Gods and Generals DVD - Warner Home Video - Historical Civil War Movie - Perfect for History Buffs & Film Collectors

I just plain don't understand those that don't like this movie. I just don't get it. Basically the negatives that are levied against this movie seem to pretty much come down to the following groups of people/concerns:1) Those that take offense with the religious (i.e. Christian) overtones.MY RESPONSE: I personally find this one amusing. There are some who seem to think this is a pro-Christian movie that is trying bash people over the head with Christianity. Let me tell you something: I am a Christian and try to take my faith seriously, and I have AVOIDED showing this movie to unbelievers because I actually believe it can conceivably leave some people with a NEGATIVE view towards Christianity. Yes this movie does periodically explore religious motivations and thoughts of some of the characters. But it shows those motivations on BOTH sides (both North and South) - you get to see BOTH sides talking about how they believe God is on their side and for their cause! I don't get what's so wrong with a film showing this and exploring the religious angle a bit, because you KNOW - especially at that time - that religion most certainly DID play a major role on both sides, with many on both sides believing that God would help them win the victory, etc. Although much of the faith stuff is centered around Gen. Jackson (South) which generally does show Christianity in a favorable light as we see how his strong faith helped him and was a great comfort to him both on the battlefield and in his dying days, there are some points which don't do so as well, such as one where Jackson responds something along the lines that he wants to just kill all the enemy - "every last one of them" kind of thing (this may only be in the extended cut of the film, I can't remember). That certainly doesn't mesh that well with the type of "Christianity" I'd like portrayed to non-believers. We also see Jackson as a Christian praying for an unbelieving dying general stating something like "I'll believe for the two of us since you don't believe". Any Christian that's read their Bible knows that's not how it works.Plus, it shows a more "liberal" type of Christianity with how it's portrayed with Chamberlain (North) as compared to Jackson, so it's portrayal of Christianity is kind of mixed and not consistent anyway.Personally, as a Christian, yes I did find this film to be affirming to me in my faith because of Jackson. I saw the same peace and comfort that Jackson seemed to have and know from his faith in Jesus, as I have in mine.But I can easily see an unbeliever watching this film coming away just thinking that all the Christianity stuff (and indeed religion in general) is nuts since both sides had people that believed in God and believed God was for them, and at the end of the day, war is an ugly ugly thing with lots and lots of people dead. It's a very flawed argument in my view, but I can easily see people coming to such a conclusion. Thus I don't see this as the great big "Christian evangelism" film that by the way some people talk (including many Christians) one might think it is. And those non-Christians that are supposedly so offended by this film, I just don't get it.Further, given the total runtime of the movie, the religious statements are actually quite few all things considered, so it seems to me most people could just look past this anyway if they really don't care what the characters thought in the religious sphere.(2) Somewhat related to number 1, there are those that believe that this should have been more like Gettysburg (which has a more documentary-type feel). These people mostly seem to be the Civil War History nuts who know every last date and battle and want a film that completely and utterly just portrays all the historical facts. They could care less about any "drama" - these people scoff at the scenes such as occur between a little girl and General Jackson in the movie. They don't really care much about humanizing the people.MY RESPONSE: One of the absolute strengths of this movie in my opinion is that it is NOT just about facts and battles, but actually takes you into the realm of motivations, thoughts, feelings of the people involved - making them REAL people and not just some glossed-over "fact" on a page. If I wanted to see a documentary on the Civil War and see every battle and every person involved, I'd watch one on the History Channel or something. But if you, like me, want to see a Hollywood MOVIE that has stunning visuals/audio, that also by most accounts is pretty historically accurate with what it shows, this is the best one I've seen!Some people felt the filmmakers tried to show too much in the movie and thus went too many directions - which thus made it seem "boring". I never felt that way - it kept my attention all the way through and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Ironically many of the people that have levied this criticism of the movie, like the Extended Edition better (which is actually an hour longer) because they feel it is more complete than the original by setting up scenes better and including things such as Antietam. Personally, although I like the extended edition, I DID start to find myself getting bored a tiny bit with it and can see WHY Antietam was cut from the original - its inclusion made the film "drag on" a bit for me. I realize from a historical perspective that Antietam was important. But from a theatrical movie perspective, given the other battle scenes in the movie, I understand why they originally cut it out and I don't fault them for it. The whole added "Booth" subplot of the extended edition, while intriguing, is largely a waste to me unless they ever make that long-mentioned 3rd film and tie that in. And the added "chapter" divisions actually kind of annoyed me a bit by taking away some from the "flowing movie" feel. Between the extended edition and the theatrical, although I enjoyed the extended, I actually think I prefer the theatrical.3) Those that believe it is too far out of balance and believe it is too pro-South, not "anti-slavery" enough, too focused on a few specific people, etc.MY RESPONSE: While this movie does go against the politically-correct flow a bit, that's part of what MAKES this movie such a great film! Yes, it does explore the Southern side heavier than the North, but plenty of other films explore the North's position much more than the South. Most of us already have been told a lot about the North's positions - what's wrong with exploring the South a bit more?? And this movie DOES showcase the North as well (even more so in the extended edition).Yes, it focused on only a few individuals. But it used those individuals to try to help showcase what was going on on an individual level with people at that time. Why can't people just accept that for what it is?? If you are expecting this movie to be a documentary on the first few years of the war, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you are looking to see a cinematic movie that while exploring some of the events of the first few years of the war, delves deeper into the "human element", this does that very well.It is true that slavery, while still clearly mentioned and portrayed as an evil in the film, is not directly shown with the few black characters in the film to be personally horrible by experience to them. We do see some of the blacks and the whites in the South getting along (and even liking one another) which the PC police would have you believe could never have happened. And yes that does bother some people that believe that the whole war was just all about slavery and that everyone in the South were giant meanies who hated all blacks and treated them like dirt (and that all blacks in the South were treated like dirt) and that everyone in the North were fighting solely for the blacks. This film does mess with that commonly accepted narrative a bit, by showing that in reality things might have been a bit more complex than that...SUMMARY: If a person is not willing to consider on a deeper human level some of the thoughts and feelings that might have been going on at that time (and for which indeed historically can be shown DID go on at that time) that one is not taught in your standard history class, including religious thoughts and motivations, then I guess one could really take offense at this film. And if a person is expecting this film to show every battle and person involved in the first few years of the war and be balanced between the Northern and Southern views, then a person would have a problem with this film and probably find it boring (not enough "battle action" and too much drama)But if a person can just take it for what it is: A Cinematic movie that tells some stories that provide some insight into historical events of the first few years of the Civil War, I don't think you'll be disappointed and can easily count this among one of the better films you've seen!BLU-RAY review: Finally, specifically regarding the Blu-Ray Extended Edition quality, which is what this review is listed under: Overall I found it perfectly fine for a Blu-Ray. The picture quality was generally detailed and clear, though inconsistent. The color "vibrancy" and warmth seemed to be lacking as compared to the theatrical DVD (i.e. on my Sony t.v. with default settings the DVD actually looked better as far as the warmth of the color), but since most all t.v.'s can tweak the color settings, this isn't a huge deal. I can't comment on surround sound, since I've only got a stereo setup, but for what it's worth, it sounded great in stereo with no noticeable problems with the mix. All in all, I did prefer watching this in Blu-Ray. As to whether the extended edition is worth purchasing, I would say yes, but I think I do personally prefer the theatrical a bit more (see #2 above for more info on why).