Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

    Calendario de lanzamientosLas 250 mejores películasPelículas más popularesExplorar películas por géneroTaquilla superiorHorarios y ticketsNoticias sobre películasNoticias destacadas sobre películas de la India
    Qué hay en la TV y en streamingLas 250 mejores seriesProgramas de televisión más popularesExplorar series por géneroNoticias de TV
    ¿Qué verÚltimos tráileresOriginales de IMDbSelecciones de IMDbDestacado de IMDbGuía de entretenimiento familiarPodcasts de IMDb
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthPremios STARmeterCentral de premiosCentral de festivalesTodos los eventos
    Personas nacidas hoyCelebridades más popularesNoticias de famosos
    Centro de ayudaZona de colaboradoresEncuestas
Para profesionales de la industria
  • Idioma
  • Totalmente compatible
  • English (United States)
    Parcialmente compatible
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Lista de seguimiento
Iniciar sesión
  • Totalmente compatible
  • English (United States)
    Parcialmente compatible
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Usar la aplicación
  • Reparto y equipo
  • Reseñas de usuarios
  • Curiosidades
  • Preguntas frecuentes
IMDbPro

Dioses y generales

Título original: Gods and Generals
  • 2003
  • PG-13
  • 3h 39min
PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,2/10
18 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Robert Duvall, Jeff Daniels, and Stephen Lang in Dioses y generales (2003)
Home Video Trailer from Warner Home Video
Reproducir trailer0:31
16 vídeos
77 imágenes
Costume DramaDocudramaEpicPeriod DramaWar EpicBiographyDramaHistoryWar

El auge y caída del general confederado Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, según encuentra el éxito militar contra la Unión entre 1861 y 1863, cuando accidentalmente muere a manos de sus propios ho... Leer todoEl auge y caída del general confederado Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, según encuentra el éxito militar contra la Unión entre 1861 y 1863, cuando accidentalmente muere a manos de sus propios hombres.El auge y caída del general confederado Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, según encuentra el éxito militar contra la Unión entre 1861 y 1863, cuando accidentalmente muere a manos de sus propios hombres.

  • Dirección
    • Ron Maxwell
  • Guión
    • Jeff Shaara
    • Ron Maxwell
  • Reparto principal
    • Stephen Lang
    • Robert Duvall
    • Jeff Daniels
  • Ver la información de la producción en IMDbPro
  • PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
    6,2/10
    18 mil
    TU PUNTUACIÓN
    • Dirección
      • Ron Maxwell
    • Guión
      • Jeff Shaara
      • Ron Maxwell
    • Reparto principal
      • Stephen Lang
      • Robert Duvall
      • Jeff Daniels
    • 544Reseñas de usuarios
    • 61Reseñas de críticos
    • 30Metapuntuación
  • Ver la información de la producción en IMDbPro
    • Premios
      • 1 premio y 4 nominaciones en total

    Vídeos16

    Gods and Generals
    Trailer 0:31
    Gods and Generals
    Gods And Generals Scene: Uso
    Clip 1:34
    Gods And Generals Scene: Uso
    Gods And Generals Scene: Uso
    Clip 1:34
    Gods And Generals Scene: Uso
    Gods And Generals Scene: Stonewall
    Clip 1:13
    Gods And Generals Scene: Stonewall
    Gods And Generals Scene: All The Daddies Will Come Home
    Clip 1:34
    Gods And Generals Scene: All The Daddies Will Come Home
    Gods And Generals Scene: R.E.L. Speech
    Clip 1:00
    Gods And Generals Scene: R.E.L. Speech
    Gods And Generals Scene: I Will Never Forget These Men
    Clip 1:03
    Gods And Generals Scene: I Will Never Forget These Men

    Imágenes77

    Ver cartel
    Ver cartel
    Ver cartel
    Ver cartel
    Ver cartel
    Ver cartel
    + 71
    Ver cartel

