Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: February 21, 2003
6.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 59 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
35
Mixed:
3
Negative:
21
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
ClaytonS.Dec 22, 2006
Overly long, shapeless, overly pious, over blown. Overly sancitimous toward General Jackson. Those who wish the South would rise again would love this movie. I give it a three because it does portray the battles accurately and Robert Duvall Overly long, shapeless, overly pious, over blown. Overly sancitimous toward General Jackson. Those who wish the South would rise again would love this movie. I give it a three because it does portray the battles accurately and Robert Duvall is greatness. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
2
RadioChris13Nov 22, 2010
Total crap. I normally love civil war movies and for this i give it a 2 instead of a 0. But this movie just sucked ass. It was completely boring and the monologues were cheesy and embarrassing to watch.
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
1
Jspotter89Jul 16, 2014
Where to begin.

Long? Yes. Boring? Check. Pretentious? Uh...YES. Historically accurate? Not even close. Four hours running time is a tall task for any director. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't hit 4 hours, and they were
Where to begin.

Long? Yes. Boring? Check. Pretentious? Uh...YES. Historically accurate? Not even close.

Four hours running time is a tall task for any director. Even the Lord of the Rings movies didn't hit 4 hours, and they were entertaining. This movie is painfully long, and full of...well, the only word that really fits here is 'monologues'. Monologues can work in certain media, but movies is not one of them. That's not even to say anything of the content of these monologues, which are mostly Stonewall Jackson praying or someone going on ad nauseum about Southern rights.

The movie proclaims to be a prequel to the movie Gettysburg, telling the story of the first two years of the Civil War leading up to the Battle of Gettysburg. In actuality, it is a biopic about Stonewall Jackson, who, confusingly, is portrayed by the same actor who played an entirely different Confederate general in the film 'Gettysburg'. Ron Maxwell, the writer/director, can't seem to decide what he wants it to be. The movie is also allegedly an adaptation of Jeff Shaara's book of the same name, but read that book and tell me if you think it is anything like its source material.

The writing, poor as it is, is undermined by a disjointed story that quite literally skips four critical campaigns in the eastern theater of the Civil War that Jackson was integral to the outcome (Shenandoah Valley campaign, Peninsula Campaign, Second Bull Run, and Antietam) in favor of showing us pretentious attempts at representing antebellum Southern life. Example one, a ridiculous gathering of Confederate generals to watch a minstrel show that borders on the insane. Example two, a Confederate Christmas party, complete with caroling. I'm not making this **** up. And third and most ungodly annoying example, introducing a little girl at a Southern plantation who Jackson befriends and ends up dying of a fever. I have never wanted a pre-teenage girl to die so strongly as when watching these scenes. The character adds nothing to the story, has the most ridiculous accent you can imagine, is terribly acted, and her role extends the movie for what seems like an entire hour when any audience member with any knowledge of history should be saying, "Uh, didn't we miss...I don't know...HALF of Jackson's most famous battles?!?"

Finally, this movie is 100% neo-Confederate propaganda. It's attempt at representing the antebellum South as a land of leisure and civility is reminiscent that of Gone With the Wind, except that when GWtW was made, there were still people alive who had been slaves. A movie like this made with such unabashed whitewashing of Southern culture and why that war was fought is outright irresponsible. The scene in which Stonewall Jackson promises a reverent slave/camp attendant that black and white Southerners will be united in friendship after the war was cringe worthy.

In short, seeing this movie is a waste of 4 hours of your life you will never get back. Even if human lifespands stretched to 1,000 years, I would not recommend watching this movie.
Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
1
KevinK.Jan 22, 2007
It's bombastic, the scenes attempting to enshrine the glorious heroes of the South come across as put-ons, and the battles were neither exciting, nor were they historically accurate. (A real Civil War battle would make Saving Private It's bombastic, the scenes attempting to enshrine the glorious heroes of the South come across as put-ons, and the battles were neither exciting, nor were they historically accurate. (A real Civil War battle would make Saving Private Ryan look like children's programming.) What I saw here was nothing more than a four-hour Civil War re-enactment with a heavy Southern slant. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
shiftworkerNov 30, 2016
US Civil War. Ridiculously long, though it ends before Gettysburg, and amounts to a biopic of Stonewall Jackson. Cannon-shot explosons turn the victims into acrobats and the sanctimonious script and swirling score both invite parody, so itUS Civil War. Ridiculously long, though it ends before Gettysburg, and amounts to a biopic of Stonewall Jackson. Cannon-shot explosons turn the victims into acrobats and the sanctimonious script and swirling score both invite parody, so it might be possible to watch some of it in a group on the basis of so-bad-it's-funny, but it's too long to serve any practical purpose for anyone not in a coma. Handily the movie is divided into parts 1-4, which I saw with breaks over 3 days and avoided being bored to death in one sitting. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews