Gettysburg

Rating:
Summary: Good History, Good Film
Review: Movies based on history fall into one of two categories. They're either wonderful stories that are flawed on facts (Braveheart, JFK, for example), or they're faithful to the facts but lack drama (The Battle of Britain, produced by Harry Saltzman in the late '60s). This film, written and directed by Ronald F. Maxwell, manages to be fairly accurate storytelling and compelling drama at the same time. That Maxwell's movie embodies these two qualities in an almost four-hour picture is no small feat either.

The movie recreates the pivotal battle of the Civil War, when General Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia sought to destroy the Union forces under General George Meade at Gettysburg, a small town in Pennsylvania. Maxwell's towering achievement in this movie, besides the many well-staged battle scenes, is to highlight the personal, emotional anguish of the soldiers on both sides, some of whom had been quite close before the war began. Witness the scene in the tent of General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger) as General Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan, in one of his last screen roles) speaks emotionally about his friend, General Hancock, who he knows is just over the ridge where they will attack the next day. Tears well up in Jordan's eyes as he recalls the deep affection that he developed for Hancock and his wife many years before.

Gettysburg is not a great movie, but it is a very good one, and well worth viewing for any American who is interested in the war that tore this nation asunder and, in some ways, made it more unified afterwards.

Rating:
Summary: Learn more about the Civil War than you ever knew.
Review: Wonderful depiction of the events leading to a pivotal battle of the Civil War, the battle of Gettysburg, with a focus on 3 key individuals: Confederate General Robert E. Lee (played brilliantly by Martin Sheen), Lee's second, Lt. General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger), and Union Col Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels).

Truly classic storytelling beautifully presented. Each key event is intelligently and gently depicted leaving little of the battles, the personalities, and the actions to be misunderstood. I felt much closer to the unfortunate events that were our Civil War than I ever imagined. I don't consider myself ignorant as a rule, but to tell the truth I never envisioned that the battles were basically fought hand-to-hand, face-to-face, long lines of fighting men falling, almost randomly, on both sides.

This movie, along with John Frankenheimer's "Andersonville" jump-started a serious interest for me in these historical docudramas, and the Civil War in particular. Thank you Mr. Frankenheimer, and Mr. Ronald Maxwell (director of "Gettysburg").

Rating:
Summary: General Lee Portrayed
Review: I have read all 338 reviews and it is amazing to me how many people did not like Sheen as General Lee in Gettysburg and raved over Duvall in Gods and Generals. I take the opposite view that Duvall was at best a mediocre Lee hardly showing any emotion at all. I felt virtually nothing for the man in his performance as Lee. He also is not on the screen very much. We really never get to know him or like him. On the other hand, Sheen as Lee is someone who truly has emotions, he cares about his troops, we see him in a human light and we like him. We see more of him in Gettysburg and we get to know him. How can one forget the emotions of "Reviewing the Troops". Gettysburg is by far the better movie of the two (proven at the box office) and Sheen's stellar performance leads the way.

Rating:
Summary: Gettysburg
Review: This is my favorit movie. I am 15. All I can realy say is
This is the BEST movie ever

Rating:
Summary: "Gettysburg" holds true to Shaara's book
Review: "Gettysburg" is perhaps the best attempt by any film to capture a single battle from beginning to end. It is not a movie for everyone since there is no artificially-embedded love story (as in. "Pearl Harbor"), and in fact, there are no women in this movie at all. It sets out to depict the largest battle ever fought on the American continent. Its success is the product of the deliberate choice of the director to respect the source material, namely one of the finest historical war novels ever written, "The Killer Angels", by Michael Shaara.

Gettysburg is a battle of superlatives. It was the largest and bloodiest encounter battle of the Civil War, adding up the three days between July 1 and July 3, 1863, and it tore the heart out of the Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.. It is also the most controversial battle, generating more than its share of debates over decisions and tactics. Was Lee off his game at Gettysburg, as Shaara suggests? Or, as other historians argue, was the battle lost by "Old Pete" Longstreet's case of the "slows" on July 2 (the attack on Devil's Den and Little Round Top) and July 3 (Pickett's Charge)? Longstreet's postwar memoirs lay the blame for Pickett's Charge squarely at Lee's feet, but since Longstreet joined the Republican party after the war, many Southerners are quick to blame him for Lee's defeat.

Shaara's book, and therefore the film, makes choices in this debate. Shaara sides with Longstreet (aptly played by Tom Beringer), who is depicted as a thoughtful, reluctant warrior who vocally opposes the sanguinary frontal assaults launched by Lee on July 2nd and July 3rd . (For a different perspective, I highly recommend Noah Trudeau's latest book, "Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage.")

It is a delight to see the musty daguerreotypes of Civil War leaders come to life as living, breathing characters. For the Confederates, Tom Berringer's Longstreet is tops, followed by Confederate generals "Lo" Armistead (Richard Jordan) and Stephen Lang 's amazing George Pickett, a stunning contrast to Lang's later alabaster imitation of Christ as Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." These are interesting, complex people, and "Gettysburg" even manages a sense of humor. The debate on Darwin between Pickett and Armistead is funny, concluding with Pickett defying any Southern gentleman to openly claim that "Robert E. Lee is descended from an ape." On the Union side, there is Jeff Daniels as the bookish hero Joshua Chamberlain, Sam Elliott as the hard-bitten cavalry general Buford, and Brian Mallon's pugnacious General Winfield Scott Hancock.