    Reparto principal99+

    Editar
    Stephen Lang
    Stephen Lang
    • Gen. Stonewall Jackson
    Robert Duvall
    Robert Duvall
    • Gen. Robert E. Lee
    Jeff Daniels
    Jeff Daniels
    • Lt. Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
    Donzaleigh Abernathy
    Donzaleigh Abernathy
    • Martha
    Mark Aldrich
    Mark Aldrich
    • Adjutant
    George Allen
    • Confederate Officer
    Keith Allison
    Keith Allison
    • Capt. James J. White
    Royce D. Applegate
    Royce D. Applegate
    • Gen. James Kemper
    • (as Royce Applegate)
    Bruce Boxleitner
    Bruce Boxleitner
    • Gen. James Longstreet
    Bo Brinkman
    Bo Brinkman
    • Major Walter Taylor
    Mac Butler
    • Gen. Joseph Hooker
    Robert Byrd
    Robert Byrd
    • Confederate General
    • (as Robert C. Byrd)
    Shane Callahan
    Shane Callahan
    • Bowdoin Student
    Billy Campbell
    Billy Campbell
    • Gen. George Pickett
    David Carpenter
    David Carpenter
    • Rev. Beverly Tucker Lacy
    John Castle
    John Castle
    • Old Penn
    Jim Choate
    • Gen. Bernard Bee
    Martin Clark
    Martin Clark
    • Dr. George Junkin
    • Dirección
      • Ron Maxwell
    • Guión
      • Jeff Shaara
      • Ron Maxwell
    • Todo el reparto y equipo
    • Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro

    Reseñas de usuarios544

    6,217.7K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Reseñas destacadas

    9mholland

    The critics are wrong

    I've seen Gods and Generals twice, and I've enjoyed it both times. The critics I've read seem to object to the piety, the length, and lack of political correctness. It seems to have escaped them that the Civil War was fought in Victorian times, and that the Victorians were extremely pious and sentimental, not to mention hypocritical. However, this did not stop them from efficiently making war on their enemies. The movie caught this perfectly, with Jackson's assumption that God's will is his will -- the scene before the battle on Sunday, the contrast between his sentimental love of children and his 'Kill them all' about his enemies, the constant references to Bible verses ripped out of context. Regarding the length of the movie, all I can say is that I wasn't bored at all, or restless, just fascinated with what was happening on screen. I'm sure for MTV critics any movie over 90 minutes is epic.

    Regarding the lack of political correctness, which in my opinion is our modern version of hypocrisy (we can do anything we want as long as we call it by another name) I would like to point out that this is an attempt at a historical movie and that the Civil War was NOT fought to free the slaves, nor were many people in the North comfortable with the concept of a franchised Negro. And some slaves in the South were relatively well treated by their owners, not that they probably didn't want freedom, but they didn't particularly wish their masters ill. The system was set up so that everyone involved, slaves and masters, had something to lose by destroying the status quo, and that's a very difficult thing for people to do. It's easy for us now to say 'they should have freed the slaves' but if you knew that to free your slaves would beggar your children, would you be able to do it?

    As with Gettysburg, the battle scenes were impressive and awe-inspiring. And they made the strategy and tactics clear to the viewer which is a monumental achievement, not to mention showing the pure courage on both sides, going to probably death or dismemberment without flinching. I would have liked more about the Northern command struggles to balance the picture but I can see how tempting it was to show the Southern victories to balance the horrible defeat at Gettysburg -- and this picture is meant to be one of a trilogy. I can only hope that word of mouth defeats the critics and gets this movie the audience it deserves.
    7ccthemovieman-1

    Quite A Tribute To 'Stonewall'Jackson

    This a decent movie and a wonderful tribute to a fine, fine man in General "Stonewall" Jackson, but I didn't rate it higher only because it's not a film I would watch many times. The lulls are just too long for a film that goes over 3 1/2 hours. For those who enjoyed the even-longer, but better "Gettysburg" this is must-viewing. I think a third movie would be in order to complete the Civil Story story.

    What's very impressive about this movie was (1) not overdone violence; (2) beautiful cinematography; (3) an unusual and refreshing reverence for God, the Bible and Christian thought and (4) a better portrayal by Robert Duvall of Robert E. Lee than Martin Sheen's version in "Gettsyburg." On the point 3, all it was - to those atheists/agnostics who were offended by Jackson's reverence - was showing an accurate portrayal of how people thought and believed back then in the south. That's simply the way it was and the way people viewed everyday life, though Biblical standards and language. So kudos, to the filmmakers here for at least giving us an accurate description of the times, even though they probably don't share those beliefs. Of course, the critics - almost all of them secular - hated the film.

    One thing I did miss from "Gettysburg" was a bigger role from Jeff Daniels, who was so good as "Col.Chamberlain." His role here in that capacity is limited.

