User reviews

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.

I first saw this twenty years ago and enjoyed it then. I took it for what it was as dramatized history. I saw it again via a streaming service that said it was an extended director's cut. This time it was 4 hours and 40 minutes long. That is one of my two minor complaints. I had to pause it for a break two times. The second thing for me was that some of the dialog was indistinct and difficult to understand. It was beautifully filmed and I thought it to be well cast. The music seemed to fit, but was sometimes too loud. This is all technical stuff, but sometimes that gets in the way of enjoying the movie. I was not there when any of this happened, so I cannot say how exact it was as to accuracy. In general it matched my memory as to the events from what I have otherwise read. My only observation about the cast members is that Robert Duvall is usually good, but he also usually plays Robert Duvall. I felt his Robert E. Lee was a little off. I believe that Lee began the war as a special advisor and was not immediately made Commander of the army. I think the movie is worth watching. Just remember that it is long and is more about character studies than battle histories.

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?

`Gods and Generals' plays less like a movie and more like a three-hour-and-49-minute long lesson in Civil War history. Grueling and plodding, the film is almost the antithesis of `Gone With the Wind,' in that while both films are epic tales told from the viewpoint of the defeated South, `Gods and Generals' (unlike the earlier film) has been essentially drained of all emotion, drama and characterization. `Gods and Generals' may be a more `realistic' war film than `Gone With the Wind' (what wouldn't be?), but it's not nearly as entertaining.

`Gods and Generals,' which begins right after the firing on Fort Sumter and ends shortly before the Battle of Gettysburg, is the first part of a planned trilogy. Despite a handful of `name' players in the cast (Robert Duvall, Jeff Daniels, Mira Sorvino and even Ted Turner in a ludicrous cameo appearance), writer/director Ronald F. Maxwell is unable to bring a single character in his film to convincing life (with the possible exception of `Stonewall' Jackson, who gets to carry the burden of what little drama the film has almost single-handedly). In lieu of dialogue, the actors spend most of their time looking wistfully up to heaven or scanning the mist-shrouded horizon while delivering endless homilies about the rightness of the cause and the place of God in human affairs. To keep it all palatable for more enlightened and egalitarian-minded modern audiences, the filmmakers are quick to have the Southern characters declare that, even though the South is forced to fight against the North to protect its God-given right to sovereignty, they, as individuals, are all personally opposed to slavery as an institution and firmly believe that their resident blacks will be freed someday as a matter of course. Hell, the Northerners in this film seem more prejudiced against black people than the Southerners, who just can't say enough good things about their sycophantic slaves.

The battle scenes, though well staged and appropriately graphic in nature, are strangely unmoving, primarily because we have no emotional stake in any of the characters we see doing the fighting. Without anyone for us to focus on and care about, the audience becomes little more than curious bystanders, passive and unengaged observers of this brutal display of ritualized slaughter. Although the visuals are splendid throughout, the musical score, except in a few places, is like a thick, heavy syrup poured over the entire film.

By providing subtitled identification of the principal people, places, dates and battles, `Gods and Generals' does provide a service as a history lesson of sorts. As a drama, however, the film is woefully lacking in every way imaginable. `Gods and Generals' may thrill the heart of the diehard Civil War buff. The rest of us will have to stick to our dreams of Scarlett and Rhett, and of a romanticized vision of the South that only a Golden Age Hollywood mogul would have dared come up with.

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."

This prequel to "Gettysburg" has some breathtaking recreations of Civil War battles. But the whole thing is so reverent and solemn that it takes time to fully engage with it.

The reverence shown to Generals Jackson and Lee is usually reserved for biblical figures. It made me wonder if "Gods and Generals" captures the way people of that time really spoke?

Maybe formal address was more common in the 1860's, but just about everything anyone says in the first hour and a half is a speech. Before the brilliantly staged Battle of Fredericksburg, Jeff Daniels even recites an ancient poem, "The Crossing of the Rubicon".

I'm sure the dialogue has been shaped from historic records and especially letters, but people don't necessarily speak the way they write; some of the exchanges between husbands and wives, and mothers and sons in this film are bizarre. The frequent appearances of John Wilkes Booth ever ready with a Shakespearean soliloquy add to the theatricality.

Some may object to a comparison with "Gone with the Wind'. However it has far more natural speech patterns than "Gods and Generals" and in 1939, when it was released, there were still some thousands of veterans of the war still alive, albeit elderly.

