Rating: 
Summary: Note this is not the directors cut version
Review: This DVD is the theatre version, not a "directors cut." A variety of excluded scenes, including the battle of Antietam and scenes with the character of John Wilkes Booth, reportedly will be included in a 6-hour version to be released on DVD in winter 2004, according to a variety of posts at the G&G official site's message board. Although a lot of the complaints about this movie have to do with its length at 4 hours I actually think the longer version may be more watchable/coherent, since I thought a number of the scenes and characters seemed abbreviated and did little beyond supplementing the dominant character of Jackson. Hopefully the longer version will "flesh out" more of the story than the current release does.
Rating: 
Summary: Dragging Documentary
Review: . . . everything takes too long. Gods and Generals could have used a lot more dialogue and a lot less "suspense," to make the characters more precious to the viewer for the action ahead.
Rating: 
Summary: Compelling look at a sad time in our nation's past
Review: The film starts slowly. Like all good historicaly accurate dramas, the film makers take a few minutes early to establish a few background facts.
After the groundwork has been laid, the story begins as the state of Virginia votes to leave the union. The Civil War has begun.
The small stories, within the story, here are the secret. We see insights into the personality that was Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson. We get to see him as a sensitive, God fearing man, who belived in his cause.
My own personal favorite Civil War hero, Jashua Lawrence Chamberlain, is also portried as a dedicated, God fearing man, who has learned that war, especially a civil war, changes the dynamics of any cause.
The film has tender moments that underscore the fact that life went on regardless of the hardships impossed by war. We see a Christmas scene at a Southern Mansion the shows life as normal while the reality of the day was this aweful war being waged within miles of where they took pause to celibrate. Life continued and there were fleeting moments of personal joy.
The battle scenes are graphic without being overly bloody. You get the sense of just how aweful the kind of warfare that was waged in this war realy was.
I have two of the three films in this trilogy. (Gettysburg & Gods and Generals) Both of these wonderful docu-dramas help to advance the understanding of this terrible event in our past.
Rating:
Summary: Heavenly Gods and Coniving Generals
Review: While this prequel to "Gettysburg" most definitely had the booming action of adventure films, it's really more about the lives of its characters, such as the legendary "Stonewall Jackson" who is played by Stephen Lang. It charts the early years of the Civil war from Manassas to the Battle of Fredericksburg. It explores the days of the Soldiers and their leaders and examines the lives those who waited back at home for their loved ones to return.
While I thought that GODS AND GENERALS was a great movie, I feel that it did not reach it's full potential, as far as violence goes. Maybe they wanted it to be this way, or maybe not. The should have opened their minds to what the civil war was actually like, and not let their authenticity be severely compromised for the endlessly long scenes of dialogue because of the pg-13 discretion. Still, this part of the trilogy was extremely well done and I feel, putting it's authenticity aside, it is a great way to be able to get the feel of the Civil war, without having to actually be there. If gives proof that historical accuracy is not needed to tell a really good story.
Rating: 
Summary: Good battle scenes, bad dialogue
Review: Like many Civil war buffs I eagerly awaited the release of this movie on DVD. I had read the poor reviews of the theatre release but thought them misguided- 'Gettysburg' turned out fantastic and I figured surely 'Gods and Generals' would be even better. What a disappointment it turned out to be. This movie sets a new standard for over-stuffed oration. To those who actually sat through this movie in the theatre, I commend you. The amount of pontificating in this movie simply gets in the way of a strong story and made for long passages of outright boredom. This is a movie made for DVD only in the sense that it is easy to skip over the speeches to the battle scenes, which are well done, but even then not as good as 'Gettysburg'. Note to the director of the last installment in this series: tone down on the oration, develop a few main characters, and maintain the excellence in the battle reenactments. Then you will have done service not only to the Shaara series but also to those who look forward to the very rare historical movie made these days.
