Gods & Generals (2003)

Disappointing

I think Jeff Shannon wrote the best review here. What more can I say other than this movie was a disappointment in light of the far superior Gettysburg. Gettysburg only covered one portion of one battle while Gods and Generals attempts to tackle the entire first third of the war. I think they should have recast the entire movie. I love Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain, but he was too weary for this "prequel". Tom Berenger, Richard Jordan and Sam Elliot of missed...so why retain the lesser cast. The actors portraying the youthful Major Taylor and Col. Alexander are in their forties now, it seems that Fredericksburg had a "fountain of youth" effect on many of these officers, as they were young, fit and healthy by the time Gettysburg rolled around!!! July 17, 2008

Great historical film

This movie is not only historically accurate, it is inspirational.

I think the bad reviews are largely due to the fact that the Confederate Generals, mainly General Thomas Jackson was portrayed as a good pious man ( which he certainly was ) and not a racism bigot as many of the reviewers would like to have seen.

I highly recommend this movie! July 3, 2008

Gods and Generals

With out a doubt the best depiction of Thomas"Stonewall" Jackson I have ever viewed. Ted Turner has created a masterpiece and captured the real Jackson. Certainly one of the great Civil War films July 2, 2008

"Bad! Too Bad!"

The movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals failed to capture the true horror of the Civil War (in their 8 loooong hours) what Cold Mountain accomplished in just its first ten minutes. I mean, c'mon! As a Civil War buff and stickler for historic accuracy, I was sorely disppointed. The reenactors in the aforementioned looked like they just stepped out of the Holiday Inn, and too many looked overweight. To see a couple of obese Confederate soldiers stepping over the wall at "The Angle" in Gettysburg really made me nauseous. Gods and Generals definitely showcased the overacting of Stephen Lang, who did a good job in Gettysburg. June 26, 2008

Excellent film - with reservations

This "prequel" to Gettysburg is a truly fine film, but I do state this with some viewer-oriented reservations. In terms of historical accuracy, overall cinematography, most of the casting, and battlefield realism, it is indeed a fine film. However, while some of the "reservations" are of a strictly "personal preference" nature, others are not. Considering the history of the Civil War, General Stonewall Jackson definitely deserved deep coverage, especially in view of the impact of his absence at Gettysburg, which may have turned out differently had he been there.

I was relieved that Jeff Daniels repeated his role as Col. Chamberlain, as this is is key character in the overall tale, as were other actors as members of his command retained. But despite the fact that they played their roles very well, Robert Duvall and Stephen Lang should not have appeared as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, respectively. I would have much preferred to see Martin Sheen back in the role of R. E. Lee, and any one of several actors in Jackson's role. Lang portayed a memorable General Pickett in Gettysburg, and it rendered his role as Jackson "uncomfortable," having loved Gettysburg.

Perhaps the film's most obvious drawback was its sheer length. I am not sure what I would have edited out of the story, but more than likely it should have been some of the very lengthy dialogues. The human interest side of the story is very important, of course, but something had to go.

All-in-all, I did enjoy the story greatly, and I will get around to watching it once more, when I have the time set aside. Again, the quality of the film is truly great, and well worth watching and owning.
I cannot award it five stars, but certainly nothing less than four. June 8, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...