bravery are *soooooo* overrated. I prefer Back-stabbing Cowardice myself.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I enjoyed it a lot, thought it was well done. All these reviewers are pansy-ass liberals and can't stomach all the references to God, Country, Honor, Bravery, etc.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I enjoyed it a lot, thought it was well done. All these reviewers are pansy-ass liberals and can't stomach all the references to God, Country, Honor, Bravery, etc.

Not to mention the yankees that still like to believe that the entire civil war was based on freeing slaves. I thought it was a fairly accurate portrayal. The praying and mentioning of God alot was kind of weird though. Reminded me of my high school days where we would say the Lord's Prayer before athletic events to keep us from injury....they did the same thing before battles. It would have been better if it had toned down the praying. However, it's refreshing to see a Civil War film in which the South is not demonized.

 

[0roo0roo]

not demonized? it went to the opposite extreme.


and liberals are attacking this movie?? whos behind this movie? ted turner, the guy behind cnn which the right wingers call "liberal". ah sweet nostolgic rosy views of the slave bearing south. giving the south its noble revisionist history after the war to let them heal is one thing. but its 2003 now.. good god.

this cracked me up

"Gods and Generals" - aka "Dixie Jihad"

"shameless apologia for the Confederacy as a divinely inspired crusade for faith, home and slave labor."


whos' in this movie? a buncha liberals right? martin sheen? eh? eh? bah!

 

[Dari]

let's remember that only the victors write history. here, turner is trying to see it through the eyes of the losers. Honestly, I can't reason paying to see a movie about men romantically fighting for a cause I'm totally against (the enslavement of another human group).

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Dari
let's remember that only the victors write history. here, turner is trying to see it through the eyes of the losers. Honestly, I can't reason paying to see a movie about men romantically fighting for a cause I'm totally against (the enslavement of another human group).

The South wanted to secede. The North said Hell no. The South kicked the North out of their fort in South Carolina. The North invades the South. The South fights back... How is this enslavement of another group? It was about control. The South wanted their own government. The North knew that it was totally fubared without the cheap raw goods from the South as well as the unfair tarriffs that they were levying on said goods.

Slavery would have died shortly anyways due to the invention of Eli Whitney.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Dari
let's remember that only the victors write history. here, turner is trying to see it through the eyes of the losers. Honestly, I can't reason paying to see a movie about men romantically fighting for a cause I'm totally against (the enslavement of another human group).

The South wanted to secede. The North said Hell no. The South kicked the North out of their fort in South Carolina. The North invades the South. The South fights back... How is this enslavement of another group? It was about control. The South wanted their own government. The North knew that it was totally fubared without the cheap raw goods from the South as well as the unfair tarriffs that they were levying on said goods.

Slavery would have died shortly anyways due to the invention of Eli Whitney.

Wow. So slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War? You, sir, are a moron. And your last statement makes clear that you are a moron. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. That's 67 years before the civil war.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Dari
let's remember that only the victors write history. here, turner is trying to see it through the eyes of the losers. Honestly, I can't reason paying to see a movie about men romantically fighting for a cause I'm totally against (the enslavement of another human group).

The South wanted to secede. The North said Hell no. The South kicked the North out of their fort in South Carolina. The North invades the South. The South fights back... How is this enslavement of another group? It was about control. The South wanted their own government. The North knew that it was totally fubared without the cheap raw goods from the South as well as the unfair tarriffs that they were levying on said goods.

Slavery would have died shortly anyways due to the invention of Eli Whitney.

Wow. So slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War? You, sir, are a moron. And your last statement makes clear that you are a moron. The cotton gin was invented in 1793. That's 67 years before the civil war.

care to refute that, nitemare?