As a critic, I can�t recommend Gods and Generals to anyone but serious fans of history. As a history buff - especially the U.S. Civil War - I got plenty out of it. But as a critic, I found numerous flaws.

Word of warning: The movie is three hours, thirty-seven minutes long, including a twelve-minute intermission. There's supposed to be a six-hour version for the DVD, but I think it could have been cut to a more normal, two-and-a-half-hour length easily.

I hate to compare Gods and Generals to Gettysburg, but as part of the Shaara Civil War trilogy I find it inevitable.

Father Michael Shaara wrote "Killer Angels," which chronicles the battle of Gettysburg and was the basis of the movie, while son Jeff wrote "Gods and Generals" about the pre-war machinations of key leaders and the first three years of the war, then wrote "The Last Full Measure" about post-Gettysburg through the end.

Gettysburg set the bar high for epic Civil War movies, and was far superior in acting, editing, action and music (G&G could have used the same score and I wouldn't have minded). Still, I really hope that Ted Turner gets enough money out of this that he puts an effort into making The Last Full Measure and wrapping up the trilogy.

Still, with the same filmmakers returning, and Ron Maxwell back at director, I�m surprised they couldn�t come close to the success of Gettysburg.

I�m always the guy who hasn�t read the book, so it�s important that this movie stand alone, and for the most part it does. But as a fan of the book, I have concerns.

The film skips an entire year from late 1861 to December, 1862, meaning nothing shown of Second Manassas (when Lee kicked Pope's tail) and Antietam (stalemate, but one of most important battles of war).

Come to think of it, the movie can only be termed as loosely based on the book at all, using people never mentioned in the written word, yet on the flip side adding a few scenes that I wished were in the book. This includes Chamberlain learning the ropes as a teacher-turned-officer, and the battle of First Manassas (or Bull Run, for you Yanks).

Historically, the movie is overwhelmingly accurate, and I�m glad the filmmaker risked being called a Southern sympathizer for showing that the Confederates whipped the Union up and down Virginia from 1861-63.

Critically I have to note that much of the dialogue is forced, and then it gets repetitive. The script seems to call for a Shakespearean tragedy, but loses me in overly flowery language. There's only so many times I can hear the same people discuss the war as Southern independence.

Gods and Generals needs less talk and more action, or at least more talk about strategy and action, and less of the emoting. Really, for me this is a continuing problem from the book in that the one-on-one talk is often mushy and tedious.

The special effects were also below par. I would've preferred better overhead graphics of the cities, less long-distance shots of the blue coats charging the stone wall below Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg, and more looking over the shoulder of the Confederates.

Even worse, I felt that the acting was too structured, like they were playing parts, not people. I felt left out of some of the dramatics, of the passion on screen.

The movie ends up coming across as the quality of one of Turner's pet project made-for-TV Civil War movies, not a major motion picture. While I enjoy the small screen flicks, and thank Turner for making them, the quality of Gods and Generals deserves better.

One positive is that this movie is Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's all the way. Stephen Lang takes the reins admirably in this lead (he was Gen. George Pickett in Gettysburg), playing the most legendary figure of the first half of War, by far. As Jackson goes, so does the Confederacy. Lang was most brilliant in his horsing around with adorable five-year-old Jane, which was true to life, as he spent the winter of 1862 with her family outside Chancellorsville.

Something that may bother a few, the viewer must know going in that the title is GODS and Generals. Faith is conveyed throughout, with the leads praying on screen and talking consistently of Divine Providence. I didn't have a problem with the religious aspect, since one of the main themes of the book is to show the devotion of those in battle, on both sides, and how it framed their actions and their reactions.

In fact, I would�ve gone a little further. Filmmakers should have shown Jackson sucking on lemons constantly on screen as he did in real life. It was a means of religious fervor, with the sour taste a kind of personal punishment for what he feared is a vengeful Lord, and unfortunately there�s only a mention in passing in the movie.

There were two black young men sitting to my left who snickered every time a black person was on screen. Can't say that I entirely disagreed with them, since at first it seemed to be a little patronizing. Only later (and after the two guys left during intermission) did the slaves start talking of being free and hating being regarded as property.

It's weird, but there is this dichotomy between Southerners and slaves when it came to the practice and religion. For instance, Jackson went against his friends and those in the town by setting up a Sunday School class for his slaves. Lee had slaves, but didn't believe whites were better, just that if they were free he didn't think they'd have anywhere to go, and he couldn't pay all of them. Twisted arguments, but they rationalized it somehow.

In fact, I wonder if the filmmakers showed the Confederates executing deserters in an effort to pain the Rebs as the evil side of the war, even though the Feds did the same.

In other casting, it�s too bad Tom Berenger is out as CSA Gen. Longstreet, replaced by Bruce Boxleitner. Reading the book, I pictured Berenger from Gettysburg, and still do while reading "The Last Full Measure."

Ted Turner has his cameo, speaking a full sentence this time! The crowd giggled approvingly, although I don�t know what he said. In case you didn�t know, Turner is killed at Pickett�s Charge in Gettysburg.

Robert Duvall�s Gen. Robert E. Lee should have been in the movie much more � his frail wife Mary isn�t in it at all - but the filmmakers clearly made this Stonewall Jackson's movie. Lee was much more involved in the book, but in Gods and Generals he serves mainly to grandly deliver his famous lines, such as, "It is well that war is terrible; lest we should become too fond of it." My gripe is that I�d like to see Lee actually lead the army and show us his strategy and thoughts.

What upset me the most was that they cut out U.S. Gen. Winfield Hancock almost entirely, even though in the book he's one of the main four soldiers and his story is second only to Jackson in passion and information, especially his pre-war experiences in California.

Jeff Daniels is back as U.S. Lt. Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, hero of Little Round Top at Gettysburg, but a military novice in Gods and Generals. C. Thomas Howell also returns as Chamberlain�s younger brother Tom, and they continue to make a good pair in their regiment.

Daniels also gets to provide that Shakespearian quality with a soliloquy about futile battles. Any time a Union leader is going into battle and feels the need to reassure his troops by reciting, "Hail, Caesar! We who are about to die, salute you!" Well, you�ve got morale problems by leading your troops to a certain slaughter.

I'm especially glad they kept the scene with Chamberlain on the field of Fredericksburg over two nights, with the Union troops stuck behind a small hill and crouching behind corpses for protection. Chamberlain also comes through with the key pro-Union, anti-CSA and anti-dissolving, anti-slavery message to keep the anti-Southerners at bay among critics and the audience.

Maybe that�s a good thing to remind us. I'll say it again - I'm glad the Union won and the South was humiliated into realizing their mistakes, but it does my heart good to see the Rebs kick a**, outnumbered 2-to-1 in most every major battle.

So to sum up, history = good, film quality = poor. But as I peruse more and more reviews of "serious" critics, (read: overwhelmingly liberal) I'm almost pushed into throwing the criticisms overboard and embracing the movie.

I expected vitriol about the Southern leanings, but not this much. Roger Ebert's review is especially ignorant, as he clearly came in with an opinion and stuck to it, no matter what was on screen. Many of his complaints are outright lies, and it�s as if he didn�t listen to a word they were saying. I�m almost convinced he left at intermission.

He's definitely a Dang Yankee. He just needs a little cornbread and country ham, and we'll start him on the path to an easier, Dixie way of life.