"Gods and Generals" is a horrible disservice to people trying to understand American history, and to the millions of real people who suffered pain, death, heartache, etc. during our Civil War. I have heard it said that history is written by the victors--- and that's probably true. But who is the victor now? Well, the very VERY rich Ted Turner seems to be one of them. And he seems to have used his power and wealth to re-write history to suit his own self-identity process. He first made the awful "Gettysburg" with its hideous paste-on beards and "high school play" production. Now he has taken his megalomania to new depths with "Gods and Generals"--- a thoroughly misleading and trite piece of revisionist crap.

Briefly--- some rich Southerners (Americans from the formerly slave-holding states, for you folks in other countries) are now claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery. They say it was "states' rights." Well, yes--- but a scholarly and careful study of the times reveals that the specific "right" in dispute from 1790 or so up through 1861 when the war broke out was the right to allow slavery. Check out the scholarly studies of those times, and it is clear that "states' rights" meant "rights to own slaves." The Civil War really was fought on this contention.

Note that fighting on the side of the Union did NOT mean that the white soldiers "liked" the Africans, necessarily. Many DID have what modern folks would call a prejudicial and discriminatory view of the black race. But they DID also believe slavery was wrong, and they fought for the right of the federal government to outlaw and ban slavery, because it was un-Christian and otherwise morally wrong. Note also that Huey Long, part of the 1930s power dynasty in Lousiana (senator, governor, etc.) reported that his family refused to fight for Confederacy during the Civil War. He said his family thought, "Why should we fight and die so some rich man could keep his Negroes?" The war was seen then as a slavery issue.

As much as we may be uncomfortable with who we as a nation were in those days--- isn't it better to tell ourselves the truth about that? And then come to terms with it? Perhaps the over-enthusiastic flag-waving versions of the conflict we all got in grade school was over simplified and even jingoistic. Maybe our mass-culture story about it shows the situation as being more clear, more "good versus evil" than it really was. But the modern attempts to twist history to suit modern agendas (and plays for personal power) that have come from some black civil rights activists and rich and powerful Southern men like Ted Turner are even more off-base. Given their blatant falsification of historical events, they are even more harmful.

Compare this movie with the amazing classic "Glory" (1991-ish). Or Ken Burns masterpiece from PBS, "The Civil War." Those both showed a fuller and truer picture of what was really going on. There were heroic aspects, angelic qualities, good and bad people, brave and cowardly actions, big and small minds, loving and bigoted qualities to everyone. It was a human time, with flawed humans, but overall it was a struggle to make things right--- however imperfectly that might have been achieved. Hey--- we're all still working on it. But Ted Turner and his "b** s***" is disgraceful, and, well... just plain wrong.

If you knew absolutely nothing about the American Civil War you might come away from Gods and Generals believing something like this: A sociopath named Lincoln decides one day in 1861 to raise an army to invade the south because he just feels like doing that. The people of these south, having absolutely nothing to deserve any of this, start their own country to defend themselves and a polite, bearded, General named Lee leads them and this other polite, bearded, General named Jackson is his second in command. Because God is on their side, the kind, virtuous, heroic, men of the southern army prevail in several combat engagements against the godless, sex-crazed, murderous barbarians of the north. Jackson and Lee deftly direct the outnumbered army of Jesus against the unwashed Yankee heathen and wins the war except that he got shot by one of his own men by accident and dies otherwise the south really won.

Yep, that's just what you might believe. If you took history from this film.

Gods and Generals is a confused, heavily pro-Confederate, train wreck. It attempts to span two years of the war though the perspective of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, arguably one of the most brilliant field commanders West Point has ever produced. Like it's antecedent Gettysburg it is of epic length except that Gettysburg actually made sense. This film is all over the place. Focuses on non-pivotal battles and is bloated with nonsensical dialog and close ups of men talking to themselves in archaic,sanctimonious, soliloquies. There are no issues, there are no cassus belli,no internal conflicts, there is only a clumsy even bizarre celebration of the confederacy; depicted as an embattled yet righteous society defending their way of life against their tyrannical northern overlords. There is one mention of Fort Sumter, a passing nod or two to slavery, and the rest is the Lee/Jackson traveling show. Overall a sloppy production which screams lousy direction and lack of focus. I felt the book told the story of Jackson in much more coherent style than this mess.

To it's credit, it does have very graphic and disturbing battle scenes where both sides are, at times, honored and portrayed with equanimity.

However, G&G, like Gettysburg (a MUCH better directed film),had potential to evenly instruct and entertain. That's where the similarities between the two films ends Gods and generals is a ponderous, rambling, confusing, tribute to the CSA. Aside from it's endless length it jumps around way too much, lacks proper character development and historical veracity, which is far too extensive to get into for the purposes of a review. I will say that Stephen Lang was magnificent as Jackson, but I wasn't terribly impressed with Robert Duvall as Lee. It is no wonder it bombed at the box office. It's just not very watchable, at least not in one sitting. It might be of interest to those, like myself, who are interested in civil war films. This one is a grave disappointment.

This a decent movie and a wonderful tribute to a fine, fine man in General "Stonewall" Jackson, but I didn't rate it higher only because it's not a film I would watch many times. The lulls are just too long for a film that goes over 3 1/2 hours. For those who enjoyed the even-longer, but better "Gettysburg" this is must-viewing. I think a third movie would be in order to complete the Civil Story story.

What's very impressive about this movie was (1) not overdone violence; (2) beautiful cinematography; (3) an unusual and refreshing reverence for God, the Bible and Christian thought and (4) a better portrayal by Robert Duvall of Robert E. Lee than Martin Sheen's version in "Gettsyburg." On the point 3, all it was - to those atheists/agnostics who were offended by Jackson's reverence - was showing an accurate portrayal of how people thought and believed back then in the south. That's simply the way it was and the way people viewed everyday life, though Biblical standards and language. So kudos, to the filmmakers here for at least giving us an accurate description of the times, even though they probably don't share those beliefs. Of course, the critics - almost all of them secular - hated the film.

One thing I did miss from "Gettysburg" was a bigger role from Jeff Daniels, who was so good as "Col.Chamberlain." His role here in that capacity is limited.

In summary, an accurate film with ideals and worthy of anyone's collection, particularly if they are Civil War buffs, but a movie that needed more punch to it to be more "watchable."