This a fine movie,if had a lot cussing and rap music may the yankee critics would have enjoyed it.

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

You have to BE from the south, to understand it. I was born here, live here, and will die here. And I will always be proud of it.

An excellent movie. I was captivated by the beauty of the characters. I was stirred by the depth of the language used in that era. I thought the clarity of the reason the war was fought was the most lucid that I had ever heard.

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.

This movie was truly sad. The death and destruction that occurred during the war were terrible. This was NOT a rewrite of history as it really happened. Most of the war was about placement of troops, until someone came along who didn't care how many were killed.

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.

This is a prequel to "Gettysburg" and should be viewed as such-- I found it moving and as a British viewer who is a Civil War buff, was glad to see what I have read, on the screen. A "period" movie, made to represent the time of the Civil War.

A great movie for Civil War buffs.

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.

The critics are way off on this one! This is a movie that accurately portrays the true issues involved in the Civil War and the veiwpoints of the South. Although the movie gets a bit slow at times that is a minor drawback to a film that so marvelously illustrates the Biblical principles that guided the people of that time.

Good historically accurate movie. No political correctness here. Just history. Well done!!

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

Fantastic Move!!! The critics have said this movie failed to strike a balance in portraying both sides, North and South. That is the beauty of the movies and the books. G&G focuses on the South (since they were winning the beginning of the war). Gettysburg strikes a balance (the turning point of the war). And the final chapter, The Last Full Meaure, will focus mainly on the North. Besides, G&G needed to focus on the South in the first movie to explain why they fought the war. If you love learning about history or the Civil War I highly recommend this movie (read the book, though). And if you liked the movie / book, read Rise to Rebellion and The Glorious Cause -- excellent books on the 1st American Revolution!… Expand

Not as good as Gettysburg but very intriguing movie. Battle scenes were very well done. Stephen Lang gives an excellant portrayal of Stonewall Jackson.

I am amazed that so many people give this film such a poor rating. This is a very tightly written script that employs a pleasing culmination of literary devices and extended monologues that add a literary depth to the film not found in most movies today. Further, the movie is not pro-South/anti-North, as some of these reviews suggest. Rather, it portrays the nobility of the South in their honorable defense of their homes and heritage as well as the nobility of the North's loyalty to the ideal of freedom and obedience to the government. On both sides, particularly with Stonewall Jackson and Joshua Chamberlin, the faith and devotion to God, their families, and their countruies are emphasized. Those quick to criticize this movie seem to gloss over the literary historic elements in favor of a predisposition intent on purging any memory of the South and faith from the American memory - things this movie invariably seeks to celebrate.… Expand

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

This movie as one critic said about slavery "cordial" relationships between blacks and whites. There is the evidence of another "movie critic" who doesn't know their history, or hasn't been off their butt in their entire life to experience first hand that the old south was not the monster that these idiots proclaim.And about the dialogue that people used in the movie? what do these stupid critics think? do they think Gen. Lee wold address Jackson as "Hey Man, or "YO"??? Thats whats wrong with America today. The "true" history is not known by a bunch of lazy movie critics whose big job of the day is sitting on their butt. Now if this had been "Spiderman" or somethin like that they would have applauded it for its realism.These movie critics are a joke... … Expand

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.

When I first went to see this film I thought it was going to be really bad, because what the critics said about it. I was even more upset when I called for the showtimes and it said it was "four hours" including previews. Although, I was very pleased there was a 12 minute intermission in the middle, and my bladder was very pleased too. When I saw the movie though, I was impressed. I thought it was a really good. I found it fascinating (then again I find the Civil War very interesting). The film isn't the best war film, but it is pretty good. I don't think there was a moment that lasted over two minutes where I wasn't bored or frantically looking over at my watch. The film is pretty much a biography of the last two years of General "Stonewall" Jackson's (Stephen Lang) life and how he was second in command, next to General Robert E. Lee (Robert DuVall) of the South. Another big part in the movie is Jeff Daniels as a colonel of the North. Other actors such as Jeremy London (Mallrats), Frankie Faison (Hannibal Lector Trilogy), Ted Turner and Miro Sorvino are in this. I highly recommend this to anyone who is a civil war buff, finds the civil war interesting and anyone willing to sit through a great four hour movie. I still can't believe Entertainment Weekly gave it a weak 'D+'. I couldn't disagree with them and the other critics more. But, then again, what are critics paid to do, "criticize". (2/24/03)… Expand

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

This is the best movie i ever saw. screw everyone who said it was bad!

Accurate.

I found it historically correct, riviting in it's portrayal of the South and focused on the real cause of the war, states rights.

The people that seem to be panning this movie couldn't tell you what the civil war was even about. Yes, the movie was long, so was the war. If you want a movie about fiction, then you can create all the drama you want. Everyone is watching reality TV, but when it comes to a movie about war, no one likes reality. If nothing else, you'd think people would appreciate the history lesson.

It was not as good as Gettysburg. The characters were stiff and I believe it was portrayed with a southern bias. My biggest complaint was that Maxwell took 2 years and put it into less time than 4 days as in Gettysburg. 4 major campaigns, (the Valley Campaign, 7 days, 2nd Manasas, and Antietam)were not even mentioned. The emancipation proclamation was also not mentioned. Union characters were not developed as their southern counterparts. (Hancock, Couch, Ames, and even Chamberlain.) Also, seeing some of the original actors 10 years later has them looking older than in Gettysburg. It was more an incomplete biopic of Jackson with all others including Lee doing lesser parts. Taking the book and doing it justice would be to put it on television as an 8 hour miniseries breaking it up by the major events and campaigns of the era. … Expand

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

Critique of a critic - The Critic: (1) "The poetic dialogue is over the top." An answer: Wouldn't the manner of speech produced by an aristocratic classical education differ from something you might hear in Eminem's latest flick. (2) "It was sanctimonious." An answer: Although many may not understand it, there was a time (namely before industrialization) when God held primacy over the material, political and familial aspects of southern culture. It is understandable that critics would find too much scripture in the script when many of us rarely even pick up a bible. (3) "The movie apologized for slavery." An answer: I guess the critics think the southern soldiers should have been portrayed as dumb rednecks following blindly the lead of a few plantation owners. Never mind the fact that most southerners (Thomas Jefferson included) believed that the only just govenment was one by the consent of the governed. I am glad that the movie showed the political process behind the secession: an overwhelming popular vote. If you want to benefit from a different perspective, watch this movie. If you want to be entertained in the traditional Hollywood manner - rent Independence Day.… Expand