Rating: 
Summary: The worst MOVIE that i've ever seen
Review: Like i said this verywell has to be the worst film in the long history of films. I mean this is "Dude, Wheres my car" bad. The acting was just terrible. The aspects of the scenes were terrible. And the mistakes in the film were just unbearable.
For instance at one point of this four-hour piece of [trash] i saw someone wearing a purple baseball cap. With all that in the regular movie I was just waiting to see the blooper reel.
And anyone who says that Jeff Daniels was good, wasn't awake for the whole thing. Because every now and then you here the classic voice of Harry from "Dumb & Dumber".
So what i'm really trying to tell everyone is to spend 20 or so dollars on something worth watching!
Rating:
Summary: Who is stuffing the ballot box on this one?
Review: Gods and Generals - Four stars average....Are you kidding me??? I saw this movie in the theater on the first night it was released "generally" on 2/21/2003. I was looking forward to it, I so wanted this to be blockbuster. I was depressed and disappointed. It was just plain terribly done and dragged out. I can't believe the same Ron Maxwell who made the movie "Gettysburg" made this movie. Here's the facts people..... "Gods and Generals" started playing at 1,500+ theaters when released on 2/21/2003 and was playing in only 81 theaters one month later. By 5/2/03 it was only in 16 theaters. This movie cost $55 million to produce, and another app. $35-40 million on top of that to market it. ($90+ million total)
It's total cumulative gross over its entire run in the theaters never topped $13 million. It was a grangantuan box office LOSER. Numbers like the above don't happen for NO GOOD REASON! People and theaters voted with their pocketbooks. Word of mouth and reviews. The movie stunk... and was poorly done. The only thing done worse was the awful "Gods and Generals" computer game they made to launch with the movie. I think the big problem that Maxwell just plain tried to cover too much material in one movie... It's a shame because a good movie would have heightened interest in the Civil War, and I fear if this movie is anyone's preliminary contact on the war, they will lose any interest in wanting to learn more about the Civil War. I heard the DVD was coming out and that's what brought me here. I see this upcoming DVD to be released 7/15/03 is the "theatrical release" and I keep hearing that a DVD with a couple of hours of cut footage was in the offing. I am holding out for that release if it ever comes to fruition. I am hoping that somewhere on the cutting room floor was some footage that may redeem this disaster of movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Historical Accuracy
Review: Many thoughts and words of T. J. (Stonewall) Jackson are taken from the book written by his own Chaplain. The viewpoints of Lee and Jackson (and the South, in general) are given credence in this film and reveal the deep thoughts and convictions of those on that side of the war, which are hidden by today's culture. The duty to do what is right and sacrificial, regardless of the cost, is extremely refreshing. Jackson's emphasis on reliance on God is equally appreciated, and gives Today's culture a view into the priorities of the past.
Rating: 
Summary: not as good as "Gettysburg;" but a good Civil War flick!
Review: ...
This movie, even as it focuses on men who were fighting to preserve the enslavement of other human beings, shows them defending their homes and states. It has much less ACTION that "Gettysburg" and much more character studies and background of the War and battles.
Rating:
Summary: The South Shall Rise Again - But Not Just Yet
Review: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My personal view is that someone apparently decided to release a two part "movie for TV" as a full length feature film, with predictable and mediocre consequences. Stonewall Jackson woodenly stalks the earth like Frankenstein in a big fake beard (although Frankenstein seemed much quicker on his feet than this guy). Every one else seems to be reading word for word from a script carved in stone one...slow...letter at a time. The film's only saving grace -- if one could call it that in the very oddest sense -- is its unique revisionist view of slavery, which if nothing else has to be experienced to be believed. You won't see that on any other screen of your local megaplex these days. Lord have mercy! One critic referred to the film as "Major Tedium meets General Boredom on the fields of Virginia." Another referred to his experience with the film as "watching three hours of his life being slowly, painfully strangled." I consider these positive reviews, based on my own personal experience. Perhaps Amazon could offer this film and "The Legend of Bagger Vance" together. Then the whole weekend - interspersed with a series of those refreshing 5-hour naps - would be totally set.