Heightening the dolefulness of "Gods and Generals" is the score. Other than source music from bands and soldiers singing, pathos informs nearly every theme whether for an intimate interior or a horizon-wide battle. To be fair, the theme for the surprise attack at Chancellorsville, "VMI Will Be Heard From Today", shows how the rest of the score could have been coloured differently.

Possibly the filmmakers didn't want to glorify war by building the score around the stirring anthems and songs of the Civil War, but it's a classic example of how music can shape the mood of a film.

For a while it seemed that slavery was receiving a pass, but towards the end, Jeff Daniel's Joshua Chamberlain puts it into context.

"Gods and Generals" does too much. Surely John Wilkes could have been saved for another movie. However the look of the film is amazing. We are transported to those battlefields; each one different, although we are spared what a blast of grapeshot would actually do to a human body.

In the end, those authentic looking re-creations of suicidal advances and troops firing point blank volleys into each other can only leave the impression that it was an era that produced remarkably brave soldiers.

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.

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.

I loved Gettysburg. The movie, and the book which I read as a result, changed my mind about the American Civil War. I had a kind of passing interest in it, I knew certain battles had happened.... but that made me want to know more. It wasn't the most publicised movie, in fact the first thing I knew about it was seeing the music video for Going home'. Isn't that Joshua Lawrence and Tom? It took me some time to track down a copy; here in the UK it wasn't very well publicised, but what a disappointment. The style is totally different from Gettysburg; from the beginning it's a television mini-series, all clear-eyed recruits willing to die for their country and jaunty music sending them off to war, where they die clean proud deaths charging the enemy. There's none of the despair, the brutality of war, that shadowed Gettysburg, the actors are all happy, joking, laughing, "Lawrence! Mama told me to look out for you!' kind of fun that makes me want to go off to war. Ain't it grand? 'You just shoot at the man who is shooting at you!' Simple. All those great, fun, joking guys march off to war, get blown up, get shot, and there's still time for a laugh on the battlefield, among all that jaunty music. 'I thought you was with the beyond'.

For some strange reason we deviate from the book to add some pontificating old woman and her daughter... why????... and here come the Oirish. Those poor Oirish. At one point, after they'd been featured yet again, I checked to see if it was sponsored by Bord Scannan. All the characters have their speeches, like a poor Shakespeare, and they strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then are heard no more. I even bought the Director's Cut for the additional footage, but it's just more of the same. In Gettysburg the characters were deep, and both believable and likeable for that depth; here they're too shallow, too plastic, too soap opera.

Ultimately, it's interesting, but came too late after Gettysburg; the actors are too old now to reprise the roles of years before, and the style is too different to be even a distant relative, and we have too many unnecessary and irrelevant characters included for what reason? I feel like I'm betraying it, but it tries, not hard enough, and ultimately fails.

Not a bad film as Civil War films go, but the character of Stonewall Jackson, a hypochondriacal, anal-retentive, religious zealot as the saintly character played by Steven Lang is a little far-fetched. For example, we know that Stonewall rode with his left hand raised to keep his "humors in balance" and was constantly concerned about his alimentary health. The movie suggests that he rode with his hand raised only to stem the bleeding from a wound. He was a decidedly unpretty man, but the depiction here is of a man who might model men's work clothes in an LL Bean catalog. His religious zealotry is offered only as a deep and beautiful faith. The canonization of Stonewall is silly. I grant, a clever and courageous General, he deserves all our proper honor. But this film makes him an angel such as he never really was.

Gods and Generals (despite the ravages of many critics) is a very good film. The acting, writing, cinematography are all of top quality. Billy Crystal once said, "We know where we would be without the critics, but where would they be without us?" This film is historically accurate, deeply moving, and with outstanding acting by all concerned. Stephen Lang's performance of Stonewall Jackson should be remembered at Oscar time. Some critics condemn it as being sympathetic with the Southern cause. Jeff Daniels and others give their side in eloquent dialogue for their feelings on the conflict. I suppose Gone With the Wind would be criticized the same if released today. Since the story revolves around Stonewall Jackson it will obviously give his point of view on the subject also. The religious overtones given by the characters of both sides conformed with the religious feelings of the times that is lacking today and as such it gives the critics something else to condemn. And the moving scene with human emotions between Jackson and the little Corbin girl brings the human touch to the character. What is wrong with the critics....they must have slept through most the film. They say it is pro-slavery. There are at least three fine speeches by Martha, Jim Lewis and Lawrence Chamberlain bringing out the wrongness of that issue. Even Jackson says that slavery should be abandoned. Such is a great movie trashed by the critics and they miss the whole reason for this masterpiece. I give it ten stars. See it, and decide for yourself about this film. Every minute of it's close to four hours is worth it. Yep. Yep. And Yep.

