OT: Gods & Generals + The Acadamy Awards

[Atrocities]

All I have to say is if Gods and Generals does not receive at least one nomination and or one Acadamy Award then the Acadamy is a JOKE

Ron Maxwell wrote and directed this movie, a movie that was by all standards acadamy material. If Stephen Lang does not receive the Acadamy Award for his work in this film then the Acadamy Awards are blind, selfish, comericalized, sell outs. Sorry if that offends any one, but it is Gods truth being spoken.

Gods & Generals was one of the best movies of 2003, if not the best IMHO. It sure as hell beats out my second favorate, Seabiscutt, and is a league above most other movies released this year.

If Master & Commander can garner so much attention, and be such a bad movie, then why can't Gods & Generals at least get an honorable mention?

My god Stephen Lang did a brillant job playing Stone Wall Jackson that you almost felt as if he was the man himself re-incarnated.

The movie was a brillant peace of film making if ever there was a brillant film.

[Slynky]

And I thought I was the only person who watched that movie. Of course, if a person is going to study a war, and IF you are American, this is the one to study.

We should thank Ted Turner (an Atlanta boy himself) for throwing his support behind such movies as this (along with "Gettysburg"...in my opinion, a tad better than "Gods and Generals" and "Andersonvile").

[geoschmo]

Oh man, I cannot disagree with you more. I don't have words to adequately express my disagreement with your opinion, but I'll try.

I am a huge Civil War buff, and loved "Gettysburg", which this was supposed to be the prequel to. I was so anticipating G&G, but was totally disapointed by it. G&G was dreck. It glorified the Confederate cause to the point of ridiculousness. Even a movie like "Glory", which was perhaps a bit over the top on the other end of the spectrum, showed some weaknesses in it's characters. G&G was practically a modern Version of "Birth of a Nation".

What could have been a fascinating study of the motivations leading up to the war ended up coming off as some kind of propoganda film. It was almost like the makers wanted the audience to come away thinking the wrong side won the war. yeech.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the message though, I saw nothing in the film worthy of oscar consideration, except perhaps some of teh cinimatography. And that had some stiff competition this year. There were some really stunning visual movies this year. More deserving then G&G.

[General Woundwort]

Gotta agree with Geo here on almost all counts.

I own few movies - one of them is "Gettysburg". (You can guess by my sig what two of the others are... ) Great stuff. I too was interested in seeing G&G for that reason. I too came away very disappointed. Several points stuck out in my mind...

1) G&G, for having excellent source material (the history itself, and the Shaara novels), had no plot. There was little or nothing to tie the whole mess together. It was the filmed Version of the Cliff Notes of the first three years of the war...

2) Bad casting. Lang did an excellent job as Pickett in the first movie - he fit the part well. That was his undoing in G&G. I couldn't separate him from Pickett, and what I saw on-screen was a mishmashed Stonewall Pickett. I'm also no fan of Martin Sheen, but he at least attempted to portray Lee in "Gettysburg". It seemed to me like Robert Duvall was just reading the dialogue deadpan. (I'd also mention something about Col. Chamberlain having put on some weight, but that would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black ) And don't get me started on Ted Turner's cameo. Mind you, directoral cameos are a time-honored tradition in Hollywood, but most directors (like Hitchcock and Peter Jackson) only appear on-screen for a blink. Turner was on for a good 2-3 minutes, and it was all too obvious that he was immensely enjoying himself.

3) Pacing. When I watched Gettysburg, the four hours in the theatre went by like that - never noticed them. In G&G, I kept looking at my watch wondering "When will this end?"

In short - no Oscars for G&G, give'em to PJ and the rest of the Tolkien Kiwi crew instead.

EDIT - Gotta get spellchekcer for this...

[ February 14, 2004, 01:38: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[gravey101]

Atrocities, why did you think master & commader was so bad? Admittedly it was a little slow in parts, but the attention to detail was fantastic I thought. I'm not a huge Russell Crowe fan but I thought he was great. What action scenes there were were very well done I thought. So, tell me what you saw?

[Slynky]

Notice I didn't say it deserved an Oscar nomination. BUT...

I think the movie did what it was intended to do...give some of the thoughts that generals go through when engaged in war for a cause each of them believed in. THAT, of course, makes for a more somber movie and less of a movie for action. I particularly liked the scene where the two soldiers met and shared a smoke and coffee in the stream (since I had read things like that occurred frequently). It illustrated how generals "wrestled" over decisions.

Outstanding performances? Not really. But sound, I'd say. Costuming? I'd say really good since I have painted various miniatures from historical pics.

I think the movie did what it was intended to do. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to any Civil War buff.

And as to what Geo said, perhaps (thinking objectively) it DID portray a bit of "sufferage" to the South and I didn't notice. I've always said this: "I am glad the North won the war and it was better for this country that it did BUT I'll never disagree with the reasons that the South went to war."

War doesn't need to be glorified. Just understood.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by gravey101:
Atrocities, why did you think master & commader was so bad? Admittedly it was a little slow in parts, but the attention to detail was fantastic I thought. I'm not a huge Russell Crowe fan but I thought he was great. What action scenes there were were very well done I thought. So, tell me what you saw?

I don't think it was a bad movie, but certainly if it gets nominated then so should Gods and Generals.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Slynky:
And I thought I was the only person who watched that movie. Of course, if a person is going to study a war, and IF you are American, this is the one to study.

We should thank Ted Turner (an Atlanta boy himself) for throwing his support behind such movies as this (along with "Gettysburg"...in my opinion, a tad better than "Gods and Generals" and "Andersonvile").

Yes indeed, hats off to Ted Turner as well.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Oh man, I cannot disagree with you more. I don't have words to adequately express my disagreement with your opinion, but I'll try.

I am a huge Civil War buff, and loved "Gettysburg", which this was supposed to be the prequel to. I was so anticipating G&G, but was totally disapointed by it. G&G was dreck. It glorified the Confederate cause to the point of ridiculousness. Even a movie like "Glory", which was perhaps a bit over the top on the other end of the spectrum, showed some weaknesses in it's characters. G&G was practically a modern Version of "Birth of a Nation".

What could have been a fascinating study of the motivations leading up to the war ended up coming off as some kind of propoganda film. It was almost like the makers wanted the audience to come away thinking the wrong side won the war. yeech.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the message though, I saw nothing in the film worthy of oscar consideration, except perhaps some of teh cinimatography. And that had some stiff competition this year. There were some really stunning visual movies this year. More deserving then G&G.

You and my dad would get along well on this topic. I liked the move for the acting manly. I did not follow the story so much as I was following those who were acting in it.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Atrocities:
You and my dad would get along well on this topic.

Ouch. Did I just get called old?