Gods and Generals - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Gods and Generals Reviews

Page 3 of 43
May 9, 2013
Watched it in History class thought it was ok.
½ April 23, 2013
Brilliantly depicted battle scenes!
April 21, 2013
Virtually impossible to endure, and I am a fan of the great Duvall.
½ April 6, 2013
Trading the intimacy of 'Gettysburg' for a bigger scale and scope, Maxwell's Civil War epic looks and sounds great, with good performances from its dependable cast, especially Lang as the devoted yet eccentric 'Stonewall', great production values & costumes, and a both grandiose yet moving score from Edelman. However, the upgrade visually comes at a downgrade in storytelling, with melodramatic and sometimes preachy dialogue, a lack of time balance between the three 'main characters' and their stories, with Chamberlain and Lee getting very shafted, and a definite Pro-South bias that it's more powerful successor didn't have.
March 20, 2013
best movie i want to finish it
February 11, 2013
It's not bad for a movie to be lengthy, but this nearly 4 hrs. long Civil War epic is guilty of many cinematic crimes besides, the most egregious of which is that it is mercilessly boring. Maybe for some Civil War buffs it would be of more value, but I bet that for even them, it would only be so for the battle reenactments. Often, stiff and emotionless acting is referred to as "wooden", and that term could be applied to this film as a whole. The American Civil War is rendered into this epic conflict that was fought for no reason at all really. Slavery is mentioned a few times and declared to be bad, but it's not shown as being very much related to the war at all. In fact, there is no clear explanation for the war. The South secedes because it's damn well their right to, and the North invades their own country because their tyrannical or misguided or whatever, even though the South only believes they're the same country as the North when the script deems it convenient.
The filmmakers are obviously Civil War obsessed, but the only benefit to that is the play-by-play battle recreations, but that doesn't count for much if they're filmed so clinically and sanitized that they become mere textbook portrayals. The generals and officers are so very idolized here that they bare no interest at all as they mechanically spout such reverential and sober monologues of tremendous self-importance, not unlike the overall approach to the material by the filmmakers.
½ February 10, 2013
Never mind the critics: a gripping portrayal of the American South's generals.
January 25, 2013
A woefully misunderstood film. We are given a depiction of the major battles and players of the first two years of the war. In regards to historical accuracy, this is about as good as it gets. Sure, it's long and probably would've worked better as a miniseries. Of the performances, Duvall, Daniels, and Lang shine. Lang's "Stonewall" Jackson is actually the highlight of the film. As a history teacher, I consider this to be essential viewing.
January 22, 2013
Civil War epics rule. You will wish the South won!!! I <3 this movie. Stonewall Jackson was such a hero.
January 13, 2013
Made me even prouder to be a Southern Boy. The sheer eloquence of the period language is simply beautiful. When did our language turn to garbage ?
½ December 20, 2012
This was a huge letdown. I really loved Gettysburg and the book, but walked out of this movie it was so boring.
December 16, 2012
Another 4+ hours of detail. Intricate, boring detail.
December 1, 2012
Powerful moving movie, Stephen Lang portrayal of Gen. Stonewall Jackson is Oscar worthy
November 9, 2012
I am not one for old type movies. But this one was done VERY well. Making it a good movie for old and young!
October 20, 2012
Way too long and boring
½ October 10, 2012
Doesn't follow the book terribly well, character development is flat. But it is historically accurate... they should have just released the director's cut on History Channel as a mini-series.
September 30, 2012
Awful movie, a big let down after seeing gettysburg which was excellent
September 22, 2012
Not as good as Gettysburg but it has it's moments.
½ September 21, 2012
If you love CW history, this is great! Duvall shines as Rob't E Lee.
September 12, 2012
My original rating was 30%. But, it has changed since I saw the Director's Cut.

Theatrical Edition:

Terribly written. Terribly acted. It in no way compares to the might of it's predecessor (or successor; depending on if you go historical or order of being made) Gettysburg. Only the powerfully done Battle of Fredericksburg and Bonnie Blue Flag scenes saved the film from the abyss it dragged itself into.

Director's Cut:

The DC was a HUGE improvement over the Theatrical. Many of the scenes made more sense, and the John Wilkes Booth subplot was superb. The movie as a whole was generally better. I really enjoyed it. I really gained a better apprectation of the effort put into the film.

There are some gripes though of mine. The additional 10 minutes of the Battle of Fredericksburg took away from what made it epic, Antietam was ok but not great, much of the plot points in Gettysburg that were also major in the books (like Hancock and Armistead's freindship) never got touched, and we still didn't get most of the deleted scenes included in the G&G soundtrack bonus disc.
Page 3 of 43