This is an epic film based on novel and writings credits by Jeffrey Shaara and screenplay and direction by Ronald F. Maxwell. The Shaara's Pulitzer prize novel to be adapted as a three parts by producer Ted Turner(TNT) and directed by Maxwell, and pending the third part. This is a correct adaptation of the historical and personal deeds surrounding famous battles American Civil War which are realistically staged by thousand re-enactors and the painful reflections of the fighting men. The film centers about General Stonewell Jackson(Stephen Lang) and relationship with his wife(Kali Rocha) and Lt Col. Chamberlain(Jeff Daniels) and spouse(Mira Sorvino), besides General Robert E. Lee , among others. It deals about the bloody battles , covering the years 1961-1963, and the events leading up to Gettysburg.

Features thousand of reenactors battling over the real ground, through the decisive battles First Manassas, Frederickburg and Chancelorsville . The full scale recreation along with Getttysburg is believed to be the greatest period scale sequences shot from D. W. Griffith's Birth and of nation. The all cast concentrates on presenting the human cost of war with Stephen Lang ,Robert Duvall and Jeff Daniels especially noteworthy. The picture is pretty spectacular but the wrong issue is that plot is plenty of overlong speeches from Latin sermon with Julius Caesar invocation and moan, thanksgiving to God and Bible's dreary monologue. In the movie appear noted Generals and officers played by famed players, such as General Lee(Robert Duvall substituting to Martin Sheen from Gettysburg), Major General George Pickett(Bill Campbell, in the role of Stephen Lang who performed in Gettysburg), Lt General Longstreet(Bruce Boxleitner substituting to Tom Berenguer), Major General Jeb Stuart(Joseph Fuqua, acting in both movies), Major General Burnside(Alex Hyde White), Major General John Bell(Patrick Gorman) and Lt Colonel Joshua Chamberlain(Jeff Daniels, repeats role). Besides talented secondary cast, as Jeremy London, William Sanderson, C. Thomas Howell, Frankie Faison, among them. The picture displays an emotive and sensible musical score by Randy Edelman and John Frizzel, as impressive as the Gettysburg's classic score. The story is well directed by Ronald F Maxwell, though lacks the epic sense and good pace he proved in Gettysburg.

"Gods and Generals" is a horrible disservice to people trying to understand American history, and to the millions of real people who suffered pain, death, heartache, etc. during our Civil War. I have heard it said that history is written by the victors--- and that's probably true. But who is the victor now? Well, the very VERY rich Ted Turner seems to be one of them. And he seems to have used his power and wealth to re-write history to suit his own self-identity process. He first made the awful "Gettysburg" with its hideous paste-on beards and "high school play" production. Now he has taken his megalomania to new depths with "Gods and Generals"--- a thoroughly misleading and trite piece of revisionist crap.

Briefly--- some rich Southerners (Americans from the formerly slave-holding states, for you folks in other countries) are now claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery. They say it was "states' rights." Well, yes--- but a scholarly and careful study of the times reveals that the specific "right" in dispute from 1790 or so up through 1861 when the war broke out was the right to allow slavery. Check out the scholarly studies of those times, and it is clear that "states' rights" meant "rights to own slaves." The Civil War really was fought on this contention.

Note that fighting on the side of the Union did NOT mean that the white soldiers "liked" the Africans, necessarily. Many DID have what modern folks would call a prejudicial and discriminatory view of the black race. But they DID also believe slavery was wrong, and they fought for the right of the federal government to outlaw and ban slavery, because it was un-Christian and otherwise morally wrong. Note also that Huey Long, part of the 1930s power dynasty in Lousiana (senator, governor, etc.) reported that his family refused to fight for Confederacy during the Civil War. He said his family thought, "Why should we fight and die so some rich man could keep his Negroes?" The war was seen then as a slavery issue.

