For any student of the Civil War, this is a must see. Provides a relatively accurate glimpse into the lives and minds of the central figures who would craft the war that pitted brother against brother. While lingering perhaps overly so, on the principle generals of the South, the movie convincingly depicts the events of the war upto 1863. For those not engaged in the study of this war, the movie still evokes some solid performances, particularly Stephen Lang as General T. (Stonewall) Jackson.

7/10
melmobarrie@ - first review
22.10.2005 - age: 36-49

From a Canadian perspective, this was a great movie to watch. The chief character was no doubt Gen. Thomas Jackson, whose death in 1863 was a contributing factor in the defeat of the Confederacy. Just as we sometimes do not understand the U. S.' War of Independance against our mother country Britain, Canadians are always led to believe that the American Civil War was a fight against slavery. History has proven that the Civil War was merely a fight to protect the Union and the wishes of the Southern states were different from the Norths' at the time. Slavery was merely another good reason to invade the South and impose the values of the North on the Slave states. This movie deals with this opinion fairly well and the battle scenes make it of great historical value. In the wake of the 911 period, I can see why this movie was unpopular with many in the U. S. as it brought forward many of the divisive issues which nearly destroyed the American Union. I think that in light of the greatness that the U. S. has achieved over the last 100 years it is suffice to say that this movie was of excellent historical value... God Bless America.

8/10
stew_cats@ - first review
20.5.2004 - age: 36-49

Could have been promising but the payoff never came, should have chose another title.

3/10
abkfjier@ - first review
1.2.2004 - age: 18-25

This movie was great! It is a great movie. I say, watch this movie. T J (Stonewall) Jackson was a devoted Christian, So was Robert E. Lee and J L Chamberlain. Watch this movie. It is very spiritual. I Am from England, but This is a film I will never forget.

10/10
tabbycatz@ - first review
8.11.2003 - age: 26-35

A good movie to show what went into saving a country and saving the Liberties of the people. What our ancestors went through to preserve the Union. The prices they had to pay for the future of America.

8/10
coolness@ - first review
26.4.2003 - age: 13-17

I feel that watching this epic is as close as one could possibly get to being there as events unfolded. Yes it is a long and at time drawn out version of this historic and tradgic period of American History but if one wants to experience the courage and determination of the American spirit this is the movie to see. The music score at times is heart wrenching as you watch the events unfold. I for one can not wait for the DVD to release so the rest of my family can enjoy it.

7/10
rwood13_ca@ - first review
22.4.2003 - age: 50+

I watched this movie knowing how long it was, and with an idea of what the critics thought. I was surprised that it did entertain me and the time went faster than I thought it would. There was some bad lines, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, and some bad battle scenes that ran too long and repititious. However there were some good battle scenes that were awesome in portraying the scope of a battle. I thought Stephen Lang did a good job of portraying Stonewall Jackson. The other parts were minor, and yes the dialoque was cheesy at times, even if they did talk like that back then. After all was said and done, I enjoyed the movie! Ron Maxwell should stop trying to do everything himself and get some help. This was an overwhelming effort. But I give him credit for a decent job that should have been a mini-series. It's too long for the theatres. Disappointed in general, but glad I saw it, and want to watch it again for a second opinion!

6/10
jrm5590@ - first review
1.4.2003 - age: 36-49

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Gods and Generals is an historically accurate portrayal of the 1860's. It is not the classic struggle of Good (Blue) vs Evil (Gray) , but a clash of wills over a myriad of issues. Yes, to some "slavery" was an issue, but at the start of the war the majority of Americans (in the 1860's) were not as concerned over the "evils of Slavery" as our 21st sensibilities portray. Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, wished to keep the Union intact with slavery, without slavery or a combination the both. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to "slaves" in the Southern Confederacy, not the border states or even in the North. Lee, Jackson, Hancock, Scott and other military minds of the time all went to the same school, West Point and most were comrades in the US Army that fought against Mexico years earlier. The soldiers, in some cases, were neighbours or family members - all were countryment fighting countrymen. I cannot imagine out of millions of soldiers, with in excess of 600, 000 plus casualties on both sides, that their general ideals and moral convictions differed to any great extent. Ron Maxwell has captured the times, the passion of people, (both North and South, Black and White) , the history of the time and melded it all together with the glory, sadness and futility of a "Civil War" where families were divided. What is portrayed is not a bias against the North but the reality of the early success of the Confederate Army in the first 2 1/2 years of the war. This is the prequel to Gettysburg and the first of a three part trilogy. If you support this film, Union supporters will see their side triumph in the "Last Full Measure", just like the history that happened. An excellent movie and an epic that will prove itself through time..

