Gods and Generals (2003)

Gods and Generals, the screen adaptation of Jeff Shaara's heralded best-selling novel and prequel to the acclaimed drama "Gettysburg," is and epic and sweeping portrayal of a nation divided at the start of the Civil War. (Warner Bros.)
Cast and Information
Directed By: Ronald F. Maxwell
Written By: Ronald F. Maxwell, Jeff Shaara
Starring: Robert Duvall, C. Thomas Howell, Jeff Daniels, Stephen Lang, Mira Sorvino, Frankie Faison, Bruce Boxleitner, Buck Taylor, Kevin Conway, Donzaleigh Abernathy, Matt Letscher, Mia Dillon
Genre: War
Franchise: Gettysburg (1993)
Country: USA
Where to Stream
Loading...


Gods and Generals belongs to 19 collections
1. Based on a Book (collaborative: moderated by iconogassed - 21 stars)
2. Over 3 Hours Long (collaborative: moderated by djross - 19 stars)
3. Films available in HD (collaborative: moderated by kubricksucks - 13 stars)
4. Sequel (collaborative: moderated by td888 - 9 stars)
5. Alternate versions / cuts (collaborative: moderated by PeaceAnarchy - 9 stars)
6. Epic (collaborative - 8 stars)
7. Based On Novel (collaborative: moderated by tathiel - 7 stars)
8. Roger Ebert: Your Movie Sucks (collaborative: moderated by Shmendrek - 4 stars)
9. Military (collaborative - 4 stars)
10. 19th century period film (collaborative: moderated by djross - 4 stars)
11. American Civil War (collaborative: moderated by djross - 3 stars)
12. Civil War (collaborative: moderated by Der_Barney - 2 stars)
13. Prequel (collaborative: moderated by djross - 1 star)
14. Rotten Tomatoes - under 10% (collaborative: moderated by Pickpocket)
15. Franchise Killers (collaborative: moderated by Hailey)
16. Intermission (collaborative: moderated by BeeDub)
17. Available on Divicast (collaborative: moderated by Dunstan-xxx)
18. 2003: Year in Review (public: polanski28)
19. Movies Dad Owned (public: Mr.Pupkin)
Browse the full list of collections
Date | User | Rating | |
Aug 15, 2022 | ![]() |
karamazov. | 0 0th |
Incompetent filmmaking, screen stuffed with a bunch of fat reenacting-hobbyists. Lost Cause propaganda.
|
|||
Mar 06, 2022 | ![]() |
caocao | 48 9th |
Tedious in the extreme.
|
|||
Jan 04, 2021 | ![]() |
MargusTa | 30 12th |
A decade before this movie was released, Gettysburg achieved lots of fame and glory. Gods and Generals in meanwhile failed in many aspects. Boring movie.
|
|||
Oct 15, 2020 | vv238 | 15 9th |
|
Maybe this pro-Confederacy movie is offensive on that front, I am not a historical expert. However, I do enjoy film and this movie is offensive in its boringness.
|
|||
Apr 29, 2018 | ![]() |
TheDiceman | 65 73rd |
A much higher quality than Gettysburg.
|
|||
Nov 12, 2017 | ![]() |
EvilMangoes | 7 6th |
F
|
|||
Apr 22, 2017 | ![]() |
Dullshimmer | 45 4th |
I felt that this was a bit of a mess of a movie. It was interesting from a history point of view, as they seem to get a good number of details right (even with a sterilized view of the Confederate army), but felt soulless as a movie. It's basically Stonewall Jackson: The Movie, as he's the primary character you follow around. However, the focus isn't completely on him, which creates a weird narrative flow and poor pacing over four hours. It didn't exactly make for a good viewing experience.
|
|||
Aug 26, 2016 | ![]() |
hellboy76 | 33 9th |
While it's admirably to show the Confederates as something honorable, and Duvall is a step up from Sheen in the portrayal of Lee, that's where the good times end. It is so confusingly written, edited, paced and shot that it loses any semblance of being a good film.