Rating:
Summary: Decent History, Bad Film
Review: I think the overwhelming number of 5 star reviews here are from those who place more emphasis on the re-enactors wearing the correct cap badges rather than good filmmaking. Even with that the movie still has its failings. While I find it fresh and interesting to have Jackson as the central character and Lang does a decent job acting, the character as presented is far less eccentric than the actual man was. Either Shaara or Maxwell toned down his character because they feared the audience might not empathize with the historically accurate Jackson. And, in addition, other attitudes and ideas presented by various characters have the smell of revisionism about them. But other than these things, I have no major problems with the history. It is accurate, although in a clumsy public school textbook sort of way. Now judging it as a movie, it is atrocious. In Gettysburg, the characters made long, Shakespearean speeches that, while a little stiff in delivery sometimes, stuck with you and helped to define the character and the moment. In contrast, the speeches in G&G are interminable and forgettable. Various historical quotes and tidbits (like the aurora borealis at Fredericksburg) seem to be pasted into scenes more out of obligation than artistry. Now, maybe the problem is that the theatrical release wasn't long enough, since they definitely try to cover enough material for 3 movies. Lengthening it could help, but I doubt it--it would probably just contain more pointless speeches or repetitive battle sequences. The strength of Gettysburg was that it was a movie centered on just the Battle of Gettysburg and the story of the individual characters brought the history and the battlefield to life. The weakness of G&G is that it is a movie that tries to cover so much the whole film loses focus and character. Compounding this problem is that the characters and their meaningless dialogue do nothing to enhance the film except increase the amount of footage. It's too bad, because I really looked forward to this movie. Hopefully the last movie in the series will not be mistreated this way.
Rating:
Summary: FOR THE LOVE OF THE LORD..............
Review: I've almost had it. Hearing everyone complain, complain, complain. One more complaint, and I'm gonna have a coniption. The movie is AWESOME!!!! Look at is as the first part of a TRILOGY!!!! Look at it as a dramatic epic, not a full-fledged historical action epic. Look at it that way, and you may enjoy. it. God bless you all, and God bless America! Grade: A+
Rating:
Summary: Gods and Generals
Review: While this wasn't a Gettysburg.....{wasn't made to be}it was a good film..Actors : A much better General Lee performance! Not as good a Longstreet. As this was a Prequel to Gettysburg, [it did leave out Antietam,which may have put it well over 5hrs]-and did rearrange some true facts regarding Jackson And his men plus other film liberities..it did let you see some of what happened, explained other history facts & bring out the lives of other people living back then,a better look @ fashion,living conditions of soldiers,etc. Gives non-civil war buffs -a look @ civil war times & info missed in school classes or non-retained from class. It is a basic who's-who from Civil War Times! Well worth seeing and purchasing!
Rating:
Summary: Don't buy it
Review: Gods and Generals is one of the worst movies ever made. Gettysburg was an outstanding film. Sadly this one isn't even close. It is long winded, boring, and biased toward the south. The Stonewall Jackson story line is not compelling yet Maxwell features the film around it. Save your money.
Rating:
Summary: Not Propaganda
Review: I've read Michael and Jeff Shaara's Civil War novel series from
which this film and its predecessor, "Gettysburg" are based.
I saw both films,and loved them, in spite of the fact, that
"God's and General's" bears little resemblance to the book
by jeff Shaara. I take issue with a reviewer "Mr. Lowe".
I think his dismissal of this film as propaganda is "silly" and
"exaggerated". He said it glorifies the South...how? To me, you
glorify something when you embellish it...Robert Maxwell and Ted
Turner went to "great lengths" to ensure the film's historic accuracy, including consulting university professors, and historians in the filming of the movie, "God's and General's".
It "shows." As for his charge that all the Southern victories are shown, not Antietam...well, from 1861 until Gettysburg, things did go the South's way. Antietam arguably was a "draw",
and from what I have read of the filming of the movie, there was a lot of footage shot about Antietam, which could not be shown
in order to keep the movie with the 31/2 hour length, not to
"slant" the film or mislead viewers...If anything this movie is too serious and "too realistic"...I think "Gettysburg" was better. To compare Ted Turner to Goebbels is a "reach" and
very "dramatic" and "silly" on Mr. Lowe's part.
I like the film,because of it's focus on Stonewall Jackson,
no film has been made about this complex man. I enjoyed it.
In fairness, I love history. I consider myself an expert on
the American Civil War, "amateur" that I may be, so i may be biased.
| 