    In summary, an accurate film with ideals and worthy of anyone's collection, particularly if they are Civil War buffs, but a movie that needed more punch to it to be more "watchable."
    6jerrymason-34530

    Poorly written

    This entire effort is a major disappointment when compared to Gettysburg, what is remarkable its Maxwell who directed both, and the same writer too. Looking at this objectively, it just lacks focus; unlike Gettysburg (a single event in history) which Maxwell et.al. Could focus their energy on, Gods and Generals takes place over 3+ years. What ensues is 4 hours of rambling, disjointed made for TV mellow drama shlock with a Hollywood budget. So its just utterly confusing as a viewer.

    I can go on and on, but for me, it falls apart with the sophomoric writing. I counted at least a dozen instances where they shoehorned in actual quotes from these historical figures into places where they made no sense. They even have characters steal each other's quotes which made me LOL hard a few times. Its distracting!

    In fact, this entire script is just one scene after another which are structured around famous quotes. The worst example is JEB Stuart, quite literally out of no where, ending a scene with Stonewall Jackson saying "Oh by the way (even though this is very off topic and you did not ask), I will always tell my men to gallop toward the enemy, and trot away". Its stuff like that which makes this movie unbearable, especially when compared to Gettysburg, which had "some" of that but was balanced out by actual character arcs, impressive direction of masses of reenactors, and an A list cast which acted that entire film masterfully, e.g. Sheen, Berringer, Lang, and especially Richard Jordan r.i.p. Gettysburg was able to masterfully (probably in editing phase) take situations before and during the battle to shape a properly structured, easy to follow story despite there being 50+ main characters.

    Gods and Generals is just a mess, the complete opposite. I totally understand the propensity for civil war buffs (like myself) to give this a high score (look how many 10 stars skew the results), but, I say quite literally the opposite, because we're civil war buffs we deserve a better film that isn't a mess.

    10/10 stars? Is this as good as Glory? Gone with the Wind? Or even Cold Mountain?
    7Belfield

    Good movie overall but Gettysburg was better.

    My View in Summary: Overall, I enjoyed the movie (despite some of its apparent flaws), and I plan to see it again in the theater, as well as purchase the extended version when it comes out on DVD. I liked Gettysburg and the novel "Gods and Generals" better. I am fairly confident that the majority of Americans will not like nor support this film due to its overall pro-southern emphasis.

    What I liked about the movie: I thought Lang did an excellent job portraying Jackson. I was deeply moved by his final scene in the film.

    The attention to detail was good; overall it was historically accurate--with some exceptions.

    The costumes looked good.

    I appreciated the show of how Christianity influenced many in the Civil War, such as Jackson and Lee.

    I liked the fact that many from Gettysburg reprised their roles in this film, although there were some who couldn't, which was a little disappointing.



    What I didn't like or wished was better about the movie: The fake beards were more than obvious in this film, with the exception of Jackson's and Lee's, but this is relatively minor to the overall film.

    I thought, with maybe the exception of the Fredericksburg battle, the depiction of the battle scenes were not nearly as well done as in Gettysburg; but to be fair, there were more battles to cover in this film. Gettysburg only had one, meaning more time could be given to the details of the battle.

    The battle of Antietam was not in the movie at all, not even mentioned, which is very disappointing given its significance and effects.

    Some of the CGI is poorly done (i.e., very obvious), but, again, this is a small part of the movie and in my opinion neither makes nor breaks it.

    Some of the speeches were a bit stiff and seemed contrived, particularly Chamberlain's speech before the battle of Fredricksburg.

    Not enough time was given to developing the characters of Lee, Chamberlain, and Hancock, all of whom are important in the novel. In fact, in contrast to the film, the novel gives most time to Lee, not Jackson. To be fair, however, novels usually are better than their film counterparts given the constraints of time.



    My thoughts on some of the common complaints about the movie: Some complain there wasn't enough realism as to the carnage of war. To that I say there was enough to get the point across, and for myself, it is refreshing from time to time to see a movie that doesn't rely too heavily on blood and guts. This is not meant to be a blood and guts movie. The novel is even less bloody. Anyone who wants to see a blood and guts war movie should buy or rent Saving Private Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, Hamburger Hill, the Patriot, Braveheart, etc.

    Others complain that there were too many poetic speeches. Indeed there were many speeches, but that was also true of Gettysburg, which most view as a good movie. I didn't mind the speeches so much other than they sometimes truncated the character in such a way that the audience fails to see their visceral humanity. As stated above, the only speech I thought was a bit over the top was Chamberlain's before the battle of Fredricksburg. It seemed forced, showy, and odd that the whole regiment would stand motionless and quiet for so long to hear him go on and on. Clearly it was intended to be a poignant moment showing historical parallels between the American Civil War and Roman history. But the whole scene ends up feeling staged and apathetic.

