Gods and Generals - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Gods and Generals Reviews

Page 3 of 43
½ August 16, 2013
The music never approached the majesty of that in "Gettysburg'. The battlefield at Fredericksburg was obviously CGI. However, most of the criticism was unfair. The influence of religion in thought and word of Lee and Jackson was indeed that profoundly felt and expressed. Robert Duvall was infinitely better than Martin Sheen! I found the pace reasonable, given the widely varied familiarity of the audience with this history. There were casualties depicted; does one now need prolonged obligatory mutilation and carnage ŕ la 'Private Ryan'? What of the arm amputee in shock asking to retreat? Is not character developement thru' dialog important? Does one want continuous battle like the so many current films, with characters only a superficial filler? These so called 'critics' are self-appointed; note the frequent drastic varience in score with the viewing public!
½ July 15, 2013
improves with battle sequences, but attempts at drama sink the whole film down with bad writing, bad directing (except for the already mentioned battle scenes), and bad acting from actors who should know better
July 6, 2013
very dull movie that breaks a ton of screenwriting rules. opening is not compelling in the least, huge act 2 lull after the midpoint, daniels is pointless and doesn't show up until act 2. characters introduced have 2 scenes and die in ten minutes. dialogue is on the nose and characters frequently go into oration of scripture or Shakespeare. Stephen Lang did a good job as stonewall, duvall was fine as Lee. technically middling. basically an unbearably dull 4 hr movie with a terrible script. the civil war movie I wrote is much better even to someone besides me. this was written by a total novice. no redeeming visuals but some good acting to keep it from my worst ever lists.
½ June 5, 2013
Fantastic. Just a wonderful work. Only one problem: it occasionally felt like Lang was over-acting, though that may have been me.
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.
Page 3 of 43