Gettysburg

Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie despite the beards
Review: I really enjoy this movie. The depiction of how the battle evolved, and how Lee's overconfidence doomed his invasion was quite an accomplishment. Pickett's charge was especially moving. I thought Berenger did a great job of playing the role of General Longstreet and many of the other parts were performed admirably.

One gripe I have is the beards. Some of them were so phoney looking I couldn't help myself from laughing. If they were to do it over again, they would need either a new make-up artist or make the actors grow a beard for the movie.

Another thing I really like about the movie is the score. Truly moving music to accompany a military drama that shaped the course of events in our country.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent detail and authenticity - maybe too long
Review: "Gettysburg" is an almost direct adaptation of "Killer Angels" which works because "Killer Angels" was an excellent book. The general public will find the length and detail a bit too much, but anyone interested in the Civil War will find this an excellent recreation of the turning point in the war.
I teach high school US History, but I can only use parts of the movie for my classes because the kids start to glaze over by the third hour, but since the movie is filmed on location and so detailed I just use selected scenes to help explain the war and how it was fought. Keeping track of who's who can be difficult for people unfamiliar with the Civil War - the book had descriptions of the main characters at the beginning so readers could keep track of the main characters, but obviously the movie could not really do this.

Rating:
Summary: Best Example of History on Film!
Review: I have seen this movie over 100 times, and I'm still moved by it. Though the movie has some historical inaccuracies, no film out there comes as close to portraying true history as this one, especially about the Civil War. For the most part, the acting was superb, especially by Jeff Daniels. The portion of the film when Armistead speaks about his past friendship with Hancock is the most finely acted scene of any movie I have ever seen. No prequal or sequal can add to this movie, especially if they're produced and acted as poorly as Gods and Generals.

Rating:
Summary: Must See If You've Read "Killer Angels"
Review: I read Shaara's novel "Killer Angels" and viewed the dvd after completing the book. The movie faithfully transfers Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning book to the screen. The acting is suberb, especially the performance of Jeff Daniels as Lawrence Chamberlain. Martin Sheen gives a riviting perforance as Robert E. Lee, although Sheen's height in the saddle works against him at times (it is said Robert E. Lee had a long torso which gave him the appearance of being much taller on horseback, Sheen is often the shortest person in certain scenes). The epic battle scenes are often just a backdrop to the drama created between the characters in this film. Even if you are not a "war" movie buff per se, this is a must see movie for any American. Yes it is long, but this allows it to be true to Shaara's vision. Yes there are some scenes that are overly mellow dramatic, yes the use of the terms "good ground" or "high ground" become annoying at times and yes several of the beards look like the glue is coming loose (I had to slip those in), but the above instances do not detract from the power of this film.
One of the few movies that made me cry (I'm not afraid to admit it) in quite awhile.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie on the intricacies of war
Review: Gettysburg is an excellent movie revolving around the Civil War battle of Gettysburg. I felt this movie was unique in the fact it showed the strategy and the logistics of the battle rather than showing the blood, horror, and dismemberment that I would expect from a movie based on the bloodiest battle of the civil war. The movie starts on June 30, 1863, the day before the battle at Gettysburg begins. The movie mainly revolves around the involvement of two groups, the 20th Maine Regiment (commanded by Col. Chamberlain played by Jeff Daniels) and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia (commanded by Gen. Lee played by Martin Sheen).

The movie does show its share of blood; however, I thought the movie did a brilliant job depicting the logistics of the battle and what happened behind the scenes of the battle. The movie showed the people behind the war, not just the war itself. For instance, the movie portrayed some of the reasons Gen. Lee led the Confederate Army to battle at this particular place and the reservations some of the Generals under Gen. Lee had with fighting the North at Gettysburg. It also showed Col. Chamberlain dealing with problems unrelated to the battle, such as taking in over 100 Northern soldiers who refused to fight after their unit was disbanded. I do not know enough about the history of the Battle of Gettysburg to say whether the contents of this movie is factual or not.

At over 4 hours, this movie is slightly on the slow side. If your idea of a great war movie is Hamburger Hill or Rambo, this movie is definitely not for you. If you are interested in the people behind war and the decisions they make, this movie is definitely worth watching.


