Gods and Generals

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: February 21, 2003

5.4	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 44 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

EdwardB.May 5, 2007

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.

1 of 1 users found this helpful

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

grifforAug 2, 2020

Best civil war movie ever made the speeches and conversations really show you how truly awful a war it was as men were forced to choose between their country and their home. And of course the battles are what everyone watches it for anywaysBest civil war movie ever made the speeches and conversations really show you how truly awful a war it was as men were forced to choose between their country and their home. And of course the battles are what everyone watches it for anyways and they are truly epic.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

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 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

BigSlimJimmyApr 15, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Since I started to research and become passionate about the histoeical topic of the American Civil War, I have loved Gods and Generals. Unlike most, I did not read the book, and when first viewing the film, was not aware there was one. I'm sure, as Civil War flicks go, many critics did not enjoy the film, but this is probably due to the lack of extensive historical knowledge about the Civil War (specifically that history of Stonewall Jackson and the South's point of view on the war). Many criticize this film beause of how it makes the South look, and many people with a standard knowledge of the Civil War may safley assume that the South was Evil, hated Black people, and drank sweet tea all day. Not getting a stereotypical "Gone with the Wind" setting and an "Uncle Tom's Cabin" storyline, most people were likley going to call this film racist and say they hate it.

Historical accuracy seems to be lacking in most Hollywood films about any time period. In "Gods and Generals" many of the characters talk like, well, someone from the mid-Nineteenth Century South would talk. Not getting the watered down version that many people call accurate in films, people were probably confused the entire film (and the length probably did not help).

Gods and Generals is a great film, and tells the story of a Southern General who is tragically killed by his own men, and even though it is missing the sprinkle of Hollywood in it, Civil War buffs will love this film.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

ErnieGMBJul 7, 2014

This is the best Civil War movie I have seen. It reflects the deep religious sentiments of some of the Generals and it is mainly geared to the historical and visual depiction of the battles involved. It is a thinking man's movie rather thanThis is the best Civil War movie I have seen. It reflects the deep religious sentiments of some of the Generals and it is mainly geared to the historical and visual depiction of the battles involved. It is a thinking man's movie rather than an action-oriented modern movie. People these days don't have the patience for this type of film.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

bobt.Oct 26, 2005

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

0 of 1 users found this helpful

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 wereWhere 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 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

DealerForTheCIAMar 21, 2022

It is insulting how much effort went into making this movie historically accurate by all the dedicated reenactors whose commitment to historical accuracy was shat on by screescreenwriter/director/producer Ron Maxwell who is more concernedIt is insulting how much effort went into making this movie historically accurate by all the dedicated reenactors whose commitment to historical accuracy was shat on by screescreenwriter/director/producer Ron Maxwell who is more concerned with confederate apologia than telling a compelling or historically accurate story about a real, complex, and difficult period in American history. Ron Maxwell can eat a giant bowl of all the **** of every man who died in this war. And after that, he would still owe a debt to the men depicted in his trash fire of a film.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

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 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

Gavolc260Jul 11, 2022

It depends from which point you see this film:
From a historic point, it is pretty accurate and well-written. The battles are well maid.
From a film point, it's not a good drama, it's more of a documentary. Depende desde qué punto se veaIt depends from which point you see this film:
From a historic point, it is pretty accurate and well-written. The battles are well maid.

From a film point, it's not a good drama, it's more of a documentary.

Depende desde qué punto se vea esta película:
Desde un punto de vista histórico, es bastante preciso y está bien escrito. Las batallas están bien hechas.

Desde un punto de vista cinematográfico, no es un buen drama, es más un documental.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

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

Trev4664May 24, 2023

Absolutely amazing film. One of the best I have ever seen. I can't praise it high enough. The historical accuracy is off the scale, probably because they used thousands of historical reenactors.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews