Rating: 
Summary: Despair
Review: The movie's only redeeming feature is the Battle of Fredericksburg sequence. I don't understand how this rousing, highly credible portrayal of the battle could have been buried in a mind-numbing succession of clunky monologues and bad cinematography. Rent the video, fast forward to Fredericksburg and avoid the misery of the rest of the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Most disappointing
Review: When the movie came out in theaters, I looked (in vain) for a local theater that was showing it. After "Gettysburg," which I thoroughly enjoyed, I was sure this one would be even better. Apparently, the number of screens showing the theatrical version dropped like a rock within the weeks after its release and I never was able to find it being shown. Needless to say, I eagerly anticipated the release of the DVD version. After sitting through the movie last night, I found myself wishing that I had stopped at the intermission and returned it. Fortunately, I rented before buying. I can actually say that I think that my VHS copy of "I bombed Pearl Harbor" is less revisionist and a better use of my time than G&G. My problems: 1. The endless trivial dialogue
2. Scenes that didn't add to the story (the exchange of tobacco for coffee, the minstrel show, the endless parlor scenes, etc.)
3. Absence of scenes that would have added to the continuity of the story (Why did Hooker replace Burnside? What about the foray into Maryland that resulted in Antietam/Sharpsburg? How did the battles portrayed link together in some overall strategy?)
4. Points of view that didn't exist (i.e. the portrayal of Jackson's views on slavery)
5. The sheer length. It could have easily been cut to 2 hours.
6. The battle scenes. While they seemed accurate as to the uniforms and general tactics, seeing 250 lb 40-something men charging up a hill did not seem realistic to me. I would have preferred more realism even if it had meant an R rating (which it would have).
7. Longstreet. It seems that if they were trying to set up the connection to the second movie (Gettysburg), Longstreet would have had more than 2 minutes in the movie. I liked Berringer as Longstreet in Gettysburg, and he gave the character some depth.
8. The beards. These bothered me from the opening scenes until the very end of the movie. The worst was J.E.B. Stuart's. It looked like someone had sat on it before they put it on him. This would have been better conceived if they had just concentrated on Jackson only (and included his early Shenandoah Valley campaign), or just one of the battles. Gettysburg had focus. This didn't seem to. A big disappointment and an opportunity missed.
Rating: 
Summary: The BEST!=)
Review: I was so happy to see a movie the had good words in it! Its about time! All the PG-13 movies I see have bad words in them. This has a good plot, great war scenes and just an all around good movie! I think everyone should see this!
Rating:
Summary: Actually, one star minus!
Review: I've never written a review before, and I know there are already fifty bad reviews of this movie, but it was so bad I can't help it.
I bought this DVD for my husband for a gift and ended up apologizing for it. I foolishly thought that it would be as good as "Gettysburg". NOT!
I agree with every single bad review of this movie, and I'm REALLY SORRY that I didn't read all of these reviews before purchasing it.
This movie was so bad in so many ways, that rather than watch it, I got up from the sofa and went and did dishes.
Rating: 
Summary: A thoughtful story of the early Civil War. Worthwhile.
Review: Let me begin by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film, which I did not have the opportunity to see in the theater. This is probably just as well--this is a long movie, almost a miniseries. It is lovingly done, with an attention to detail that is almost astounding. As others have noted, about the only consistently wrong detail in this movie is the well-fed look of the re-enactment extras; real Civil War soldiers on both sides were lean to an extent that is hard to appreciate today. Some of the chubby fellows in this film would have slimmed down very quickly on the skimpy rations and forced marches that characterized this long hard conflict. Having said that, it seemed to me that at least these re-enactment actors were a bit slimmer that the chubbers in "Gettysburg." No big deal. This is the story of the early portion of the Civil War, as written in Jeff Shaara's fine novel "Gods and Generals," a prequel to "The Killer Angels" by his father, Michael Shaara. The acting is consistently good, but this is not a perfect movie. It follows the "Dances With Wolves" genre in that it is far too long in my opinion, and many scenes could have either been deleted or truncated. They were not, and this film contains many long scenes that contribute little to the main storyline, which is essentially the story of the early Confederate victories in the war, and Thomas ("Stonewall") Jackson's superb generalship and unique personality. "Gettysburg" the movie to which this is a prequel, is not a short movie either, but its storyline moves along much snappier than this one, even though this film contains three battles rather than one, and in my opinion this should have enabled the director to concentrate better on the storyline since he had plenty of material to work with. Just my opinion; there are doubtless many others. All that having been said, I really enjoyed the film. Although some may not approve, one thing that this film did was avoid the "Politically Correct" interpretation of the Confederate cause and the Civil War itself. While it acknowledges that slavery was one of the central issues in the war, it also emphasizes that there were other factors that led to the war, and that early on most Union men felt that they were fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. Some will criticize this film for being somewhat pro-Southern, and I think that this is probably true in the sense that the film relentlessly reminds the viewer that the Southern cause derived from the belief that the Confederate Army was defending the very homes and hearths of its soldiers. This is emphasized in the film far more than the Union cause is, and for that matter it seemed to me that there were more scenes dealing with the Southern side than the Union side. To that extent it is fair to say that this film gives a suprisingly favorable treatment to the Southern cause in these days of political correctness. But another interpretation of this point of view is that it is an undeniable fact that the Confederate Army, always outnumbered and outsupplied, nevertheless marched from victory to victory during the early portion of the war, and not all of this can be explained by good generalship. In fact the men were motivated by a cause in which they believed deeply, and this combined with skillful leadership caused the Confederate Army to become one of the great armies of all time. By emphasizing what was undeniably a sincere belief in the Southern cause, this film does a creditable job explaining why the Confederate Army was so remarkably successful, and why this war was, and remains, the bloodiest and hardest war Americans have ever known. Overall, if you interested in the Civil War, you will appreciate and enjoy this film. If not, this maybe is not for you.
Rating:
Summary: Embarrassingly bad dialogue and ideology
Review: It is rare for me not to like a movie, and rarer for me to write a review. But this movie inspires comment. First, it is breathtakingly bad in its endless and embarrassing dialogue. And it is irritatingly juvenile in its one-dimensional portrayal of what motivates people and historical events. If you like cringing in embarrassment, you might find this movie enjoyable. If you think this is history, sue whatever school you came from. A few positives: The unfortunate amounts of money spent on this laughingstock of a movie gives you nice panorama views and period images to look at. There are a few good actors in this movie who did their best to shake the stink from the script.
Rating:
Summary: Not quite, not Gettysburg, but certainly not bad.
Review: I rather prefer Gettysburg, but it was a pleasant evening.... You do, I think, have to have read the book to understand some things (particularly Chamberlain at Fredricksburg), and the age differences and cast changes were a little jarring (most of which I forgot pretty quickly). (Seeing some of our "old friends" again was nice, too.) Hopefully the third movie will be at least as good.... To defend the movie makers, the authors covered a LOT of material, and had the pages to work with. You can't put this on film in an hour or two without cutting out a lot of material. Doing it in three segments is a help, but there's still a great deal of background (and foreground) material that only somebody who'd read the books (or was a serious Civil War buff) would understand. Lang's performance as Stonewall Jackson was superb, but I kept seeing his Pickett.... Likewise, Jeff Daniels and C. Thomas Howell could have stayed home. Not that they didn't do what was expected, but I don't feel that their characters added anything. Chamberlain really doesn't come into his own until Gettysburg, and thereafter. (OTOH, Mira Sorvino is just delightful - making one wonder why he'd leave [ducking]. Daniel's slightly befuddled Chamberlain in Gettysburg is excellent, and seems to fit what I've read of the real Chamberlain, but he was just another political appointee before Gettysburg.) Some other detail might have found it's way into the movie instead.... Maybe that's the final problem - Gettysburg stands on it's own quite well. Gods & Generals seems to me to require some preparation.... Certainly worth the money....
