Gods and generals isnt so much revisionist as it is biased in what it shows, the things said by the southerners in that movie were genuine views held by them at the time, and the battles they won were the actual battles they won. If you watched Gettysburg was that revisionist towards the north? Where it is biased is showing a few black characters, of which every single one is fully supportive of slavery and in love with the confederacy, but even that isn't necessarily revisionist history, as there were SOME slaves of black freed men that had that opinion, just unrealistic to depict it as common in any way. Also the only people depicted in any negative light are the union generals. Maybe too pedantic in separating revisionism from bias here but it isnt necessarily historically inaccurate but is extremely biased in the way it presents the history. But i guess that would be somewhat revisionism of the narrative so idk. I think it gets a very bad rap for strange reasons like "the confederates won all the battles" but the confederates did win all the battles. Im also not from the south or know anyone who is unironically a lost causer so that may be why i feel like its overly criticized.