    Others complain about the strong emphasis on religion. As stated above, I found this emphasis refreshing, for certainly Jackson and Lee were very devout Christian men. Christianity was a part of the ethos of this country at that time and affected many in both north and south.

    Still others complain about the pro-southern perspective being so strong. While I admit there is an imbalance between the northern and southern perspectives, which clearly favors the southern view, I also think this only stands to reason, since the overall focus of the film is clearly on Jackson, a southerner. And given the fact that many other movies often underplay the southern perspective (i.e., it was fought over State's rights) or ignore it altogether, some will find this movie's emphasis a refreshing change. On the other hand, the clear downplay of the role and effect of slavery in this film will no doubt trouble many Americans.

    Finally, others complain that the movie is too long. But I find this to be a misnomer. What most really mean by this is that the movie is not entertaining enough to justify such a length. This is not the first long film in cinematic history. Other films were very long and yet praised as wonderful (Terms of Endearment, Dances With Wolves, Gone with the Wind, Braveheart, Lord of the Rings, etc.). The real issue here, I believe, is that this movie for many is too "slow" or "mundane" in their estimation. This, I think, is a result of our becoming so accustomed to roller coaster rides at the movies. If it isn't constantly exciting or humorous or action-packed, it needs to be short. I suppose that in a TV age wherein we are accustom to pure entertainment compacted into ten-minute blocks of time separated by pithy, entertaining commercials, this complaint ought not surprise us, given the historical orientation of this film. But I think such a complaint is evidence of a deeper cultural problem, which should concern us all.

    My opinion who will like this movie: many Historians, Teachers, and Homeschooling parents; most southerners; Civil War reenactors; many Christians.

    My opinion who will not like this movie: Most northerners, most African Americans, many Liberals, most in Hollywood.

    My opinion on how the movie will fare: It will likely not last long in the theaters. Most critics will hate it. It will come out on DVD/Home video sooner than most movies. It will likely not rake in as much money as it cost to make. However, I hope to be proven wrong here. Though not without flaws, I believe it is worth seeing and discussing.
    4dgl1199

    Working title: How the CSA actually won

    If you knew absolutely nothing about the American Civil War you might come away from Gods and Generals believing something like this: A sociopath named Lincoln decides one day in 1861 to raise an army to invade the south because he just feels like doing that. The people of these south, having absolutely nothing to deserve any of this, start their own country to defend themselves and a polite, bearded, General named Lee leads them and this other polite, bearded, General named Jackson is his second in command. Because God is on their side, the kind, virtuous, heroic, men of the southern army prevail in several combat engagements against the godless, sex-crazed, murderous barbarians of the north. Jackson and Lee deftly direct the outnumbered army of Jesus against the unwashed Yankee heathen and wins the war except that he got shot by one of his own men by accident and dies otherwise the south really won.

    Yep, that's just what you might believe. If you took history from this film.

    Gods and Generals is a confused, heavily pro-Confederate, train wreck. It attempts to span two years of the war though the perspective of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, arguably one of the most brilliant field commanders West Point has ever produced. Like it's antecedent Gettysburg it is of epic length except that Gettysburg actually made sense. This film is all over the place. Focuses on non-pivotal battles and is bloated with nonsensical dialog and close ups of men talking to themselves in archaic,sanctimonious, soliloquies. There are no issues, there are no cassus belli,no internal conflicts, there is only a clumsy even bizarre celebration of the confederacy; depicted as an embattled yet righteous society defending their way of life against their tyrannical northern overlords. There is one mention of Fort Sumter, a passing nod or two to slavery, and the rest is the Lee/Jackson traveling show. Overall a sloppy production which screams lousy direction and lack of focus. I felt the book told the story of Jackson in much more coherent style than this mess.

    To it's credit, it does have very graphic and disturbing battle scenes where both sides are, at times, honored and portrayed with equanimity.

    However, G&G, like Gettysburg (a MUCH better directed film), had potential to evenly instruct and entertain. That's where the similarities between the two films ends Gods and generals is a ponderous, rambling, confusing, tribute to the CSA. Aside from it's endless length it jumps around way too much, lacks proper character development and historical veracity, which is far too extensive to get into for the purposes of a review. I will say that Stephen Lang was magnificent as Jackson, but I wasn't terribly impressed with Robert Duvall as Lee. It is no wonder it bombed at the box office. It's just not very watchable, at least not in one sitting. It might be of interest to those, like myself, who are interested in civil war films. This one is a grave disappointment.