Rating:
Summary: Unconvincing and unnecessarily long.
Review: After a hard session of exams, I wanted to grab a film that would pull my thoughts away from the long hours of study. I came across this one and thought "great, a history film !" So, there I was embarked for over four hours of interesting war stories, or so I hoped. At the end, I ask myself how I could hold on and see it in one straight session. In fact, I concur with several reviewers who qualify it as an unconvincing film.

The actors (and some of them are good, confirmed actors) are extremely "theatrical" at times, extremely "soulless" at others. They spend too much time talking in an unconvincing way about philosophical issues or collateral matters that don't bring anything constructive into the story or the film. The result is that the film never really "takes off". I don't know if this is a problem with the script, the direction, or if the ambitious project of recreating a historical battle just overwhelmed almost everybody in this project. The fact remains that, in my humble opinion, the only one that really keeps his head above water is Tom Berenger. Also, some actors just pop into the film out of the blue for no apparent reason (for instance that general from the confederates who visits Lee before the great battle to be severely criticized by his commander in chief for not following orders, and we never hear from him again), others, such as Sam Elliot, just disappear after starring in the first part of the film and we don't really know why and what happened to him either. Also very "light" is the role of that officer from her gracious majesty. I can understand the director is trying to show that the British were interested in seeing how the war would go and maybe helping the confederates, but I would have liked to see this treated in a more serious way instead of spending film showing an idiotic tourist in the middle of what remains a major event in American history. I was equally very disappointed by the actor playing Jeff Daniel's brother in this film. He was great in "soul man" (comedy of the mid eighties), but this was not a film for him. He gave me the impression from one end of the film to the other to try to find how to fit in. As for the battles, most of the shots cannot hide the lack of talent of the participating soldiers (reason : they are not actors but just ordinary citizen that re-enact the battle every year). The special effects are far below minimum (we miss Sam Peckinpah here) and quite repetitive, and most of the fake beards really look fake... adding to the lack of credibility of the overall final result.

Other major flaws are for instance the role of one of the Union's generals wife in this story. One of the Confederate generals gives Tom Berenger an item asking him to give it to that lady if he dies. We don't know why he does it, what relationship they had, and as a matter of fact we do not know until the very end of the film that it was a sample of the bible. So ? We also have the impression that Lee was an undecided leader (he first says he is going to reprimand a general of his for disobeying, then he congratulates him; he calls another to reprimand him and make him feel totally miserable but then refuses the resignation, and so on), wanting to emulate Napoleon, erroneously stubborn (none of the generals thought for a second they would succeed in their final assault), which is totally opposite to what I had read up to now in history books. Which is the good version ?

The best part of the film is the extra comments, which are also long, but very instructive. I enjoyed much more that part than the film itself. However, if you want a really good war related film, I would suggest you look for something else (Spartacus, The Battle of England, the Bridge on the river Kwai, Paths of glory, the great escape, Saving Private Ryan, Sand Pebbles, Das Boot...). The list is really too long. That too puts "Gettysburg" at its place, down the ladder, regardless of the passion it may create because of the importance of the event for America and Americans.


Rating:
Summary: Powerful Movie
Review: This is one movie that I keep coming back to again and again. Yes, I'm a history buff, and the Civil War is fasinating to me. But, that is not the reason that this movie is so powerful. What is powerful about it are the powerful examples of leadership. A couple of examples stand out. At the end of side one, the "Battle of Little Round Top" is highlighted. At the end of the approximately 30 minute excerpt, the leader, Colonel Chamberlain is confronted with a problem. His men have run out of ammunition. However, if he retreats, since he is on the flank, the Confederates will "go over the hill, hit our units from the rear and our whole flank will cave in..." What does he do? Then, someone exclaims: "Here they come again!" So, he says "We'll fix bayonets". His subordinate says: "What do you mean - charge?" And, Chamberlain takes charge, telling his men that they can do it because "the Rebs must be tired... and we have the benefit of going down hill...". Well, they charged and won... Another scene also highlights leadership with a different result. On the second side, one of the focus is on General Armistead. When it is clear that Picket's charge has failed, he places his hat on his sword, and tells his men, "follow me". To one soldier, who is rightfully scared, he says "what will think about yourself in the morning". All this is done, knowing he will fail and with the premonition that he expresses in the previous day that he will die. Examples of personal leadership, examples of personal courage. These are real stories and stirring every time that I see them. And, this movie does the best job of communicating these personal stories. This is truly my favorite movie, and I highly recommend it on many levels.