As much as we may be uncomfortable with who we as a nation were in those days--- isn't it better to tell ourselves the truth about that? And then come to terms with it? Perhaps the over-enthusiastic flag-waving versions of the conflict we all got in grade school was over simplified and even jingoistic. Maybe our mass-culture story about it shows the situation as being more clear, more "good versus evil" than it really was. But the modern attempts to twist history to suit modern agendas (and plays for personal power) that have come from some black civil rights activists and rich and powerful Southern men like Ted Turner are even more off-base. Given their blatant falsification of historical events, they are even more harmful.

Compare this movie with the amazing classic "Glory" (1991-ish). Or Ken Burns masterpiece from PBS, "The Civil War." Those both showed a fuller and truer picture of what was really going on. There were heroic aspects, angelic qualities, good and bad people, brave and cowardly actions, big and small minds, loving and bigoted qualities to everyone. It was a human time, with flawed humans, but overall it was a struggle to make things right--- however imperfectly that might have been achieved. Hey--- we're all still working on it. But Ted Turner and his "b** s***" is disgraceful, and, well... just plain wrong.

Although Duvall resembles R.E. Lee much more than Martin Sheen in "Gods", Sheen gives a much more personified performance as Lee in "Gettysburg".

I find it interesting how almost no emphasis is put on any commanding Union general in either film, with only about 2 minutes of dialouge between Hancock and Burnside before the disaster at Fredericksberg. It should always be noted that Lee's early victories can be credited equally on the Union commanders utter incompotence as well as Lee's exeptional stratigic ability.

I'm sure "The last full measure" (the final film of the trilogy) will put a fair amount of emphasis on General Grant as he assumes command for the Army of the Potamac in 1864. I just hope we dont have another 10-year interval between films.

They are both great films. They have not been the box-office hits because of their legnth and a lack of hard-core history lovers to pay up at the theatre. I'm sure that "Gods" will be aired on TBS soon in a 2 part "mini-series" format to very good ratings as "Gettysberg" did.

It's a solid Civil War movie as far as battles and the fallout but the narrative to get to these scenes are very underwhelming. Trying to push the lost cause narrative was a giant mistake as well. The Civil War was fought for one reason and that's slavery and the right to own people like property. Southern sympathy be damned and to even broach any other reason than that for the cause of the war is just ignorant and uneducated. I don't agree with todays insistence on doing away with Confederate history because like it or not it is a major part of our country's history and people overly dramatic about the Confederacy to the point of destroying that history are also ignorant and uneducated. If we are to understand anything then we have to cover the nasty parts about this country. Hiding from the ugly parts of life and how this country was forming then will only ensure that similar mindsets to race will form deep roots. Everything must be discussed if we ever really want to improve. Destroying important history for the sake of so called feelings (I highly doubt people are as trigger as they say because the fact is a very few people actually continue the study of history past high school) only halts progress. A statue will not harm you and removing them because you think that will make things better is just stupid. If anything when you see these monuments then it should open discussion as to why the celebrate these men they don't even know and how flawed their thinking was and how they fought for the right to be owners of humans because they saw them as nothing more than a tool. The Civil War is the ugliest time in American History and when you study or watch anything on it then you have to talk about the realities of the war and how wrong topics like The Lost Cause are completely wrong and a false narrative by ignorant citizens of the southern states. These should be used as tools to get people into the topic and equate them to todays world and if you think they don't apply then again you are stupid. History is the most important topic when it comes to how society works and how humans are destined to repeat it because we are so eager to forget it when we should do the exact opposite and constantly be reminded of it and how destructive and wrong it all was.

In general, this was a nicely done Civil War film. In a somewhat unusual plot, the South is not shown as a rebellious people, but rather a group of prideful men fighting to protect their homes and families. The movie shows several battles that occurred in the South, all of which were won by the South. However, it does not promote the idea of slavery. At several points, different characters on both sides denounce slavery. The movie does a good job at letting us see the humane side of southerners. It mainly follows Confederate General Jackson and his life during the early stages of the Civil War. Through his encounters with his wife, and a touching friendship with a young girl, we are able to watch and understand that these people had private lives away from the camps and battlefields. Finally, the movie shows the importance of religion on both sides. God is used to explain some of the horrors of the war, as shown in the repeated use of the phrase "Thy will be done," and in some cases, it was the only thing that gave men the courage to fight. The prominence of religion is accurate for this time period. The only downside to the movie is its length. The battle scenes, although engaging, were somewhat uninteresting due to the lack of emotional attachment to the characters actually doing the fighting.