    Argumento

    Editar

    ¿Sabías que...?

    Editar
    • Curiosidades
      Some scenes were filmed on Robert Duvall's estate in Virginia, which was the site of some Civil War skirmishes.
    • Pifias
      Robert Edward Lee and Thomas Jonathan Jackson are shown wearing full beards at the very start of the Civil War, but they did not look like this until sometime later. Lee had dark hair going gray and wore a drooping mustache of the type favored by army officers in the 1850s. He grew his well known beard while serving as Jefferson Davis's military advisor. Jackson was clean shaven and grew a beard later out of his well known disinterest in personal grooming and appearance.
    • Citas

      Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain: All these thousands of men. Many of them not much more than boys. Each one of them some mother's son, some sister's brother, some daughter's father. Each one of them a whole person loved and cherished in some home far away. Many of them will never return. An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost. Now, somewhere out there is the Confederate army. They claim they are fighting for their independence, for their freedom. Now, I can not question their integrity. I believe they are wrong but I can not question it. But I do question a system that defends its own freedom while it denies it to an entire race of men. I will admit it, Tom. War is a scourge, but so is slavery. It is the systematic coercion of one group of men over another. It has been around since the book of Genesis. It exists in every corner of the world, but that is no excuse for us to tolerate it here when we find it right infront of our very eyes in our own country. As God as my witness, there is no one I hold in my heart dearer than you. But if your life, or mine,is part of the price to end this curse and free the Negro, then let God's work be done.

    • Créditos adicionales
      No reenactors were credited individualy, rather there was general thank you to all the reenactors who participated in the filming.
    • Versiones alternativas
      The Director's Cut of the film includes additional action scenes from the Battle of Antietam. The battle scenes are shown from the perspectives of Jackson and Chamberlain, and mostly focus on the fighting in Miller's Cornfield which was a major deciding point of the battle.
    • Conexiones
      Featured in Bob Dylan: Cross the Green Mountain (2003)
    • Banda sonora
      'Cross the Green Mountain
      Written and Performed by Bob Dylan

      Courtesy of Columbia Records

    Selecciones populares

    Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
    Iniciar sesión

    Preguntas frecuentes22

    • How long is Gods and Generals?Con tecnología de Alexa
    • Given that slavery was a brutal and immoral practice, why would anyone today (including the makers of this film) side with the Confederates, who supported slavery, against the Union, which sought to abolish it?
    • What are the differences between the Theatrical Version and the Extended Cut?

    Detalles

    Editar
    • Fecha de lanzamiento
      • 21 de febrero de 2003 (Estados Unidos)
    • País de origen
      • Estados Unidos
    • Idioma
      • Inglés
    • Títulos en diferentes países
      • Gods and Generals
    • Localizaciones del rodaje
      • Harper's Ferry, West Virginia, Estados Unidos
    • Empresas productoras
      • Ted Turner Pictures
      • Turner Pictures (I)
      • Antietam Filmworks
    • Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro

    Taquilla

    Editar
    • Presupuesto
      • 56.000.000 US$ (estimación)
    • Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
      • 12.882.934 US$
    • Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
      • 4.675.246 US$
      • 23 feb 2003
    • Recaudación en todo el mundo
      • 12.923.936 US$
    Ver información detallada de taquilla en IMDbPro

    Especificaciones técnicas

    Editar
    • Duración
      3 horas 39 minutos
    • Color
      • Color
    • Mezcla de sonido
      • DTS
      • Dolby Digital
      • SDDS
    • Relación de aspecto
      • 2.39 : 1

    Contribuir a esta página

    Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
    Robert Duvall, Jeff Daniels, and Stephen Lang in Dioses y generales (2003)
    Principal laguna de datos
    By what name was Dioses y generales (2003) officially released in India in English?
    Responde
    • Más datos por cubrir
    • Más información acerca de cómo contribuir
    Editar página

    Más por descubrir

    Visto recientemente

    Habilita las cookies del navegador para usar esta función. Más información.
    Obtener la aplicación IMDb
    Inicia sesión para tener más accesoInicia sesión para tener más acceso
    Sigue a IMDb en las redes sociales
    Obtener la aplicación IMDb
    Para Android e iOS
    Obtener la aplicación IMDb
    • Ayuda
    • Índice del sitio
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • Licencia de datos de IMDb
    • Sala de prensa
    • Anuncios
    • Empleos
    • Condiciones de uso
    • Política de privacidad
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, una empresa de Amazon

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.