Rating: 
Summary: Stellar performances by Duval, Lang and Daniels
Review: I can definitely see why this movie might not have appealed to the average film audience. While it definitely has the "boom" and "action" of adventure films, it really is more of a study of personalities, and moves almost as slowly as the Civil War itself. It is, however, a fascinating and very real portrayal of war and its effects, not only on its participants, but on its own rationale. The latter is something with which most of the audience has become more intimately familiar with the Western world's recent involvement in war and politics in the Middle East and the changes in rationale that occurred to justify it. When the credits first began to role at the beginning of this film and I realized that Ted Turner, who lives himself in Georgia, was its primary motivator, I anticipated that Gods and Generals would be a document of purely Southern sympathy, which to some extent it is. The movie was based on a book by the same title, which I have yet to read, so I have no idea what the author's original intention might have been. I have to admit that although the film focuses on the colorful personalities of the generals-as its title implies it will-it doesn't hesitate to confront the issues that modern audiences would expect of it. It does, however, deal with them in a rather patronizing way. The issues of the South defending its homeland and way of life, the heretofore unaddressed issue of constitutional right of secession, states rights verses the rights of the central government to maintain the nation's integrity, and the failure of the founding fathers to resolve the paradox of slavery in the world's first real democracy, are all confronted rather politely. Lee and Jackson speak with eloquence of the need to protect their homeland from aggression and of their being the inheritors of the mantel of their Revolutionary War forefathers. They honestly believe that they are carrying forward the torch of freedom against the tyranny of an oppressive government as their forebearers had. They seem almost oblivious to the paradox of slavery in the midst of this great fight for "freedom." Nor does the film itself really deal with it. Beyond the prayers of the only two black people who are allowed to be individuals on screen, slavery is seen as hardly there. Everybody is "family." Apparently some are just more "family" than others. While there is a great show of the brutality of war, there is very little show of the brutality of slavery. The movie keeps it all nice and tidy, doubtless out of respect for the delicate sensibilities of the audience. On the plus side, it does deal with honesty the fact that neither side started out to change the status of the black population so much as to resolve the problem of the right of states to secede from the union. As Jackson points out to his aide, if the North loses, the powers that be will retire on their earnings from war speculation; while if the South loses, it loses everything. In effect he was all too right. A great deal of money exchanged hands in the industrialized North during this time period. Speculation and graft were rampant, and doubtless great fortunes were and would have been made, win or lose. Lincoln, lionized in our own times, was reviled by many, North and South, in his own, and at times with reason. In order to achieve some of his goals he occasionally gave away patronage to those who didn't deserve it. As Jackson and Lee both indicate in the film, and as shown vividly, each foot of land in the South was dearly fought for by people with everything to lose. Watching the carnage and devastation which took place almost completely on southern soil, makes the viewer realize why the Civil War is still very much alive in the hearts and minds of our southern citizens. While many of us in the North may have ancestors who fought in the war, those of us in the South have ancestors who were fighting for their land, field by field. While many of us in the North visit Civil War battle sites, most of us in the South live near or on them, and see them every day. Some of the areas in the rural South have yet to recover to this very day from the devastation visited upon them by the war and its aftermath. Robert Duval is the quintessential Robert E. Lee. He brings the man fully to life. His graceful portrayal, especially when he is engaged in discussing battle plans, makes the viewer feel as though present at a real moment in time, the parlay before Chancellorsville especially so. It is impressive work. He makes it abundantly evident that Lee was a man who understood the personalities of others. Lee's summation of General Burnside at Fredericksburg was brilliant. Indeed Duval's portrayal of the man makes it evident that he used his knowledge of his opponents as part of his strategy against them and did it very effectively. (My personal favorite, not included in this film, is his summation of McClellan, that that general's biggest problem was that he had made the mistake of bringing himself to the battle.) Although Lee is an important part of the film, the cental character is General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, tightly portrayed by Steven Lang. A more fitting subject for central stage would be difficult to find. Like Lee, Jackson was a complex character. As biography shows, he was a somewhat stiff, rather rigidly religious person, who was intolerant of the foibles of others. Like many men of the time, his life had been crossed by a number of personal tragedies: a difficult childhood, the loss of his first wife and child, the loss of his first child by his second wife, and the alienation from a sister with whom he had once been very close because of their differences over the war. A professor of science and artillery at Virginia Military Institute before the war, he was not particularly liked or even respected by his pupils or their families and almost lost his position because of it. The war in fact gave him a stage upon which to exhibit his true brilliance, military strategy. As Lee says in the film after Jackson loses his arm in battle, "Jackson has lost his left arm; I have lost my right," as in essence he had. Also giving a fine performance was Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain, a schoolmaster who raised a militia and proved particularly skillful as a military man. He acts as the audience's moral tour guide, quoting extensively from various literary sources popular at the time among the intelligensia. Also a real person, it's almost too bad that his story was not more fully presented. What was shown was so tantalizing. A great Civil War reenactment, with stellar performances by Duval, Lang and Daniels. Rather superficial on the "hard" issues, but certainly adequate given the limitations of time and budget. Impressive cinematography, but CGI portions are a little obvious. With the above caveats noted, it might make a good instructional film for high school US history students.