I am a big..big fan of the original Gettysburg..and a civil war buff.....I am not sure what happened but it seems like it was made by "Confederate lovers of America".....incredibly one-sided....cheesy preachy dialog... and laughable scenes of Sonewall Jackson praying with his slave to end slavery,(sure that happened!!!!)....and his slaves lying to Northern soldiers to keep their property from being looted....Was is really a war between with greedy North...and the Christian, righteous, glorious South??

the original Gettysburg was fascinating with equal time to both North and South....Why not at least one shot with Lincoln??? Would that shift too much sympathy to the North??

.while "Gods" missed this opportunity showing about 80% of the South.......Did we really have to Christmas with the Lees??

Even the music is a big step down from Gettysburg..

It really deserved its critical drubbing and box office failure....

The theater version was a snooze. It's much longer than what they released in theaters because people complained about the length of Gettysburg. But totally worth it. Watch it in two evenings, treat it like a miniseries, if length bothers you.

I remember reading about the Director's Cut on the old IMDb forums, they said the theater version left major important parts. Add those back in, and it clicks.

With the missing parts in, it's almost as good as Gettysburg, and Stephen Lang's "Sappy Stonewall" is much less irritating. In the theater we were counting the minutes until the next cry, and coughing to wake up the snoring history buffs all around us.

Ps I miss those forums. For things like this alone, they were gold.

Good actors and a very good production.

But (there is always a but) the movie makes you sleep sometimes. It does not bring high emotions to you.

And they should have done something with the dialogues. Seems that the characters have come down from Heavens, speaking like Gods and poetic phrases.

The producers spend a lot of time and money to bring a historical precision to the movie but the dialogues are pretty far fro the reality of that time.

This is a four and half hour long movie, which somehow seems to just barely scratch the surface of just about every subject that it touches is. It's a narrative mess that combines about a dozen different plot lines, and fails at executing any of them properly. The main character of the movie is Stonewall Jackson, yet even he feels like a minor character compared to the movie's story arc. Lots of attention in screen time is dedicated to the man, yet viewers still feel unconnected with him as they never really properly explain anything about the man, and we're largely bored and confused by his portrayal, despite even Steven Lang's masterful performance of the man. It's a great acting job yes, but we don't really know who it is he's portraying.

Instead of focusing on the main character, his background, why he was a truly great and complicated man, we're constantly distracted from him by many, many different plots. Jeff Daniel's Chamberlain, as seen in the previous movie, multiple unnamed union and confederate soldiers, townsfolk, lots of backstory of Robert E Lee, even John Wilkes Booth is portrayed, for some reason, for extended periods of time. All this time spent on story lines makes the viewer feel alienated and confused any time our main character, Stonewall appears, and we think, "Wait...who was this guy again?"

Jackson was indeed a fascinating character, probably the most fascinating of any of the confederates. He was modest weirdo of a man, employed as a professor at a military school, and was much despised by his students and fellow faculty because of his ineptitude as a teacher. He showed no sign of greatness, or even competence, whatsoever, before the war. He also seems to be a genuinely good man at heart, unconcerned with the conventions of the south aside from his ardent, zealous, devotion to Christianity. He created a bible school for slaves, teaching them to read, and the only slaves he owned were those he met through this, who actually came to him and requested that he buy them, knowing they'd be well treated under his roof. He was unconcerned with the politics of the war, and had always been against the notion of it. He fought for the confederacy simply because Virginia was his home, and that's what side it was on; which was the sole reason many other confederates fought.

What made him famous, however, was not his good nature but his absolute brutality, his single minded devotion to making his war as horrible and unpalatable to both sides of the conflict, in order, in his eyes, to reach the most humane goal of ending it quickly. Something dark and cold seemed to awaken in him, transforming this strange little professor into a rabid, brutal taskmaster of a general who saw men as merely a resource to expend in order to reach his next objective, which was always his sole concern. He forced march his men to death and starvation many times, in fact with regularity so, he constantly quarreled with his subordinates, court-martialing them for any perceived offense, openly admonishing their character and abilities, and he was an ardent believer in the "Black Flag," meaning no quarter for the enemy, all prisoners executed, no restraint shown in any way towards northern civilians (or even southern ones if necessary) or soldiers. He saw it as his godly duty to rampage, to show those who wished to see just what war was, and make them reconsider.

