Gods and Generals

This movie had potential, but it was wasted on a poor attempt at an Oscar run. The characters were shallow and boring. The acting was terrible and I would even challenge some of the historical context. Stonewall Jackson was an interesting character, but this movie reduced him to a simpleton. Don’t wast 3.5 hours, you would be better off learning to knit.

Awesome movie about the Battle of Gettysburg, but can you please add the Special Features and iTunes Extras and also upgrade to 4K so people can watch them online? Also, can you merge the theatrical and extended versions together in one set? This is really annoying to me when the Special Features appear on the Home Video releases of movies, but not on iTunes because technology is advancing everyday.

This movie is full hour too long. Rather than showing what a brilliant general and tactician Jackson was, the most we see him trotting through the northern camp at Clarksville. We see various battle scenes with him off-camera. No genius, nothing stunning whatsoever. He comes off like some sort of adjutant rather than the explosive success that he really was. The film also makes him out like a saint, rather than an over-the-top religious fanatic who believed he was an avenging angel of God and who, despite his successes, was disliked by his men. He was an eccentric who always rode with one arm in the air in order to "keep his humors in balance". The thing that sinks this film (and the part that should have been reduced by at least ninety percent) is that, at the drop of a hat, nearly every character has to step up and make a meandering, expositional seven-minute speech - essentially lecturing the audience in an overblown and overwrought fashion, over and over again, as if we are a bunch of dullards. It seems like each actor might have thought their role was larger than it was because each of them have a hugely dramatic soliloquy (usually a movie only gets one of these, not eleven). After the first half dozen of these things, I started fast forwarding whenever I saw another one coming. This film is endurable but it fails in its mission. It shows us nothing of what made him Lee's right arm.

Very well done documentary style adaptation of the beginning years of the Civil War, from Stonewall Jackson's view (mainly - some from Robert E Lee). Really enjoyed the movie. Not sure why the critics panned it. They are wrong. Great acting and re-enactments of major battles.

The north and South were both good guys. North fought for unity and African freedom. The South fought for they're homes, land, rights, and families. People need to honor the Confederate soldiers same as the union. Because they are Americans and a lot were veterans from the Mexican-American war. Also most of the Confederate Generals were. People say the Confederates were racist. They weren't racist they were fighting for they're families. Sure they had slaves, but nobody's perfect. And all sin is equal in God's eyes. Remember that!

I have never written a review for any movie, on any site, anywhere. But, after reading what the critics on Rotten Tomatoes had to say I feel the need to speak up. I assume this review may be read by those who have not seen Gods and Generals but are thinking about it. In any case, there are a few things you should know. First, Ron Maxwell takes a subject that is still very controversial and does an honorable job with it. The movie is a romaticized version of what life was really like during the American Civil War. However, this romanticized version is what gives the movie that special aura. But, Maxwell is still able to remind us that the war was fought by real people with real emotions. Second, the movie does a magnificent job with the battle scenes. It is difficult to capture the horrors of war, any war. But, considering how large some of the battles in the American Civil War were Maxwell and his editors do a good job of capturing the battlefield experience. Lastly, something this film is not is "a shameless apologia for the Confederacy." Yes, once upon a time human beings from Africa were owned by a very small population of southern people. And yes, some of those slaves endured abuse at the hands of their owners and overseers. And no, it was not right for anybody to have owned anybody else, ever. However, those that complain that this is some pro-slavery film or that it attempts to depict southern slave owners as noble obviously came into the film with a biased viewpoint to begin with. Gods and Generals is a magnificent historical film and should not be missed by anybody.

Gods and Generals is a very good movie, the soundtrack should also but available on ITunes, idk why it isn't :/. But overall, if u haven't seen this movie, try it out! It's worth a purchase!

Amazing!! Presents the war as it realy was. It is real deep in the political and social causes of the war, and how it affected the families, especialy the southern families as they were being invaded and bascally having thier lives ripped apart. It is a must see for anyone who enjoys the civil war and or that time period!!! i must have watched it 10+ times and it never gets old or boring. And for people who say there is not enough fighting... well first of all there is, and second in that time period war wasnt fought every day, there were battles several weeks or months apart that lasted several days. So in truth it is more of an accurate portrayle of how the war was than any other movie about the war.

PICK UP A RESEARCH BOOK AND NOT A STANDARD HISTORY SCHOOL BOOK!! To those wanting a review. Excellent movie. the book ( like most) is better but unlike most book to movies you can really relate to the characters and feel what they feel. The battle scenes are awesome and not all CG like most movies and most of all its not the run of the mill "the south was 100% evil" civil war movie. thank you all for your time.

This is not a propaganda film, it is a humanist film that ultimately tries to convey the deep similarity between those who participated on either side of the war, and in doing so, demonstrate their irreconciability. You really must get the director's cut because the film itself is built not on war scenes, not even on historical narrative, but more on character development. This isn't true for every character, but Stonewall Jackson is really so well-acted that you can basically treat the movie as a work of literature, abounding with colorful details, contradictory moments that will leave you scratching you head, and more. This is what art is about, it is not about erecting monolithic portraits of people and things, it's about letting things show themselves, and thereby, creating confusion in the viewer - confusion which will surely stimulate productive discussion for years to come. This is what the film achieves: it shows the passion, the fervor, the zeal, and the dogma of the people who fought for each side. And lets not forget, it also shows the LACK of dogma in certain characters. The critics think that by doing this evenly for BOTh the north and south, you are apologizing for the south? I'm shocked at the lack of depth in such a response. It is uneducated, hackneyed, and frankly, shows they didn't properly give the film a chance. Probably they thought it was too long. Don't the critics remember the scene of Longstreet from Gettysburg which shows his clear LACK of belief in the Southern cause? When he's talking with Armistead and Armistead ends up waving him off, calling him "Gloomy old Pete?" The beauty of the film is precisely in moments like this. You discover new sides to all the characters just like you do in great works of literature. Not everything about any character is positive. For this reason, Gettysburg and Gods and Generals HAD to be long. In fact, the longer the better. But clearly some people don't care for true ambition when it comes to making movies.