|
|||
Feb 14, 2015 | WulfstanLee | 70 63rd |
|
I can understand why people dislike this movie. I really can. But I just can't feel that way. This movie is the perfect example of what a politically-correct, pro-Confederacy film can look like. Stonewall Jackson might as well have a halo around his head, all the soldiers quote classical orators before they go into battle, slaves are happy to be slaves. And it's not like the North isn't valorized too. Highly entertaining, though four hours does eventually wear.
|
|||
Aug 10, 2012 | charlotte149 | 15 9th |
|
Theater
|
|||
May 05, 2012 | ![]() |
glumpy_99 | 75 46th |
A definite step up from GETTYSBURG, the film is far more cinematic and stages its battle scenes impressively, and also dares to contextualise its action, and delve into the private lives of its main characters. Screenplay is still prone to an over reliance on speechiness, (and is a little long winded and pompous at times) but the actors by and large deliver effectively, with Lang standing out especially in a genuinely touching and moving performance.
|
|||
Oct 24, 2011 | ![]() |
SlantMag | 10 9th |
"As remote and unyielding as an untouched textbook, often so much so that its academic fanaticism causes it to resemble a spectacular parody of daytime television's breathy, on-the-fly awkwardness." - Chuck Rudolph
|
|||
May 31, 2011 | ![]() |
Groucho | 15 7th |
"Succumbs to turgidity. And...intentionally or not... conveys the impression that the film uncritically celebrates the Confederacy"
|
|||
Apr 17, 2011 | ![]() |
Antares | 40 6th |
This really should have been a television mini-series as opposed to a full length motion picture. If you are into the Civil War, then you might like it. At least Robert Duvall makes for a better Robert E. Lee than the pious portrayal by Martin Sheen in Gettysburg.
|
|||
Apr 08, 2011 | ![]() |
yawkcorb | 70 19th |
Much too long and slow for my tastes
|
|||
Jan 24, 2010 | ![]() |
Tavington | 2 37th |
Huge disappointment. Well I cannot complain about the battle too much. I was really annoyed about religion in this film. All was like Jihad during American Civil War. I'd understand if there was some prayers in whole film but not (adleast) one every 5 minutes. Secondly here are Yanks shown as baddies whereas that's not the case in Gettysburg with the Confederates. Duvall is far better than Sheen as General Lee. Still decent film with all Gettysburg's faults.
|
|||
Jul 28, 2009 | ![]() |
Anselmi86 | 46 20th |
Long...so goddamn long. The battle scenes look pretty though.
|
|||
Mar 17, 2008 | coltmcn | 5 0th |
|
No one could even pay me $20 to watch this again
|
|||
Feb 28, 2008 | ![]() |
torontodog | 40 14th |
Why did they try so hard to make this as uninteresting as possible?
|
|||
Nov 04, 2007 | ![]() |
Big Lemons | 40 1st |
Not even half the film that Gettysburg was.
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | lifeandall | 35 7th |
|
Great book, boring movie
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | Noisy | 90 75th |
|
Great flick
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | ![]() |
jimmynmu | 38 24th |
Some amazing moments, but everything is ruined by the godawful pace and length. This could have been good if they cut a few hours.
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | ![]() |
mucow | 25 4th |
I've never wanted 3 hours of my life back so badly.
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | spoonerspot | 89 96th |
|
Very good adaptation Not as good as gettysburg but damn close
|
|||
Aug 14, 2007 | ![]() |
fudgieb | 60 19th |
Perhaps the 19th century was a boring, slow-moving era. That doesn't mean a movie about the Civil War has to be. Don't waste your time with this tripe.
|
|||
Apr 07, 2007 | ![]() |
Stain | 80 68th |
Much better than _Gettysburg_. Dishonest portrayal of Stonewall Jackson, but very possibly the only Civil War movie EVER that's almost entirely from the Confederate point of view. A unique, rewarding film despite the flaws
|
|||
Nov 28, 2006 | slackerish | 10 6th |
|
No movie should ever be this long and slow. I didn't feel any emotions for any of the characters, and they even manage to take a potentially beautiful set and make it bland and dull. Watch Ken Burns Civil War stuff instead.
|
Average Percentile 30.93% from 305 Ratings | ![]() |