Kevin Penrod

As much as I have admired and re-watched several times the film "Gettysburg" this prequal "Gods and Generals" just severely disappoints. The idea to create a prequal based on Civil War events from 1861 up to the battles of Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville just prior to the Gettysburg campaign is a lot to take on...but to any history buff this is uncharted territory and welcome. But Gods and Generals just limps along from one dreary speech to the next. And it is overloaded with too much spiritual drivel and speechifying from the principle characters, especially that of General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson. Anyone who has studied this period of American history is aware that it was an unusually Religiously oriented period of time. But this film just ladles it on with too much praying, too much Bible-verse quoting, and way, way to many boring prayers and speeches from these religious fanatics. And then there is poor Jeff Daniels, reprising his role as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain doing a ridiculous monologue on the day of the Battle of Fredericksburg quoting Herodotus or some ancient historian about Caeser's crossing of the Rubicon. I seriously doubt the real Chamberlain stood upon Stafford Heights watching the slaughter at Fredericksburg quoting ancient historians in a dumb overwrought dissertation of Roman military history. The Battle of Fredericksburg was the most "Napoleonic" of all the Civil War battles and involved more men than any Civil War battle before or after. The Union army brought more than 120,000 men to Fredericksburg, the Confederates more than 75,000. It was truly an enormous battle fought stupidly by General Ambrose Burnside who immediately resigned as Union Commander in Chief after he needlessly wasted the lives of more than 13,000 men in repeated assaults on Marye's Heights. But all we really see in Gods and Generals are repeated CGI wide-shots that all look the same. Then cuts to tight shots of Federal Troops being shot to pieces while Rebel troops blast away from behind the storied "Stone Wall" at Marye's Heights. What could have been a fascinating exploration of the biggest, grandest, saddest day in Union Army history is lost. And Robert Duvall seems to be asleep in his portrayal of Robert E. Lee and has a pot belly to boot. A too long, too boring, too stultifyingly tired film full of dumb speeches. "Gettysburg" is one of the finest, most accurate historical films ever made about a single battle. "Gods and Generals" tries a similar formula and uses many of the same actors and filmmakers but really blows it. What a disappointing film. And it is just boring as hell.

It may not be fair to Ridley Scott or his new movie "Napolean" for me to write a somewhat negative review. Why? I am an amatuer student of military history with an ardent interest in the Napoleanic period. In particular I have had a decades-long interest in the Battle of Waterloo and I have even visited the actual battlefield in Belgium. Why have I given Napolean only a 1-Star review? While the movie was entertaining and I honestly dont regret going to see it at my local theatre. However, going in to this event I thought if anyone could produce a highly detailed and accurate film about Napolean and his battles and relationships it would be Director Ridley Scott. After all, Scott's first feature film "The Duellists" was set during the time of Napolean and is a wonderful recreation of those times. But this time, I am sorry to have to say, Ridley Scott has not created the same excellence in his portrayal of the French Emperor. The portrayal of Napolean's relationship with his Wife Josephine is interesting and evocative of the time. It is lavish. And when Vanessa Kirby playing Josephine is on screen this film is quite good. When Napolean and Josephine are not on screen the film lags. And it is dark. I understand the late 18th and early 19th centuries did not have the electric lightbulb and interiors were photograhed using only natural light and light from candles. (just as Stanley Kubrick chose to photograph the wonderful "Barry Lyndon"). But even outdoors, during Napolean's battles, the scenes were dark, always overcast, almost as if there was a filter Ridley Scott's cinematographer used to make the battles seem as if they were fought in twilight. When it came to the climactic Battle of Waterloo Ridley Scott creates for us his own version of how that famous battle played out...and he gets almost nothing about Waterloo correct. He has Wellington's forces taking refuge behind enormous earthworks. He has Napolean's forces randomly charging at different times in the battle almost willy-nilly in one, enormously long line. Scott even has the Emperor of The French wading into the battle slicing away from his horse with his sabre, killing numbers of British soldiers. None of this took place. And though the sweeping wide shots of the battlefield of Waterloo are impressive Ridley Scott forgets to include the vital farmhouse of La Haye Sainte and the Chateau de Hougement, (two very large structures in the middle of the battlefield) where critical phases of the Battle of Waterloo played out over the entire day. These are just huge mistakes for an historical film. It is sort of like portraying the Allied troops storming the beaches of Normandy but there are no German pillboxes filled with machine-gunners raining bullets down on the American G.I.'s on Omaha beach. Now I understand I am being rather picky and this comes from a geek who has studied Napolean's battles for years. But these are huge holes in important events about the life of the film's main subject. And at the end, The Duke of Wellington has a little chat with Napolean. C'mon Ridley. This conversation never took place! Ridley Scott would tell me "...get a Life!". I actually liked his film but cannot give it a review higher than 1-Star. Too many obvious errors in history from a filmmaker I always believed got history right! Not this time.

