Think it would be Better without Chamberlain storyline?

Agreed, the film seemed to lack focus, switching between all the different characters and storylines.

The fact that the guy portraying Stonewall Jackson had all the charisma of a soiled diaper didn't help much either.

"Dutch Beer. Like frenching your sister, you get a short buzz, but it's still gross & plain wrong."

Naw. This film was too far out of balance as it was. Too cut any more would've made it a confederates on film fest. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I think the southward focus hurt the movie enough in audience appeal I think.

If anything should have been cut it should have been just about any scene with a female in it...including the little girl. This a frickin' war film, people! Save the "home and hearths" stuff for some other show.

No, I could have used more insight into General Winfred Hancock, Antietam (God yes that should have made the final cut), and Chamberlain (maybe) IN BATTLE. I don't give a frogs butt about any of their home lives...I mean maybe a little expository good bye hug before heading off to war, but that's the limit. And what about General Zook and Colonel Mulholland? They looked like two cool-ass customers that might have been worth knowing a little bit about...along with General Meagher. I love the scenes of them marching and in battle and crossing the Rappahanock.

And speaking of the Irish Brigade...how about a little balance and have some more scenes with those in the common ranks of that unit. How do they feel about coming to the land of the free, then fighting and dying to keep the Union whole and give "the darkies" a taste of freedom? From what I could tell their comic relief banter was just as worthy as what we got from the mutt and jeff team on the rebel side of the house.

And speaken of them darkies...how about them? It could've been nice to maybe get something slightly subversive in viewpoint about the confederacy...ya know aside from a delicately worded prayer. Are we to believe that the only negro contribution worthy of depiction for that 2 year period was that of those 3 happy servants more than willing to do their part for ol' Virginny? I mean you don't have to show a full on slave rebellion or anything, but maybe something to remind us that some of that southern "refinement" was built on the back of something more than just the good grace of God.

Anyhow, no, I wouldn't trade more of Stonewall's home life for less northerner exposure. I am sure Jackson was an endlessly fascinating character, but save all that intimate portrait stuff for a bio-film just on him. Let's have more battles, more battle tactics, and more good actors explaining the battle tactics (god this film could've used that).

In the end all I wanted to know was more of how and why each battle was fought and what the fighters were thinking and doing. All the other miscellaneous detritus can go.

Get yer cursor off my spoilers !

Pains me to say it but oh my God yes.

They were going to make a piece of deranged pro-Confederate propaganda anyway and it would be much stronger as a film without the pompous liberal windbag Chamberlain who may well be intended to provide balance but really just provides the racists and christianists in the audience with a convenient hate figure.

It would have made much more sense to have a triptych of movies - this one giving the Confederate viewpoint, Gettysburg giving equal billing and the final one taking as unabashedly a pro-Union perspective and showing the liberation of the slaves and the restoration of the Union.

No, I totally disagree and it's mostly Neo-Rebels posting otherwise. I think some of you people are a little bias here and are just not interested in learning about the other side of the coin. Try to be a bit more open-minded.


*My* ONLY complaints about this movie is that we did NOT get to see things from the United States of America's point of view enough in my personal and humble opinion. i.e. How Northern Civilians reacted to the war and the men in blue preparing for it. Also, not all southern's wanted to secede from the country. Quite a few did not actually and I wish the story could have focused on that issue some.


You know, I think one of the reasons why many rebels believed it would be a short war is because they knew quite a lot of them were mountain and woodsmen. Real tough and rough guys who thought Yankees were stuck up, rich boys from the big cities who didn't know how to fire a gun or knew anything about horses and other animals and therefore the Yanks wouldn't stand a chance against the rebs. I think even to this day, there are STILL rednecks who think that, yet the North won the war, so why they still think that, I do not know.

Anyhow, hicks then and now do not at all realize that many, many men up North were also gentlemen of nature too that came from rural areas and DID know how to fire a gun, knew quite a lot about horses and animals, hunted, fished, had farms, and lived off the land. I believe that is the case with many of the men in the Twentieth Maine and the film teaches people that.

That is one of the many things history films are all about. Not just telling you what you already know, but teaching as well. By including Chamberlain, Maxwell was able to teach an audience of mostly neo-rebels about a subject that they themselves would probably never bother to learn themselves because they are not interested in the other side of things unless it supports what they already believe.


