Rating: 
Summary: Mediocre Wannabe Epic
Review: In 1993, Ronald Maxwell with the financial backing of Ted Turner brought his vision of a film adaption of Michael Shaara's classic novel "The Killer Angels" to life. The film called "Gettysburg" was originally intended to be a made for TV, but Turner and Maxwell were so proud of their completed product that they gave it a limited theatrical release. The film was fairly well received by critics who although skeptical of its merits as a cinematic acheivement were still impressed with its uniqueness as an intelligent attempt to bring to life one of the defining battles of American history. Powered by a couple terrific performances, epic sized battle scenes filled out with thousands of reenactors, and benefitting greatly from a revival of interest in the Civil War which had been sparked by Ken Burns' documentary, "Gettysburg" actually did ok financially despite its very limited amount of screenings."Gods and Generals" is a prequel to "Gettysburg" that features a lot of the same elements that had made the earlier film so successful: based on a Shaara novel, Ron Maxwell directing, many of the same cast and crew, Randy Edelman score, and the use of over a thousand reenactors. However, "Gods and Generals" was almost universally panned by critics and audiences stayed away in droves. What happened? The financial failure is easy to understand. Whoever greenlighted a wide release of a nearly four hour Civil War epic should be locked up in an asylum. The revival of interest in the Civil War, which existed in the early 90's, had faded away by 2003. Combine the running time with a lack of popular interest in the Civil War and the critical pummeling this movie received and you have a recipe for box office disaster. Is this movie as bad as MANY have said? I'm a huge Civil War buff who LOVED "Gettyburg" despite it having many of the same faults found in G&G such as the stilted "speechifying" that it passes off as dialogue so maybe I'm not exactly unbiased. Yet I approached this movie with the lowest expectations and I found it to be a mediocre film with some serious faults. In many technical aspects this movie is superior to "Gettyburg." The beards are better looking, the battle scenes are better choreographed, the stunt work is much better, some one obviously kept a better eye on the reenactors to keep them from staring into the camera, and the special effects (CGI, matte painting, ect.) are passable on a TV screen. The opening credits are well done and the Mary Fahl song is terrific. The film also features some very nice performances by Jeff Daniels, Jeremy London, and Stephen Lang. However, those performances are lost in a movie which bites off way more than it can chew and sinks under its own good intentions. As another reviewer said Maxwell had no real idea of how to translate Jeff Shaara's novel into film. The movie is all over the place: a sort of mishmash retelling of the first two years of the war in the east mixed in with a biopic on Stonewall Jackson. Stephen Lang is a terrific Jackson, but he is forced to work in some extremely pointless scenes. If you fast forward through all the stuff involving his cook and that little girl then G&G becomes much more enjoyable. If G&G had avoided the oversentimentalization of Jackson as "Christian warrior/family man" and instead focused on some of the more unpleasant parts of his character such as his inability to get along with subordinates then this movie could have been more compelling. The movie hints at some darker elements of Jackson, but most non-Civil War buffs are not going to understand it. I'm sure that people in the audience were just shaking their heads over the scenes involving General Gregg. Despite its 3 1/2 hour running time G&G's plot feels rushed and slapped together. This is especially true about how it depicts the battles. With the exception of Fredrickburg, G&G fails to make non military history buffs understand what the heck is going on. I can understand how the Chancellorsville recreation could be extremely confusing to someone not familiar with that battle. Finally, a comment on the reenactors. Without the reenactors and their willingness to work for free neither "Gettyburg" or G&G would have never been made. However, when one sees rank after rank of middle-aged men it diminishes the impact of the true tragedy of war. The vast majority of the men who did the fighting and dying in the Civil War were kids- boys in their late teens and early 20's. To die that young "is more than merely dying; it is to lose a large part of life." Reenactors are great at dressing up as Civil War soldiers, but unfortunately overweight middle-aged men in period uniforms do not look like Civil War soldiers.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrific Depiction of Untraveled Ground
Review: Ron Maxwell's Gods and Generals actually gives life and feeling to the characters depicted; far from the staid figures depicted in dusty history books, the characters in the movie give life and meaning to their struggle. In particular, Stephen Lang shines as Stonewall Jackson. Worthwhile, interesting, and especially recommended in conjunction with the sequel, "Gettysburg."
