It lasts about two years, it comes dangerously close to apologising for slavery at times, it has dialogue amounting a whole year's worth of Lybia's corn crop. I've given it two points for Robert Duvall, who can never be crap in anything, ever, and two "benefit of the doubt" points because I'm not American and so maybe some of it went over my head through lack of context. Or maybe because it was so bloody DULL.… Expand

Any value Gods and Generals has for accurate historical detail cannot excuse its crime of promoting misinformation about historical truths. This movie comes across as a simple apology for the inhumanity of slavery in America.

Do not make the mistake of picking this up at your video store. Long, slow, sanctimonious, dry, slanted, inaccurate and a God awful General waste of time.

Gets a 2 for historical accuracy. It failed to illuminate events and characters that enabled its predecessor "Gettysburg", or do justice to the heroism at Fredricksburg (which the movie industry has still left undone). This movie was the disappointment of 2003.

This was the movie that was historically inaccurate (Military history is my major). My husband and I were both were in tears at the bad portrails of the entire era and its soldiers, and literally the worst cast movie ever to reach the big screen. It looked and sounded like a poor man's version of a Hallmark Hall of Fame knockoff. A true disappointment to all Sharaa fans everywhere. I will not pay to see the next disaster. No sir. … Expand

Low entertainment value. I dozed through most of the movie. I will never watch this movie again.

Terrible. Scenes involving the main characters are mixed and matched with no ryhme nor reason. Not to mention, that 90% of the speaking roles involve a character in a monologue which ATTEMPTS to sound inspiring and grand, but fails miserably. The only well-made part of the movie is the battle of Fredricksburg.

A real mess. The film is tedious and dull because the filmakers are movie-of-the-week hacks rather than imaginative artists. The film is also morally bankrupt and racist from beginning to end. We are (yet again!) presented with the standard "states rights" garbage to justify slavery, racism, war, death, etc. Risable characters spout endless inanities about ol' Virginie, propatee rights, the "peepul", God's will, ma n' pa, etc. The idiots who rave about this film are simply Southern apologists who secretly wish they were living in this fanatasy land of "moonlight and magnolias". The film will no doubt go over big during family night at the local militia. The smug sanctimoniousness of the characters and the smarmy music on the soundtrack left me squirming. The film is a genuine embarassment for all involved. … Collapse

This movie was a disaster from the casting call. I disliked Martin Sheen in Gettysburg, but within the first two minutes, I was WISHING he could replace Robert Duvall. Duvall does not bring the noble bearing of the South's greatest hero to the screen. 15 years after Gettysburg, those that returned have gained weight and look like they have already been through the war. Recasting Steven Lang as Stonewall, rather than Pickett as in Gettysburg, was a bit confusing and just a bad idea: he was an excellent Pickett, a terrible Jackson. In Gettysburg, Jeff Daniels gave rousing speaches; here, he sounded like he was lecturing bored students. No inspiration, no hope. The battle scenes were hurried, the uniforms too crisp and new (even after days of marching and battle). Poignant moments devolved into sappy melodrama. The theatrical score was inappropriately timed and completely flat. There is no indication of 'where' or 'when' anything takes place. To the knowledgable, it could take place in the space of a week, rather then four years. All in all, a horrible movie. Aweful casting, a poor score, and a lackluster script combine to form the worst civil war movie, possibly the worst war movie, I've ever seen. Then again, it was based on Jeff Shaara's book which was written to cash in on his father's success with "Killer Angels." The son does not compare with the father. I want those four hours of my life back.… Expand

Yeah, it's historically accurate. Yeah, it represents the time well. IS THAT WHAT YOU SEE MOVIES FOR? Of course it isn't! People watch movies to be entertained, which is something this movie does a miserable job of doing. Even the huge battle sequences are boring. Add that to the fact that the characters speak in monologue, and you have this movie: pure, 100%, unfiltered drek. You people who are getting passionate about your "10" reviews for it are merely trying to make yourselves look and feel educated, as I am quite sure that you MUST have hated this movie as well. I particularly enjoyed the one from "John" who said something about only people with poor education or no passion for history would rate badly. I enjoy studying history, and I went to a respectable college. However, I watch movies to be entertained. Maybe if I had rented this to learn a thing or two I'd give it a higher grade, but as a movie, and not a textbook, Gods and Generals is abyssmal.… Expand

All the actors in this "film" were either washed up has-beens, unknowns, or the type who are never too proud to turn down an acting job no matter how cheesy it is. That should set off a red flag with any discerning viewer. To say it was amateurishly made would be an understatement. It's nice that Ted Turner has gazillions to waste on his Civil War obsession, but the money could have been much better spent some other way. And who was Robert Duvall's dialect coach? Robert E. Lee came from an extremely aristocratic Virginia family, so I somehow doubt he would have spoken in the hick accent with which Duvall had him speaking. (By the way, I lived in Virginia my first 27 years, so I know my history.) My final analysis: If you really are wanting four hours of pro-slavery, pro-"Old South" propaganda, watch "Gone with the Wind." It's actually a good movie.… Expand

This movie isn't really 4.5 hrs (or so) long, it's more like a lifetime. it never seems to end; i took a nap, woke up and the movie just got past the half way point. the civil war itself probably wasn't even this long. at best this movie is really 1-1.5hrs long; however this movie illustrates why it is important that movies delete scenes or else the movie will drag on and on and on... and so on. if i were a film prof and lectured on deleted scenes, i'd show this movie, and the rest of the lecture should be explanatory. what really aggravates me is that this movie didn't even had an intermission (unless you've got the tape version, i had rented the dvd). finally, i just have to say i have nothing against long movies. i can sit through a long movie as long as it keeps me interested. and taht's about it i feel better. oh before i forget: this movie sucks, it's too long and is a prequel to New Gettysburgh. save yourself the time; [spoiler] the north won.… Expand

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.