Rating:
Summary: A four hour long video of a civil war reenactment.....
Review: I had high hopes for this movie seeing how the civil war fascinates me but was horribly disappointed with this clunker of a movie. Shall I compose a list of greivances? Ok here we go. 1.The battle scenes were laughable I almost expected to see the soliders get up and dust themselves off as the battle rolled on. 2. The melodramatic dialouge caused my ears to bleed. 3. Stephen Lang the actor who played stonewall Jackson was good and I don't blame him he played the character that was writen for him but that was not (Stonewal Jackson) He was as much stonewall jackson as erol flynn was Custer in the movie They died with their boots on. 4. The editors should be taken out and shot the movie could have been trimmed by atleast an hour or more. 5. A reveiwer previously had mentioned this but I will as well, The scene where the two Irish regiments are killing each other how is that anymore of a tragedy than if one was from Zimbabwe or Germany men are men. 6. I am a huge fan of Robert Duvals but he appeared to be asleep at the wheel in this one. So as a closer to my complaint list if you want to see a good civil war picture watch Glory or Gone with the wind.
Rating:
Summary: Civil War Atrocity
Review: 10 reasons this movie was bad: 1. Battle scenes featuring slow-moving, overweight, middle-aged reenactors of zero talent. (These were YOUNG armies, remember.) 2. Unexciting and uninspired staging of the battle scenes--even Chancellorsville. 3. No mention of Antietam or Shiloh (these were not Confederate victories, however.) 4. The sugar-coated deification of Stonewall Jackson (fervently religious, yes; a nice guy beloved by his troops, no.) There is a ludicrous scene in which Jackson, a fervent proponent of slavery, prays with a devoted black servant for divine guidance over whether slavery is a godly institution or no. 5. Robert Duvall's wooden portrayal of Robert E. Lee, and the fact that Duvall looks at least 20 years too old to play Lee. This was Duvall's personal Appomattox, I'm afraid--the only time he ever gave a less than sterling performance. 6. Cheesy, painted-on-glass special effects. 7. An obtrusive and weirdly inappropriate musical score. 8. An ideological bias that ressurrects that worn-out, totally fabricated Dixie rationale the the Civil War was fought for Southern Independence against Northern Aggression and not at the behest of the wealthy planter class in order to preserve the institution of slavery. 9. Sentimentality runs amok as Irish regiments on both sides are shown to be (oh-so-tragically) killing each other at Fredericksburg. The tragedy of this is only apparent to crazed Celtophiles who think the death of any Irishman, for any cause, whether good or bad, is the world's great loss. 10. Dull performance by Jeff Daniels as Joshua Chamberlain, who is singled out for the benefit of the sequel, apparently, and because he is one of the few Union heroes who really appeals to the right-wing fundamentalists who are the target audience for this picture.
Rating: 
Summary: Innacurate Portrayals
Review: God's and Generals had extreme innacuracies. My main concern is their filming of Virginia Military Institute, where they didn't use computer animations to change Stonewall arch, which wasn't built until after his death. Also, being a Cadet at VMI, the innacuracies of General Marshall's barrackes being shown in the backround, which again where not built unitl later, later as in 1950's. As a big fan of the movie Gettysburg, my hopes where shattered at the portrayal of Stonewall Jackson, and his fanatic worship with the Lord, it almosts seems as if he is insane. The battle of Manasas is extremely lame, especially the birth of Jackson's nickname, which was poorly acted by whoever said it. The battles where weak, and it seemed they did not go into the extra depth as in Gettysburg. I gave it two stars and not one, because the Battle of Fredricksburg is worth seeing. Also, battle tactics are not used like they are in in Gettysburg. I found myself wondering where the troops where at certain points. All in all, it was very disappointing, when comparing it to Gettysburg.
| 