Rating:
Summary: Great Portrait
Review: Gods and Generals is the best movie that i have ever seen on the Civil War. Lang's performance as Stonewall Jackson is unbelevable, and we should look his way during awards time. It was touted as being too long, but the length game it depth, and actually brought it to life by examining the personal lives of the characters. The battles are absolutely awesome, and there are some incredible supporting roles as well. Look for the other 2 parts of this awesome trilogy to make a huge splash with people who appreciate history as do I.
Rating:
Summary: A Must See!
Review: Every student of the War Between the States and every Christian should see this movie. Don't let the critics and Hollywood elite fool you. This is the best WBTS movie every produced!
Rating:
Summary: Earnest in spirit but plodding in execution
Review: It is difficult to dislike film director Ronald Maxwell's "Gods and Generals." It's heart is in the right place. But going into the fourth hour of this lumbering extravagnaza, one begins to realize these star-crossed Civil War fans needed more vinegar and less sugar. A prequel to the far superior "Gettysburg," Maxwell and company (including producer Ted Turner) bit off far more than they could chew, stuffing the beginnings of the Civil War and three major battles into one extremely muddled film. I suppose the most glaring weakness of "God and Generals" was the overall low-budget quality. Crowd scenes are forced, battle scenes are stilted and shots of re-enactors cheering resemble old home movies. The odd casting choices will also cause viewers to scratch their heads. It is abundantly clear the filmmakers sought unity with the film "Gettysburg," re-casting many of the same actors in their former roles (Jeff Daniels, C. Thomas Howell). So one wonders why Stephen Lang, who played the role of Pickett in "Gettysburg," was cast in the role of Stonewall Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang is a terrific actor, and he gives a splendid performance in this film. It's hard to imagine there were not other actors available for this meaty role. I also had problems - and I can't believe I am going to say this - with Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee. It is one of the few times in this actor's historic career in which he gives a weak performance. I truly believe Martin Sheen was far more vibrant and alive in the same role in "Gettysburg." And the list goes on. Jeff Daniels seemingly sleepwalking in the role of Joshua Chamberlain - a role in which he gave the finest performance of his career in "Gettysburg." A weak musical score (Bob Dylan?!) also detracts, which is odd because another highlight of "Gettysburg" was the splendid music by Randy Edelman. Several scenes also feel so staged as to be gag-inducing. Lang certainly sinks his teeth into the role of Jackson, but his constant prayers to the Lord Almighty eventually become forced and tiresome. These scenes come off as hammy as a 19th century play. If this was intended by the filmmakers, it was a severe miscalculation. Eventually, "Gods and Generals" must be termed un unfocused mess. The filmmakers tackled more than they could handle, jumping from one battle to another, threading it along with staged scenes in an attempt to redefine the public's perception about this brutal war. A tighter screenplay and a focus on one specific battle would have aided this leaky tugboat of a movie. The same filmmakers who gave us the noble and spiritually uplifting "Gettysburg" also gave us "Gods and Generals." I was moved, stunned and inspired by "Gettysburg." "Gods and Generals" just left me wanting to watch "Gettysburg" again.
Rating: 
Summary: Wish I Could Have Loved It!
Review: I went into this movie expecting a long period piece with the flowery language of the time. Those items were of not an issue for me at all. I LOVED Gettysburg. Finally, I personally believe that almost all of the Confederate troops fought because a bunch of forgeiners (as they saw them) were telling them how to run their states (which were more independent then) and because Northern troops invaded their homes. Slavery may have been the catalyst but it just was not the full root cause! It is certainly noble that the war ended slavery in the USA, and that may be one of the only things that can allow people to accept the full horror of the war, but the average Conferate soldier owned no slaves and had not been drafted to fight by any "evil" Southern government devoted to slavery. Because of this the handling of the slavery issue did not upset me as much as many others writing reviews. I do not pan this movie for any of the above reasons. I am panning it becasue it was poorly written, directed and editted. Scenes such as in the Wilderness and other battles went on and on with multiple camara angles (some times the same ones repeated) of troops marching. It seems the director, after suceeeding with Gettysburg, had too much money and film to burn. Every scene with somebody speaking was shot with the intention of it being played on the big screeen at the Acadamy Awards prior to the envelope being openned; becuase of that fact none of them will make it there. Everything was just too forced! The dialogue went well past flowery and descriptive, moving far into tedious and unbelievable. Re-casting Daniels as Chamberlain (with an added 10 years and 30+ pounds) was a mistake. He was correct the first time around but has aged too much to be believable based on his earlier performance. The only major character I could feel anything for was Jackson, who I believe was cast well. I liked that character, as portrayed, in spite of some of the horrible dialogue forced out of his mouth and surrounding him. Something about a man capable of such duality intrigues me (Death on a Pale Horse on the battlefield but tender with his wife and with children). Watching him I could only think of the word FANATIC. Because of Jackson, the genre, and some of the film time devoted to the battle scenes I can avoid just giving just one star. Otherwise, as I am very very sad to report, this is just a BAD MOVIE. I understand all of us fans of the first movie WANT this film to be great but we must be honest if we are going to have any hope that the makers are going to make a better film in the future. If the film makers had cared about the critics they would not have made Gettysburg, and thank God they did! It is the devoted students of this era to which they directed these films. We can appreciate what they have tried to do but we owe them the truth for their efforts.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth Hurts
Review: This movie hurts those who know nothing about true history. I love to read the reviews by the people who hated this movie who write things like "I remember my history".