Rating:
Summary: Obscures real moral issues
Review: In the 30 minutes I could take of this boring film, I saw two Blacks: both seemed very happy with life in the South. One phrase from a slave narrative I once read was "...and then began the whippings." Didn't see any of that in the movie, however. Regardless of what the main characters in this film allegedly believed (states rights and all that) the objective fact is that they were fighting to save slavery. IF they were fighting to defend their state AND AT THE SAME TIME were planning to free slaves, then their defense of their state would be fine. But this was not the case. Those who praise the nobility of southern leaders need to confront the ethical issue involved in holding protection of one's state as having a higher moral claim than freeing enslaved people.
Rating:
Summary: Sanctimonious to the extreme
Review: As an avid Civil War buff, any movie dealing with the topic is a must see for me; however, Gods and Generals cannot rank in the top tier, more probably near the bottom third of historical movie efforts. First the highlights: it is lavishly depicted with no expense spared for sets or accoutrements. Visually it is very appealing. Also, the cast is respectable although it is hardly Robert Duvalls' or Jeff Daniel's finest cinematic performance. Also, the focus on Stonewall helps to expand our view of a man with numerous odd quirks, yet still the best military tactician our country has every produced (and yes, where is that recounting of the Shenandoah Campaign?). What made the movie tedious was the endless pontificating and recitation of classical poetry and recounting of Caesarean battle history as the soldiers marched off to war. This is a very stylized view of history, viewed in distant perspective and altogether influenced too much by monuments and the need to portray the greatness of these legendary men. It is not so much a movie as it is a viewing of the oversized characters on Stone Mountain (Lee and Jackson, but not Davis) come to life, moving and sermonizing their way across the silver screen. Clearly, the movie makers took the title literally; these are not men, but Civil War leaders who are indeed Gods and Generals. Finally, I disagree with other viewers who found this movie less tainted by political correctness. I found it to be an overly politically correct view of the Civil War. One only has to look at the depiction of slavery here to see the sanitized view from south of the Mason-Dixon line. (Readers of this review my want to insert "War Between the States" every where I refer to Civil War)
Rating:
Summary: Good but could have been better
Review: I had such high hopes upon seeing this movie and now thinking back on it I really have no idea what went wrong but I can divide this review into the good parts and the bad parts The Good
Music-Whatever my own problems with the movie were the music is not one of them weather it's "Virginia will be heard today" or "I crossed the Green Mountain" its all great. The actors9most of them)-One of the greatest things i saw inb this movie was the actors' vallent attempts to keep it alive even after the past of the movie where I ceased to care. Everyone, with the exception of one or two did a good job. The Fredricksburg battle sceane-My God that was great, you have to see the movie to know what I mean. The Bad Several things conspired to kill this movie
Lenth-What Ted Turner and the other forces behind this movie fail to understand was my inability to keep a jumbo coke in my bladder for three and 1/2 hours The Dialoge-Sounds like it was ripped from the classroom of the most bombastic self-absorbed english teacher on the face of the planet. They could have done alot better. The cast was large-I think there were something like 80 speaking parts. You meet someone you like them and than they disappear never to be seen in the movie agian. Am I the nly one that had a problem with this? I loved the movie because I am a history major. The average person who goes and rents this on a lark has to know what they are getting into. There is a lot of detail that the average Joe sholdn't be expected to reemember.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not great, sequal
Review: Now I liked "Gods and Generals" and enjoyed myself during it, but I just can't see it with the same value I do "Gettysburg." For one, the battle scenes are not as well done. You can almost tell when they digitally copy battle lines, and the re-use of fight scenes is so blatantly obvious it hurts. Watch as a Federal is smacked by the butt of a gun twice. Watch as the men who accidentally fire at General "Stonewall" Jackson from the dark become the Union soldiers who fire at the Confederates from the dark a few seconds later. My only other quabble with the film would be why some actors were changed or didn't return. Martin Sheen is replaced by Robert Duvall, and while I love Robert Duvall as an actor he doesn't seem to contribute much to this film, except to state a Lee quote every thirty minutes. Stephen Lang doesn't do Pickett but instead becomes Jackson, and definately carries the film with his acting skill. Tom Berenger - giving me the biggest shock - does not return as Longstreet. Even though Longstreet only has about five minutes of film time, I have to wonder why Berenger couldn't sacrifice those five minutes. Is he afraid of being type-casted as Longstreet? Or maybe he was too busy doing "Sniper VI." However, the film does have touching or exciting moments to it. I watched this in theaters with my father, and I did leave glad that I had watched it. While it doesn't cover nearly all of what the book does, it at least gives insight into the early stages of the Civil War. If you loved "Gettysburg," at least give "Gods and Generals" a watch.
| 