I can recall as a kid in the 1960's seeing this film pop up on the " Saturday Afternoon At The Movies" slot fairly often back in the Spokane, Washington area. But I never got around to watching it from beginning to end. The other night I pulled it up on YouTube TV and was very please to see they had the original "Road Show" version complete in 70mm Widescreen, so I sat down to see "55 Days at Peking" from beginning to end. And it really isn't very good. There are impressive sets which were constructed to portray Peking circa 1900 and The Forbidden City's fortress walls, moats, and bridges. And there are thousands of extras running around, shooting, and bombs going off. In fact there is a lot of action...Action, Action, Action happening all the time. But in the midst of all this ACTION we learn almost nothing about the people at the center of the story: A Marine Major played by Charleton Heston, a British Diploman played by David Niven, and a Russian aristocrat played by Ava Gardner. These people talk a little but emote very little. Ava Gardner sort of sleep-walks through her performance and you can see that by 1963 she was losing a lot of the charm and beauty that made her one of the Most Beautiful Women in The World during the 1950's. David Niven as the British Diplomat, (I always liked Niven in any role he played), never seems to get messed up or dishevled at all even when he joins the soldiers on the ramparts to fight the hordes of Boxer attackers. And Charleton Heson, well he sort of ambles around a lot, doesn't say much, and isn't given a lot to work with in the poor dialogue that inhabits much of the screen story. This is a film a kid would think is really cool but beyond about age 12 I can't imagine anyone else would find much about it interesting and it has not aged well. British actors portray Chinese. That should tell you all you need to know about "55 Days At Peking". But the into credits are framed around a series of magnificent Watercolor paintings which are very nice.

I have been reading the reviews where many many people are calling this film from Christopher Nolan, a masterpiece. I would not go that far.. it is in grossing it is detailed. It is masterful and it is a very detailed and thorough look at the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer. The film though is extremely atmospheric. It jumps from colour which is beautiful black and white which is equally beautiful.. But the story is so comprehensive in nature at three hours, in length, it covers Oppenheimers young life, Oppenheimers wartime life, and then Oppenheimers postwar struggles with political forces, who want him out. It is just a lot to digest, and I digested it and I enjoyed it, and I thought it was probably one of the best films of 2023. But the first thing I told my wife when she asked me if I liked it was, I said yes, indeed I liked it very very much and it is a tremendous film. But I said I probably won’t go back for a second viewing. Why?. It is just so much film, such a broad canvas, such a giant yet detailed exploration of one man’s life, that when you were all done, watching Oppenheimer, you are finished in a little bit worn out. I remember going to see Christopher Nolan’s picture Dunkirk. After I had sat through that film, I was blown away. I thought it was tremendous an Academy award, winning effort and one of the greatest motion pictures I had ever seen. But upon repeat viewings of Dunkirk every time, I watched it since I’m just a little less impressed, and I have a sneaky suspicion. Oppenheimer will be about the same.. But I do recommend a film and I am giving it four stars out of a possible five and I imagine it is going to get an Academy award nomination for best picture, best director and especially in the case of actor Cillian Murphy best actor.

From the very opening credits, viewing what must be archival footage of London in the mid-1950's beautifully scrubbed and scratch-free in vibrant mid-Century color, we get immersed into a world that really doesn't exist any longer. The stiff-upper-lipped world of post World War II England in its desperate attempts to hold on to its polite and mannered ways. And into this we see the stoic, quiet, unassuming figure of Mr. Williams played by Bill Nighy join his Civil Service co-workers as they enter a London County bearuacracy. They begin their deliberate, quiet, bureaucratic way of going about their deliberate, quiet, bureaucratic motions, saying little, creating less, doing nothing, hardly living. Mr. Williams sits at the head of the large shared desk for 6. He silently, gently passes file folders full of information into a holding basket. There are in-baskets, out-baskets, and holding baskets stacked 6 baskets high to the right and left of each of the 6 bureaucrats in this London civic office. And this is the court Mr. Williams rules over in his way. Then one day, Mr. Williams informs Margaret and Mr. Wakely and the others he will be leaving the office early this afternoon. We are told nothing more. Except later, through the forlorn countenance of Mr. Williams, (and Actor Bill Nighy's very thought provoking and expressive face) that this man has received the diagnosis that he will soon be dying from inoperable cancer with perhaps 6 months left to live. And this is where Mr. Williams life begins in this film. He takes some money out of his bank account and goes to Bournemouth to party. A night out with one of the regular party animals in this British sea town see Mr. Williams get drunk and sing a sad little Scottish folk tune his late Wife once loved. You will begin to tear up just a bit watching Mr. Williams sing this beautiful tome. But he returns to London. He runs into the young Margaret. He asks her to go to lunch with him at an expensive London restaurant. No, this will not be a Winter-Spring romance. Williams hasn't the energy nor the enthusiasm and young Margaret knows this. He is simply being kind and he is "living". The world begins to soften, Williams returns to work, the processes continue to grind ever so slowly. But then Mr. Williams decides with quiet determination he and his staff will indeed see to it that a playground languishing in the still bombed-out remains of East End London, will be built with civic funds. This is a project which three East End mothers have been petitioning the city to spend money to build, unsuccessfully, for a long, long time. Now Williams wants it done. And he goes to each of the Powers That Be holding the purse strings and won't leave their presence until he gets their greenlight on the project. Williams dies. Margaret marries young Wakely. The playground is built. It is a simple, quiet, film. Yet it is extremely powerful, graceful, and owing to Bill Nighy's extremely restrained and masterful performance brings you to tears. Seek out this film "Living". It should garner Nighy an Academy Award Nomination. It is a little film. It is a quiet film. No one takes off their clothes nor swears and nothing explodes. But "Living" is nonetheless powerful and wonderful. I highly recommend you see this film. It is one of the best films I have seen in 2023.