10/10
robnsons@ - first review
21.3.2003 - age: 36-49

This kind of explains the mentality of the Americans today! Oh, and one other thought... Yuck!!! Old ugly bearded man kissing... Yuck yuck yuck!!!

3/10
rocketman313@ - 2 reviews
20.3.2003 - age: 26-35

Gods and Generals shows that the War between the States was devestating for both sides. However, it fails miserably in confronting the true reasons for the war and that the war was necessary to preserve the Union. The South decided to secede basically because their way of life conflicted greatly with that of the North. The economy of the South was built on the evil of slavery, and they wanted to continue that way of life. The North, for whatever reason, wanted to end slavery. The South, however, felt that they had the right to do as they pleased as a soveign state. So, they decided to secede instead of give in to the demands of the North. If you don't believe that the South seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves then I suggest that you read their Articles of Secession. However, Gods and Generals waltzed around the subject of slavery. If people want to honor ancestors who died, that's fine, but they should do so honestly. No matter how you try to spin it, the Civil War and the southern cause revolved around slavery. It was evil, and the Civil War ended it.

1/10
micsa2@ - first review
15.3.2003 - age: 26-35

G&G is a movie that one will think of long after seeing the film. If only because of the national tragedy that the war brought and still brings to the United States. The south lost the war and still pays the price through present day reconstruction laws. The movie is not a 21st century movie by any means, PC is not in it. That in itself is refreshing.

9/10
aboli@ - first review
15.3.2003 - age: 36-49

The grandeur, detail, eloquence and brilliance of this movie has unfortunately been lost on a public that thrives on a diet of Joe Millionaire. Worse, film critics have panned this film for keeping its characters faithful to the age in which they lived, as if that were grounds for rational criticism. Seeing Gods and Generals is much like visiting the battlefields of the Civil War: a near-religious experience.

9/10
davidkrayden@ - first review
10.3.2003 - age: 36-49

I believe that if you understand what you are going to see when you purchase your ticket you will be rewarded with a great film. If, however, you are going to see a "war movie" as our society has written the definition you may be disappointed. This movie was an attempt at showing an accurate description of the characters and events of the civil war pre gettysburg. I hope that it did. I feel that I have a better understanding of the south's reasoning and most of all stonewall jackson. What I saw supports all that I have read about the era. True, this movie was directed by a single man through his vision. I think though, we are all smart enough to know what was history and what was hollywood and that parts of the movie may have been filmed to satisfy the entertainment value of the film and not just cater to the historic value of the movie alone. Otherwise we would have gone to see a documentary (let pbs do those - but then why are you guys ripping pbs) I enjoy history and I enjoys being entertained. I feel I did get both out of this film.

10/10
igotkvorka@ - first review
10.3.2003 - age: 26-35

I want the four hours of my life back!!! I would rather go to see the time machine to bring back my four hours spent on this disasterous epic.

1/10
kfki@ - 9 reviews
6.3.2003 - age: 18-25

I am amazed at the number of people who were put off or disappointed in this movie because of the religous content and the amount of prayer involved. They obviously viewed this movie with a 21st century mind set and know nothing of mid 19th century morality, motivation and firm dedication to GOD and country. The men who actually fought this war were convinced that GOD controlled every action, and only those men who gave GOD credit would be rewarded with victory. The use of prayer and reference to GOD in this movie made it more realistic and accurate. People of today never give god and prayer a second thought and therefore have hard time accepting this aspect of the film. Despite some of the flaws in filming of this movie, I feel it was historically very accurate and therefore worth the watching. Stonewall Jackson was often said to have been a religous fanatic and little bit touched. That was wonderfully portrayed and acted out in this film. My opinion is two thumbs up.