Since I first saw the film "Gettysburg" when I was a kid, I have been fascinated with Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. I also became a huge Jeff Daniels fan as a result of his performance as Chamberlain and I was happy to see him reunite with C. Thomas Howell and Kevin Conway in "Gods and Generals". I really loved that trio in "Gettysburg" and it was great seeing them together again.

I am very satisfied with the screen time the Twentieth Maine received in both films, but I think it's human nature for some people to want more and it would have been nice to see more screen time for the Twentieth Maine, but I still have books so I'm sure I'll learn quite a bit more about Chamberlain and his men thanks to books.

I enjoyed all the scenes that focused on Chamberlain, learning about the origins of him and his unit, and then seeing them fight. I've read plenty of books about them and I enjoyed the storyline and would not like the movie as much if Chamberlain was not apart of it. Even though the Union got very little screentime, I am grateful for the time they did receive. As I typed, I loved the trio of Chamberlain, Tom and Buster. If they were not apart of this movie, it would have just been another Hollywood Neo-Reb film. I think it's good that this movie tried to be fair.


I'm sure this film attracted many people who are sympathetic towards the Confederacy. Hopefully all of those people were open-minded enough to learn more about the Northern side of things when Jeff Daniels was on screen and that they had a better understanding of why some Union soldiers were fighting in the war. I realize most were fighting to preserve the Union, some were fighting for pay, etc, but there were *some* who also truly fought because they loved their country and hated slavery. I know many of the U.S. soldiers at that time cared more about preserving America, which is fine and very honorable, but I'm also glad Chamberlain was of the men who not only wanted to keep the country together, but also had a deep desire to end slavery. There's no "myths" about that. Get an open-mind and read a book about the Union for once.

I have to agree with the OP. I think the purpose of the Chamberlain storyline was to include some perspectives from the Union side. But if that storyline is included, then it should have been developed more. In the film, Lt. Col. Chamberlain disappeared altogether in the last hour and a half, and we don't even know where he was. Actually I know that he was to come back in Gettysburg, but that was no excuse since each of the three (two as it turns out) films should stand on its own.

It is also true that the film lacked focus and that applied even to the Confederate side. The film started with Robert E. Lee who then often disappeared for long periods. I believe Jackson was supposed to be the primary focus of the film, and I think it was for that reason that there was a huge gap between the Battle of Manassas and the Battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. But even if the battles in-between were to be excluded, it should not have been difficult to include a few brief scenes to inform the viewers what happened during that time gap.

The narrative was simply too disjointed, with scenes shifting at random not only between characters but also between the Union and Confederate sides. The film is good in the reenactment of battles but not as good in scenes involving character development. Maxwell seemed to lack judgment in the writing of the screenplay and in the editing of scenes for this film.

Absolutely not. If you study the history of the Civil Rights Movement, you will see how important it is to have Chamberlain in here. The North now claims that the Civil War was about how inhumane slavery way, yet stayed segregated and gave blacks NO rights until the 1950s. If they truly cared as much as they now say, then they would have pushed for voting rights for blacks in the 1800s. The truth is that the North had as much disdain for the blacks as the South (let us not forget that in the 3/4 Compromise it was the northern states arguing that blacks were not people).

Chamberlain was from the state of Maine. This is important because this was the only state in the entire North or South that truly believed that slavery was inhumane and was the first to attempt equal treatment to blacks. This point is missed unless you know history beyond what is taught in the classroom. Is Chamberlain's story tedious and boring? Yes. But when you look at his story as a unique point of view it certainly adds a new dynamic and complexity to the movie.

I'll start by saying I didn't read the book this movie is based on, so my opinion might be skewed.

No, I don't think it'd be better without the Chamberlain storyline. I think it'd be a lot better with less of the Jackson storyline.

IMO, one of the strengths of the Gettysburg film is that, although it has a strong focus on Lee and Longstreet, it also has large parts for several other characters: Pickett, Armistead, Hancock, Chamberlain, Buford, to mention a few

I've read histories of Stonewall, both biographies and of his campaigns. I didn't find his biography terribly interesting, but I did find the book about his Valley Campaign utterly fascinating, as were his efforts at Chancellorsville. But he really didn't have that much to do with the Fredricksburg victory and face it, his performance during the Seven Days was mediocre to poor. It's still debatable whether Gen. Bee's exclamation about Jackson "standing like a stone wall" at Manassas was a slur or praise.

Again, I didn't read the book, but it seems there were many different things the movie could have focused on to make it both more interesting and better balanced to both sides POV. IMO it's not a bad movie, but it could have been a lot better.

Do you hate me because I have no avatar? Do you even give a damn?