The film touches on the duality of the man, though very scarcely, very incompletely. It portrays him as basically a very good man, who just happened to be a successful general. When in reality he had become a deadly, horribly efficient destroyer of men, who just happened to be a very agreeable, if somewhat eccentric, good person at heart. The film, of course, doesn't get much into that dark side of him, which is shame because it's really the soul of the story, and we're left with a basic question that is never answered: why are we even watching this? What's interesting about him? Why are we watching a four and half hour long movie about this ultra-christian dork?

Of other note, Robert Duvall is pretty mediocre in is role as Robert E. lee, he resembles the real person more than Martin Sheen did, but lacks the command, the gravitas the later possessed. The film also has some of the absolute worst CGI scenes I've ever seen. In general ,the Battle scenes are more well done than Gettysburg, it does a much better job at depicted the massed numbers of men involved as opposed to the previous movie which seems to show Pickett's last charge as a couple hundred dudes marching through the field as opposed to the ten thousand or so it was in reality.

But at the end of it all, after watching this movie many times over the years, I'm left scratching my head, and trying to figured out: what story was it they were trying to tell here?

This film has quite low rate and I can't understand this.

It's an AMAZING film, much much better than "Gettysburg" movie!

In "Gettysburg" movie (which is obviously shows the turning point to the North side), we have a HUGE scale of battle, with many many characters and after a will you're getting "lost" and you can't follow the (mess-up) plot.

Here, it's not a "tribute" to the South side, as many complaining about ("hey, I though North won, here it shows the opposite")... This filme is a BIOGRAPHY of one of the GREATEST generals in America's History: "Stonewall" Jackson!!! Therefore, it shows HIS LIFE and the dramatic end of it.

Obviously, since "Stonewall" Jackson was an extremelly great & successful general (for the South) and since the South had ONLY WINS the first years of Civil War, what you would expect? Of course it will showing you the South, defeating the North - as it actually happen!!! The North start winning the South AFTER Gettysburg's battle!!! Before that battle, North was suffering from major defeats in battlefields!

And again, like I wrote, this isn't a "tribute" to South side. It's a biography of a great Southern general. You should watch it exactly like that, as a biography.

And like I also wrote, since is mostly focusing on "Stonewall" Jackson, you're not getting "lost" from many characters, many stand-men (they are), etc.

Since the camera's follows Jacksons most of the time, you're getting involved & emotional with this character.

To me, it's by far MUCH better than "Gettysburg" film.

Gods and Generals. Some call it the worst Civil War film in history, while a small minority calls it the best. Personally, I can't go as far as the last claim, but I do believe that the film has been seriously misinterpreted by critics and audiences alike.

The production value, cast, and music are superb and very professional. The movie is much more emotional than many reviews say, not only at the end but also during the "Battle of Fredericksburg" scene. As for its historical viewpoint, I think every person should hear both sides of every story. If you want a fair, balanced perspective of the war, the best thing I think you can do is to watch both this movie and Gettysburg; that way you'll get both the Northern and the Southern perspectives.

I will admit, though: this film's not perfect. The movie could've been better if its dialogue had been more casual and less poetic. The movie also could have showed us more of Stonewall's eccentricities; it seems to focus more on the romantic, legendary side of him instead. I honestly can't help wishing it was a miniseries about Stonewall Jackson; it would have covered much more about his life than the 220-minute movie does.

In conclusion, the movie is much better than you might expect. It might have been better if it had been a miniseries rather than a movie, but hey! Ron Maxwell only had so much money, and he did quite well with what he had. If you want a film about the Confederates' side of the story, this is it!

The period detail is impressive and clearly most effort went into its creation, and the actors make what they can of it, but it is far too long, not enough action and sickly sentimental. It did present the extent to which public figures at the time were motivated in their own conscious mind by religion, including generals, but given the fact that the South was fighting to maintain slavery, the message seemed confused. As someone said, just as you do not judge a person by what they think of themselves, you cannot judge an age by its consciousness. Jackson and others may have been convinced that God was on their side, but how exactly did they square that with support for a system that had already been abolished in the British Empire? The United States was the last but one country in the Western hemisphere to abolish slavery (Brazil being the last). Are we supposed to take their false moralizing at face value, or is this a satire? Hard to tell. It may be an effort to contrast Jackson's of his grief for the death of the little girl with his apparent enthusiasm for setting thousands of young men to kill each other, but if so, the scene with the girl and the family are far too long to make that point. Jackson appears to be a monster, but was that what the director intended? For all the effort, not half the film which Gettysburg was. Gettysburg concentrated more on the bravery of ordinary soldiers, and in some instances, their equivocal feelings, to better effect.