9/10
waygood@ - first review
5.3.2003 - age: 36-49

Very strong performances from the two leads, does a good job of communicating the complexity of the Southern view. Ignores the 'common folk' mostly in favour of the officers' debates, and mostly ignores the slaves, intentionally, I think. Badly edited -- uses four shots where one would do. Wall to wall music, too, which I find a cheap, distracting and annoying technique. A few very good soliloquies, however, among the weak ones. Good rainy afternoon matinee / tuesday night movie. Different style of film: kind of a Shakespearean made-for-tv style, like an inverse of Almodovar's _Talk to Her_.

6/10
acchaladka@ - 26 reviews
5.3.2003 - age: 26-35

Yes I was very pleased on the gods and generals. My girlfriend and I are reeanctors. This is her frist year at it. We sat there and I explain as the movie went on. Mr maxwell my hat and hears is off to you. Youve done an excelent job on this film and I wish I could of been part of it. For those who dislike the film have no knowladge in out american civil war history. This film is about the starting of what it was like when our nation was torn apart and those who fought and died in what ever cause they died for. It a shame to see this movie get bad revue on the time and money was spent and the years of hard work and the reeanactors who too time off on week ends to make this film happen. I would go see this again and again and I would be proud to wear my union blue suit to promote this film. Mr Maxwell and all the actors you all should pe proud of what you've done. My heart is with you all. I hope you next movie if you do the (last full measure) that I might have a chance to be in it. Thank you all.

10/10
gagr08@ - first review
3.3.2003 - age: 50+

This was quite a long movie, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad movie... I didn't find that it excelled anywhere, but all movies of this length about anywar, I feel deserve being watched... of course in my opinion I would have much preferred seeing it on a rainy day at home rather than in the theatre, only because it didn't excel majorly in any area...

6/10
marc_wolfman@ - 16 reviews
3.3.2003 - age: 18-25

When you've grown up on Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam cartoons, you can only laught at the characters in the movie "Gods and Generals". All through the movie you think of how similar Stonewall Jackson was portrayed by Bugs Bunny, and Yosemite Sam's thick Southern Accent leaves you laughing because you heard it first from a cartoon character. It seems that the message "Gods and Generals" were trying to get accross took nearly 4 hours, where as most Bugs Bunny (civil war re-enactment) Cartoons got the same message accross to a younger audience in less then 10 minutes (and much more entertaining might I add)

5/10
rocketman_ae@ - 4 reviews
2.3.2003 - age: 26-35

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Believe me, I love epics, and I tried very hard to enjoy "Gods and Generals", but this movie STUNK! I had to sit through 2 hours of poorly acted, sappy sentimental prayer in a southern accent. Not being from the US, it took me almost an hour to figure out who's side was who's. The wide shots of the computer generated cities and towns looked so fake, I thought I was watching a cartoon! They could have easily found a real town that looked similar to the ones they were trying to re-create, as I'm getting very tired of most computer generated images. Then I had to sit through poorly re-enacted battle scenes. I kept hearing the generals in the movie, making a huge point in ordering their soldiers in using their bayonets on the battlefields. I don't recall ever seeing one single person using it, or getting killed by one. All I saw were soldiers shooting their single shot rifles and then charging without a purpose but to be killed by a hail of bullets. It seems like rather then depicting the true horrors of war, the producers would rather tone it down to get a PG-13 rating. After hearing one too many sappy speeches, and prayers (in northern, and southern tongue) , I lost my sympathy for both sides. Another issue that I wondered about, was that this war was about the north, south, and the freeing of the slaves, but weren't there any Native Americans involved? They seemed to be non-existent in the whole movie, much like the movie "Pearl Harbor" where throughout the movie, it was about the Japanese against the white and black Americans, but I didn't recall seeing one single Native Hawaiian, considering that battle took place in Hawaii!!! Like most "Hollywood" movies all you see is black and white. On the bright side, it's a great learning tool for film makers, so they can learn what "not" to do!