Let me tell you, your history teacher, especially up north, probably didn't have a clue as to the true Southern mind-set at the time of the Civil War and if he did he wouldn't tell you the truth.
Don't tell me to 'deal' with the fact that the South lost, the South lost for only one reason, because slavery was wrong. Had slavery been abolished by Jefferson Davis at the outset of the war, I believe God would have truly been on our side and the Yankees and their liberal descendants would be living in Canada today where they belong.
This movie has the guts to be completely honest about the convictions of the people it portrays. Most Americans today cannot fathom what deeply held religious convictions mean. They are too busy watching trash television and getting their body parts pierced.
We are living in a growing pagan society that worships themselves and material possessions. That's why this movie is so hard for some to understand, and easy for them to deny.
We again are headed for a cultural Civil War, only this time the lines of battle won't be as clearly drawn. Watch this movie and understand what people with conviction and faith are capable of.
Rating: 
Summary: A terrible waste of time
Review: First of all, it is not historically accurate. The movie glosses over Stonewall Jackson's failings and foibles to present him exclusively as a sympathetic man of piety. His famous obession with lemmons is only obliquely hinted at in the movie character's taste for lemonade. His peculiar habit of riding with one arm in the air to "balance his equilibrium" is also dismissed in the movie as being due to an injury in battle. The movie is too pro-Southern. I am certainly not one to subscribe to political correctness, but if you are going to make a movie about he South in the Civil War, you should address the slavery issue more forthrightly. There are hardly any blacks at all in the film, despite the film's almost exclusive Southern location. The two main black characters are embarrassingly pro-Southern themselves! The battle scenes are cursory and very short. Whereas you could watch "Gettysburg" and actually learn a great deal about the battle, there is little that can be learned from the battle scenes in this film. The concluding battle of Chancellorsville should have been a fantastic opportunity to gain insight on Lee's battle strategy and Jackson's brillance. Instead it is glossed over, and is included only so Jackson's final reconaissance ride can be covered. Whole years of the war are skipped, which at least could have been alluded to. There is no mention at all of the Peninsular Campaign or Antietam. Last and most importantly, the movie is a series of monologues. The actors don't talk to each other as much as they talk at each other. The dialogue is stale and lifeless, as is much of the movie in general. I greatly enjoyed Turner's "Gettysburg," and was extremely disappointed by this film. It was a waste of time and money, and not just my own.
Rating:
Summary: Not What I Expected
Review: Actually, I gave Gods and Generals 2.5 stars. This film had me anxiously in wait to see but when i watched it I couldn't finish it. Few battle scenes showing no blood to get your heart pumping ruin this film along with too much attention on the Confederate army. The music was good but over dramatic compared to the horrendous acting. The details were great and the directing was so-so. See this film if you have 4 spare hours and if you aren't in the mood for a gory bloody war film.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad, but . . .
Review: too much emphasis on speeches and romance, and not enough attention was given to the battles. The battles in this movie were pretty good, but not on the same level as the movie Gettysburg. Furthermore, the movie is more sporadic and spread out since it covers 1861 to early 1863, and it was a bit odd that Antietam was completely cut out of this movie. The movie would have been better if the film makers had put more focus and time on the battles and less focus on the romantic and religious feelings of the characters.
| 
