Rating: 
Summary: awful... just awful..
Review: I thought Gettysburg was bad.. well it was.. but this takes some beating.. Apparently the late Edward .D Wood is credited with making the worst film of all time.. well that cannot be true.. because he did not make this film or Gettysburg..the producers and directors of Clods and Generals and Gettysbeard cannot be serious.. liberties taken with fact and accuracy.. acting the level of street entertainers (Robert Duval excluded)..the curse of political correctness.. all these matters got in the way of some sort of historical representation.... but then again.. look what so called professional film makers did with the subject of Pearl Harbor.?if the trilogy is completed, then please let it be made by someone with a sense of reality..
Rating: 
Summary: The Civil War; This time it¿s personal.
Review: Wow, this really brings it home. The war where both sides were right and fighting for freedom. I watched this well after all the critics who totally panned this movie went on to rave about much simpler and amusing offerings. Remember that "musing" is defined as "To be absorbed in one's thoughts; engage in meditation" and "amusing" is the lack there of. That appears to be the basis of most critics' comments; lack of thought or meditation on what they saw. The movie was too deep for them; they looked for, and did not find, a simple protagonist / antagonist relationship or a quick and complete resolution to the conflict at hand. Perhaps the critics themselves couldn't pick which side to cheer for given the complexity and conflict of the issues at hand. But it is precisely those things that define why the civil war was so tragic and why it had such a profound impact on our nation. I dare to say there are not many today who would take up arms for causes such as those. The treatment of the topic in both script and cinematography brings the conflict deep into the heart and mind of anyone daring enough to ask the question, "what if I had to choose?" This was a very low-tech war fought with what we now consider to be antiquated tactics; this movie does not need special effects to accurately depict what took place (sorry critics). I recommend this movie to anyone willing to let history speak for itself.
Rating: 
Summary: It's not "Gettysburg," but it's not bad....
Review: Other than the fact that my father was a reenactor with speaking lines within the film (and yes, he made it past the editor to the actual movie), I think the movie is all right. I give it three stars because I know first hand how much hard work went into making it, and how they tried to maintain as much accuracy as possible. Let's put it this way--you might not want to buy it, but you would want to rent it. It's a movie to see once. And FYI for everyone who critized Stephen Lang's performance as Stonewall Jackson for being too "over the top"--the REAL Stonewall Jackson was an extraordinarily religious man who had some strange notions of how the world worked. He would walk around with his right arm in the air to drain the blood from it into his left arm, since his left arm was not his dominant one, and therefore weak and in need of blood supply. He wanted to "even" himself out. He also believed that anything that tasted good (even certain fruits) were bad for people, so he ate only what he disliked. Jackson is a complicated and interesting character, and excellently portrayed in this movie. Again, rent it and see it once; it is long, it is a little dry, but think of it as an illuminated history lesson, not an action movie.
Rating: 
Summary: ...