5/10
simonho@ - 14 reviews
2.3.2003 - age: 26-35

Reading the diverse opinions of people reviewing this movie proves that the movie is a huge success. Why? Because it was successful in portraying the complexities of the people of the time, torn by the difficulty of allegience to one side or the other. People who would rather cling to an uneducated, simplistic view of that time and situation HATE the movie. It simply conflicts with their comfort zone in the way they have already chosen to "understand" the Civil War. Also, many of those same people are also in violent opposition to the inclusion of prayer into the script. Of course, to deny it's importance is to deny the historical facts, as shown by anything more than a politically correct look at the historical words recorded by the actual people involved. I say this movie did a great service to the people of the United States, and to the God/Jesus whose divine hand has so obviously guided it since the very beginning.

10/10
tspangyvr@ - first review
28.2.2003 - age: 36-49

I was shocked that this movie was so bad. The casting was bad, acting was bad, the script was bad, the camera work was awful. How could any intelligent person let this movie be made. Ted Turner could have given his 60 million to so many better film projects than this one.

4/10
jtalbot@ - 4 reviews
27.2.2003 - age: 36-49

Almost 4 hours of movies: Battles scenes: 1 hour - Great stuff Historical Background: Maybe 1/2 hour - I liked Prayers and religious contents : 2 HOOOOURS!!! Come on! I never saw so much prayer even in any religious movies. Obviously they tried redo a classic like Gettysberg but they had no clue how fill it. Wait for the DVD, There at least you can skip the prayers.

3/10
nick21_ca@ - 5 reviews
27.2.2003 - age: 26-35

This movie represents the bloodstaking and effortless work the men of the Union and Confederacy represent. I say Good.

9/10
booboo@ - first review
26.2.2003 - age: 13-17

In short, this movie is a four hour nightmare. It is more of a collection of cliches scrapped together with zero coherent structure than a film. History is bastardized, the dialogue is embarrasingly bad and the acting is abominable. For anyone thinking of seeing this movie, please know that you could better spend your time staring at a blank tv than seeing this movie.

1/10
levinjoey@ - first review
25.2.2003 - age: 18-25

I did not enjoy this movie at all. It was patriotic and religious propoganda from the start. Actually walked out, first time in years.

4/10
zigzagss@ - 24 reviews
24.2.2003 - age: 36-49

An excellent film! Beautifully filmed, very professional acting and stratigic emphasis. Makes me want to see "Gettysburg" all over again. Delicately shows everyones hopes and sorrows which change quickly throughout the film. Brother against brother, justice for freedom and political rightgeousness are all at hand. Stephen Lang is OUTSTANDING.

10/10
jetmec@ - 3 reviews
24.2.2003 - age: 36-49

Great historical documentary... but really too long and becomes really boring after time.

5/10
doener3001@ - 9 reviews
24.2.2003 - age: 18-25

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Gods and Generals is a great movie. It is the most historically accurate movie on the Civil War that has ever been produced. The only instances of any inaccuracy are minor, such as the fact that it was actually pouring down rain when Jackson picked up his daughter at Guiney Station, whereas it was a nice sunny day in the movie. Duvall does a good job as Lee, but he should have had more speaking parts. Some people complain about how long the movie is, but the Civil War lasted for four long years, with 650, 000 battlefield deaths. The war was long, brutal, and portrayed very nicely in the movie. What many movie critics do not realize is the fact that the Southern forces saw the war as a fight for their homes, farms, livelihood, and way of life. That is how the war lasted so long, man fought because they were fighting for their homes and families. There is a pro-Southern element in the movie, but there is a reason for this. G&G is about the South's ability to stand up to the North, Gettysburg shows both sides about equal, and it is assumed that Last Full Measure will show more of the pro-Union sentiment. Another reason I believe that there is a pro-Rebel stance is that against all odds, the Southern forces were able to stand up and defend their homes. Anyone who states that the Civil War is just history has no idea of the situation and needs to read more about the conflict that tore brothers and fathers apart because of what they believed in. Anyone who would give this film anything lower than a c'est on an academic level should be found guilty of deserting their heritage. In this movie, one can truly see the emotion that men went into battle with. These men fought and died for four years, and their memory deserves more than a critic's nasty and uninsightful, unmeaningful words.

8/10
ms51356@ - first review
24.2.2003 - age: 18-25

If you are into "political correctness" (like Ebert) stay home. However, if you value an accurate historical account of three Civil War battles, plus the complexity of the involved characters, please, do yourself a favor and see it. You will obtain a perspective of the south not generally available to the folks that wrote history.

7/10
mhill@ - first review
24.2.2003 - age: 50+

Great movie, kept me entertained the whole time! Ron Maxwell did a great job of depicting the first few years of the war leading up to Gettysburg! A must see for any Historian fanatic! Can't wait to see the "Last Measure".

8/10
mcfly1919@ - first review
24.2.2003 - age: 18-25

One of the most realistic war movies I have seen in my 64 years. Stephen Lang was excellent as Thomas Jonathan "Stondwall" Jackson as was Robert Duvall as Gen. Robert E. Lee.

10/10
blchaplin@ - first review
23.2.2003 - age: 50+

I enjoyed Gods and Generals. I was not bothered by the dialogue, as some critics apparently were. It was a simpler, gentler time and I have no problem believing this is the way that ordinary people talked. The soldiers must have possessed a deep faith-- how else could they do what they did? In our jaded, sophisticated time, how nice to be reminded of this. I agree that some judicious editing would have benefitted this film.

7/10
toomanypets@ - first review
23.2.2003 - age: 36-49

This was in a word one of the most BEAUTIFUL movies I have seen. While it was long, it was worth EVERY INCREDIBLE SECOND! This film portrays not only the struggles of the time, but the passions embodied by the soliders who sacrificed themselves, for what THEY believed. The Civil War was the darkest moment in American history. Where brothers, friends and countrymen were pitted one against the other, in name of a politcal ideal that they embodied. This film certaily does their memory and US History justice.

10/10
chikygrl13@ - first review
23.2.2003 - age: 18-25

I didn't know what to expect but decided to see the movie in spite of locally bad reviews. They were totally wrong. The film was great!!! My husband and I thoroughly enjoyed its depiction of a very troubled time in our country's history and found it fair to both sides, the Union and the Confederacy. We are both American history buffs who are old enough to remember WWII and its patriotic films. I wish that more producers would have Ted Turner's courage and realize that there is an audience that likes something besides "chick flicks" and mindless adventures. Just so you don't think this represents the ravings of seniors, I deliberately talked to other, much younger people in the audience and got their equally favorable reactions. Stephen Lang was wonderful as Stonewall Jackson and deserves an Oscar nomination. I doubt that he'll get it given the times that we live in. Thanks again for a thoroughly enjoyable four hours. Christine Soper.

8/10
csoper87776@ - first review
22.2.2003 - age: 50+

I saw it, and thought it was wonderful, it was long, but worth it. It reflected how the south was and the action was good. I think everyone should go see this one. And I usually do not like these type of movies.

10/10
bscbyscb@ - first review
22.2.2003 - age: 36-49

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Being a Union and Confederate Reenactor, hopefully I can comment by saying that "Gettysburg" was a movie/documentary, and this was flat out a "film". It tackled half the "criticisms" of Gettysburg in that "Gettysburg" had no drama in it at all. Many have said that this movie is a southern apologist movie, but at the same time, most of these movie critics havent read much of real history in general anyway. The movie makes a great deal of the northern point of view through Chamberlain right at the point the movie tries to turn Jackson slightly into a villain, by shooting his own men for desertion. That was common practice on both sides as well as most armies around the world at that point in time. Movies cannot handle historical accuracy to that of the academic historian's quipe, however, only one more comment will I say about this movie. Jackson was Jackson.

8/10
causeof61@ - first review
22.2.2003 - age: 18-25

I am a huge fan of GETTYSBURG... that is a masterpeice of Ron Maxwell oscarworthy because of its cinematography, acting, and film score. Gods and Generals is missing all of these. All the returning actors have gotten fat and lost some of their acting abilities behind in this flick aswell. The film score, one of the most important elements in a movie such as this, is lacking. This movie is full of overacting, cheesy artsy monologues that belong on stage, and a waste of time and money. Maxwell really wasted an opportunity to make a great prequel, very dissapointing. *Stephen Lang plays Pickett in Gettysburg but plays Stonewall Jackson in Gods and Generals... does that bother anyone else? And many of the returning actors in gettysburg have little or no lines at all in G & G.

