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 characteres (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
0
AustinP.Oct 6, 2003
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarkC.Aug 10, 2003
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PatC.Oct 29, 2003
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ConnieS.Mar 11, 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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BobM.Aug 22, 2003
Low entertainment value. I dozed through most of the movie. I will never watch this movie again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
EliS.Sep 20, 2003
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RichardS.May 6, 2004
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 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RobertS.Jun 18, 2003
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
DanH.Feb 22, 2004
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
T.M.Feb 11, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SVGMay 23, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
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