Review: Dreadfully long. Dreadfully boring. And dreadfully too detailed to the point of failing to capturing an entirety of the Civil War. In essence, it placed too much focus on a microscopic view of the lives of a few individuals and omitted a more panaromic view of a more historical perspective of the Civil War.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Movie but a Lifestyle
Review: "Gods and Generals" had one great advantage over "Gettysburg", and that's Robert Duvall. Martin Sheen's performance as Lee stank. It was most odiferous. But Lee was everywhere. And it dragged down an otherwise superb movie. "Gettysburg" had other faults, the main one being it was based on a novel, and the novel was slanted. Longstreet, by some assessments the villain of the battle, was lionized. But despite its slantedness, "Gettysburg" was focused, and it was clear. One didn't have to be a military historian to know where the battle stood at any given moment. "Gods and Generals" tries to do too much. It has the Confederate and Yankee generals, like "Gettysburg", but it also spends time on the common soldiers, just not enough for any of them to ever become characters. It has a family named the Beals that I suppose is meant to give us a feel for home life, but which is nothing but a bore every time any Beal appears onscreen. One wishes their house was hit by the first shell of the war and all there killed instantly. I have read M. Shaara's "The Killer Angels" so I know its faults and how those faults were translated to screen in an otherwise pretty good movie except for Martin Sheen. I have not read J. Shaara's "Gods and Generals" but whatever the novel was like the first priorities of the screenwriters should have been focus and clarity. There are wonderful performances in this movie. One can't say enough good about Robert Duvall's Lee. John Castle somehow isn't swamped. The character who emerges as the star is "Stonewall" Jackson, and his relations with his wife, his staff, his men, and his fellow generals all comes over pretty well. Jeff Daniels C. Thomas Howell were good in "Gettysburg". Considering the failings of casting on the Confederate side, the yankees stole the show. Here they don't have much to do, and look like folks deserving of a movie all their own. The Yankees should not have appeared in this movie except as the enemy and Daniels, Howell and that bunch should have had their own movie instead of rattling around loose in this one. The Yankees should be gone, the Beals should be gone, the common soldiers should be gone. Jackson should've been the focus. What is especially lacking is a feel for how he got along with other generals -- which is WHAT I THOUGHT THE MOVIE WOULD BE ABOUT, GIVEN THAT IT HAS "GENERALS" IN THE TITLE. When A.P. Hill says he has problems with Jackson, we don't know what they are. When Lee says Jackson is his "right arm" we don't know why. Focus and clarity, guys. If they had done this it might have been not only an edge-of-the-seat guy movie but a good date movie, since it would've had plenty of weepy parts. As it is, it's long, much of it is boring (the battle scenes are great but if you're not a military historian you probably won't know what's going on and it's popcorn time). A lot of superlatives can be laid on "Gods and Generals". If you want an accurate movie about a the war and lots of good stuff coming in intermittently, this is for you. If you want a STORY you're out of luck. "Gods and Generals" never seems to know what it wants to be, tries to do too much too well.
Rating:
Summary: GODS AND GENERALS 5* Because it's number 1 civil war movie
Review: I give this movie 5* because I'm a civil war reenactor the only reason why i do is because i love the civil war and civil war movies Jackson is one of my favorite charracters and generals of the civil war that's why i loved the book G&G, so i deffently had to see G&G specially since my civil war group 37th NCT did a premire at the cinima at Boone NC we got to go in free. :) I love this movie I watch it every time i get to have a chance. I seen the movie COLD MOUNTAIN I give it 5* to but I love G&G the best. I was gooing to be in the movie since I'm a reenactor but i didn't have enough time but a lot of guys in my group where in the film as well. I love the battle scenes in the movie the reason why there is not alot of blood is because they did not want to make the movie raited "R".Another thing is that they called the movie Gettysburg, instead of The Killer Angles, is because they though that the viewers would have thought that it would be a movie about biker ganes. I hate it when people who don't know any thing about the civil war say that reenactors only care about there hats and buttons that's wrong every reenactor know's his or hers history of the battles, campings, and even storys of the soldiers that fought the war. The reenactors, and cludding me know alot of the history that's why we are called living historins! I love the civil war it's one of the best war's to read about and to make MOVIES about. So if you get a chance go and rent G&G or buy it specially since it is the #1 DVD last year selling over 500 million copys with in 5 days. So what now G&G deserves 5*. Hope this review is helpfull.
Rating:
Summary: A Romanticist's View of the Civil War
Review: I find it ironic that this movie (along with Gettysburg) is so meticulous in regards to getting the uniforms, the settings, the flags, and the weapons "just right"-- but fails to understand the true nature of the Civil War. The Civil War was a bloody, gruesome affair that in all fairness could never really be captured on film. Men did simply fall down when they were shot; they were blown to pieces and they tended to writhe in agony on the battle field for hours. Men starved, were ravaged by disease, and had inadequate clothing. "Boys" fought along side men. This film over-romanticizes and over-dramaticizes this conflict of conflicts to the point of disparaging its legacy. This is a movie for the "reinactors" who are more concerned with buttons and hats then they are with understanding what the civil war was really like. Let me go into a few specifics: First, the soldiers in this film are laughable. Since when were so many civil war soldiers overweight men in their 50s and 60s? How did they keep their uniforms so clean? Jeff Daniels is such a pathetic Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Chamberlain was one of the great heroes of the North and to have a stiff, awkward Daniels, who is probably about 15 years older than Chamberlain was, is an insult to Chamberlain's memory. Second, the constant background music is so annoying. It just serves to heighten the phoniness of this movie. Third, this film tries to convey the broad scope of battle, but only succeeds in creating a confusing mess. Furthermore, the greatness of Lee, Jackson, and Chamberlain are not even conveyed. Chancellorsville was considered Lee's greatest victory, but if you watch this movie without knowing that, you might still be wondering who won it! The same can be said for Jackson. Without knowing Jackson's background and what he exactly did, the uninformed viewer might leave the film wondering "why was this guy so great-- other than being a good Christian?" The Battle of the Crater in Cold Mountain conveys more realism and authenticity in 20 minutes than Gods and Generals does in 3.5 hours. Gods and Generals was ambitious, which is why I give it 2 stars instead of one; however, it's just too bad that this ambition came from individuals who don't know anything about the Civil War (except maybe for what kind of buttons an officer in the 5th Wisconsin might wear).
Rating:
Summary: Very Disappointing
Review: Frankly the book wasn't very good and the movie was worse. The long panoramic shots look like water colors. Poorly rendered ones at that. I paid eight bucks to see this movie and that's eight dollars more than I'd pay for a video of it.
Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing...
Review: It's hard for me to describe how disappointed I was with this film. I mean, fine, General Jackson was a very religious man. He put his trust in God and Heaven and feared not death. But this doesn't make good film! The scenes with the General praying drags out and gets so boring that it makes you wonder if it really is a war movie or a churchschool-movie... I was bored beyond belief. The reason for that I gave two stars in stead of one is because of the battle scenes. They really show (except the Manassas scenes) how the Confederate Army under leadership of General Lee gave the Yankee invaders a serious whooping! Other than that the movie is a sad, sad attempt on making a good Civil War movie... I really wish that I could say that I liked this movie, but sadly I really didn't...
Rating:
Summary: WARGASM FOR HISTORY BUFFS. WHAT'S WITH THE "G"s?
Review: It seems that Hollywood directors who make civil war movies are infatuated with titles that begin with a "G" -- Gettysburg; Glory; now Gods and Generals. It's difficult to see why this filmathon was needed as a sandwich between Gettysburg and The Killer Angels (yes, they'll be making a movie out of the book, again!) Reviewers in-the-know here seem to be bothered by the "Southern point of view" but in my mind that's the least of G&G's worries. One could argue that the film whitewashes slavery (no pun intended) and offers apologetics in the place of facts -- when a character makes a racist or insensitive comment he's always wearing a blue uniform, and there are essentially just two fawning slaves. No, the film's pains are much graver. Unlike Gettysburg which focused on 3 days of actual war, G&G casts its net wide and far. I'm sure it is impeccably accurate from an historical perspective, but in his attempt to be accurate about the sensitive subject matter, the director here seemed to have overextended himself. The result is sloppy, rambling, and poorly paced. There are times when everything even grinds to a complete halt. The Irish soldier and the cook are dead weight, and Stonewall's wife is another aspect we could do without. Robet Duvall plays a minor role, that is a big mistake. The battles scenes are just uninspired and morose. The film smacks of a documentary with no narration, the structure is so poor. Long and short of it, I can recommend it to two broad kinds of individuals: die-hard American history war buffs, and/or insomniacs. Rest of us can probably find better things to do with hours of our time.
| 
