borderuffian wrote: G&G would have worked better as a biography of Stonewall Jackson.
Yeah, I agree with that. What a great topic for a biography; of course, it would only be a good film if they show both the merits and flaws of Jackson (wouldn't want to sit through another Jackson-worship fest). I think that's what bothered me the most about G&G and the Jackson portrayal in general. I've read about how people liked Lang's performance, and I've no doubt he's a talented actor; however, what endears me the most to a character (and an actor's performance of that character) is the portrayal of their flaws, and I cannot remember any in his Jackson character (though it's been a while since I've seen the film).
There are many other civil war biographies that would make good movies though; however, when I was reading a Jackson biography a few months back, I remember thinking: what a good movie this would make--and almost all the scenes I had played out in my mind were where we can see negative aspects of Jackson's character.
Last edited on Wed Jun 17th, 2009 11:59 pm by Basiliximab
gman wrote: I loved Gettysburg but I thought G&G was too much of a Stonewall lovefest. After he died, I thought he was going to rise on the 3rd day.
Hahaaaa, you're right.
Another thing that stood out for me is the amount of time spent in the movie with the Generals and others, standing around making some profound statements, almost philosophical statements.
I realize the times were different, and they often had a romantic way of talking, but I think they went WAY overboard with all of that in G&G.
That's not a movie I'm particulary fond of mainly because I had already read the book and was quite disappointed in the conversion from book to movie. Gettysburg follows The Killer Angels better than Gods and Generals follows Gods and Generals. And it's not like this is a case of a novelization of a movie where the author has access to a script and writes based on that, including elements that may later be dropped from the final cut or were never in the script to begin with. Shaara's novel was first released in 1996. It was a few years before the movie began filming (some of the filming occured on 9/11).
Certainly I can't say it hadn't been picked up to be filmed after the book came out, but I wish it had followed the book better. Supposedly there is a six hour director's cut that has yet to be released on DVD. If released and if it better follows the book that might change my mind about the movie. But from some of what I've read it'd probably more annoy me.
I can find little to like about the movie, but I did enjoy the book. The two share only a title IMHO. They are completely different, except for the names of the characters...but then, those were pretty much set about 150 years ago!
You have chosen to ignore ssnwtlove. click Here to view this post