2/10
cacapoopoonuts@ - first review
22.2.2003 - age: 18-25

Hum... I really liked Gettysburg... but this? It drags. Who was the editor of this 4-hour mess? It has some nice moments (I like the costumes and sets) , but the dialogue? Even I, a religious fellow if there is any, was annoyed by the amount of pious talk and references to G-d. Worth seeing, if you're a die hard fan of the American Civil War. Avoid if not. Wait to rent the 6-hour extended DVD instead. :)

5/10
pulse74@ - 9 reviews
22.2.2003 - age: 26-35

This movie stunk. A slave owner who prays with his slave. GET REAL!!! This is the bombest thing I ever saw. All this film is trying to do is to gain sympathy for the RACIST southern conferderate states.

2/10
floppy18white@ - first review
21.2.2003 - age: 18-25

[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I thought it would never end. I had the feeling of watching a receipe book, a mix of Ring of the Lords with a touch of The Titanic, I. E. Choose an important historical event, make a huge "love or sentimental" story, and strech the sauce as long as possible without forgetting the vilons. No I just can't take anymore of these annoying sentimental depection of our history. Editing was not even good, you could "see" the cut. It took half and hour just to see him die, 10 to listen to him pray alone looking in the sky. Another 10-15 mins for yet another prayer with the cook. I have seen my share of movies and although this is not the worst I've seen, it is sure the longest one. Every second was a pain.

4/10
eagle@ - first review
21.2.2003 - age: 36-49

I wish I could review the entire movie, but I could only manage to sit through the first hour of this marathon -- longer than many others who attended the preview. Dialog is stilted, and delivered with incredibly deep Southern accents. The prolonged farewell scene between Jeff Daniels and the (usually) wonderful Mira Sorvino looked and sounded like it came out of a high school play. Whether the actors were portraying the horrors of war of the love between spouses, none could communicate any identification (or interest) within the audience. This is not an action/drama, it's not a "chick" flick, it's not even a docudrama on the Civil War. It might be a good place to get 3 or 4 hours sleep.

1/10
harveyf@ - 5 reviews
21.2.2003 - age: 36-49

Bring a sleeping bag.

1/10
darrenc@ - 5 reviews
21.2.2003 - age: 26-35

Only five words. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

1/10
cyber_phoenix18@ - 3 reviews
20.2.2003 - age: 13-17

This movie is the best movie in the whole wide world! It depicts the characters truthfully instead of the same old racists anti-christs from the south.

10/10
res0zlp4@ - first review
20.2.2003 - age: 18-25

I found this one of the most boring movies I have seen for many years. The battle scenes just seem to be repeats, and the whole show seemed to be a history lesson, with dates and places very careully recorded. There were too many speeches and the characters all looked alike with their beards. I would not advise anyone to spend their money on this dull show.

1/10
hesson@ - 59 reviews
20.2.2003 - age: 50+

This movie was not entertaining at all. The drama of this movie was dragged on for 3 1/2 hours! I do not believe that anyone knowing any history about the civil war in the States would enjoy this movie. I believe that this movie depicts well the situation of those times and it shows us how men and women thought in those days but this movie was overdone and repeatitive. Besides, the scenes were nothing exceptional, nothing original. Sorry to say kids but this movie gave me a headache since I am one of those who stayed till the end. The ideas of the movie were good but ideas are not good enough. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.

4/10
sergybi@ - 7 reviews
20.2.2003 - age: 36-49

"Gods and Generals" was 3 1/2 hours long but worth every second. Comedies are mostly what I enjoy but this movie kept me going. A lot of action but not bloody. A touch of: happy, fun, fear, sad etc... The acting was fantastic. Way-to-go Ronald F. Maxwell!

10/10
nadler.shore@ - 77 reviews
20.2.2003 - age: 36-49

A wonderful exposition of true motives, fears, beliefs, and convictions of men on both sides who can be looked up to as heroes. I never thought I'd say this, but thank you, Ted Turner.

10/10
matt1616@ - first review
19.2.2003 - age: 26-35

Note: The user reviews posted on this page are personal opinions of our visitors. We are not responsible for their content.