Some die-hard grognards have complained that "Gettysburg" glosses over details of the battle. But Shaara, and the film, were right to concentrate on the highlights: the initial skirmish and ultimate Union rout on July 1, the confused battle for Devil's Den, the Peach Orchard, and the against-all-odds defense of Little Round Top on July 2 by Joshua Chamberlain's (Jeff Daniels) 20th Maine; and, of course, Pickett's Charge. Massive volumes have been written about just one day of the three day battle, and any film which tried to cover it all would be a ponderous bore.

The few speeches in the movie are necessary, I suppose, to explain the larger motives for the war. Jeff Daniels' Chamberlain has to give the obligatory Abolitionist speech, and Armistead trys to explain the Southern "Cause" to the English camp follower Freemantle just before Pickett's Charge. The few speeches in 'Gettysburg" hint at the malignancy that emerges full flower in "Gods and Generals" (written by a different Shaara) in which the camera's pause on any character become the excuse for a five to ten minutes of pious blather.

The flaws of the film are few. One major flaw is Martin Sheen's portrayal of Robert E. Lee as an unblinking somnambulist, whose approach to strategy is by mumbling "it is God's will" as officers rush up with dispatches. Robert Duvall's more animated Lee is the only (and I mean only improvement) that "Gods and Generals" has on "Gettysburg." Sheen's wide-eyed robot Lee is hard to square with the historical brilliance of Lee at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, and contemporary accounts of Lee as a witty conversationalist, a battlefield gambler, and with an eye for the ladies.

Ted Turner's use of thousands of amateur reenactors to stage the battle is both a blessing and a curse, but mostly a blessing. Let's face it - the authentically-decked out and equipped amateur soldiers look far more like the real thing than the standard Spanish rent-an-army employed in similar epics such as "Waterloo." However, I suspect that the troops in the movie, particularly on the Southern side, are cleaner, neater, better fed and older (lots of retired folks are reenactors) than the actual participants in the battles. (A common observation of the time was that you could smell Lee's troops approaching before you would see them). The other problem with reenactors is they object to having their limbs and heads blown off, or torsos reduced to bloody pulp by cannon balls. This is not "Private Ryan" or "Band of Brothers" - these soldiers, even when blasted by cannon, die clean deaths, and do not convey the historical eyewitness accounts of the horror, not to mention thousands of corpses set out in the hot July sun. But these are very minor quibbles. This is as good a re-enactment using real people as you can expect.

I recommend "Gettysburg" for historical movie fans, and do not forget the wonderful Ken Burns' documentary, "The Civil War."

Rating:
Summary: Producers and cast should be proud of this film.
Review: They have fashioned a very moving (and at the same time informative) epic, of a terrible battle where the fate of this nation hinged for 3 days. Some Civil War hobbyists may say there are numerous historical inaccuracies in this flick. Maybe; but for me, I didn't know the story or layout of this battle beforehand. This film presented and focused on the major attacks of these 3 days, and the decisions and strategies rendered by the major players. It stirred my interests to learn more about this battle and the principals involved. It was eye opening. The only thing that could be improved on in this film is showing the gore of battle. Although the battle scenes are good -- the horrendous carnage is sanitized. The great and bloody slaughter of this conflagration should in no way be diminished for modern day audiences. It's a film that can be watched over and over again, and the DVD has plenty of extras. An extremely good flick whether you are a Civil War nut or not.

Rating:
Summary: Highly loveable, despite its faults.
Review: "Gettysburg" has its faults: the phony beards that look like the kind you can buy at a drugstore for Halloween, the large number of overweight and overaged extras, the questionable casting (Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee? Brian Mallon as Winfield S. Hancock?), the nearly bloodless battle scenes, the poorly choreographed hand-to-hand combat scenes, cannons firing with no recoil, extras staring into the camera or smiling at inappropriate times, and so on and so on. Most of these quibbles, however, can be explained away by the movie's TV production budget and its almost exclusive reliance on the services of Civil War reenactors as extras without whom "Gettysburg" could have never been made. Also, due to the "Gettysburg's" faithfulness to Michael Shaara's novel, "The Killer Angels;" several scenes of "dialogue" come across as very stilted and artificial- Sam Elliot's Buford talking about the high ground or Tom Berenger's Longstreet discussing his thoughts about the upcoming Pickett's Charge. In the book those scenes were thoughts not conversation; but too many longwinded voiceovers would have been overkill, so the movie has the actors giving monologues to a nodding supporting actor.

Despite its faults, I love, love, LOVE this movie. I saw it four times in the theater and uncountable number of times on video. It's a Civil War buff's dream film. I think Jeff Daniels and Tom Berenger are superb and I really love Stephen Lang's Pickett. The Battle for Little Round Top and Pickett's Charge are spectacular. The musical score was one of the best of the 90's. Even the opening credits are alot of fun to watch. Also "Gettysburg" contains numerous little details that only buffs will recognize: A.P. Hill, Myles Keogh, Alonzo Cushing, G.K. Warren, Augustus Ellis Van Horne, 2nd U.S. Sharpshooters, the Texas Brigade, the Iron Brigade in their distinctive black hats, the Irish Brigade receiving absolution from Fr. Corby, Stannard's Vermonters, the Irish 69th PA at the Angle, the reenacting of a Homer Winslow painting, one armed Oliver Howard, Alexander Webb played by Brian Pohonka, the Union divisional emblems, and numerous others. Director Ronald Maxwell went out his way to accomodate these little details, and they add alot of enjoyment to the movie.

In its review one Civil War magazine described "Gettysburg" as a "great shaggy dog of a thing"- it's a little sloppy at times; but still highly loveable. Should a movie about Gettysburg be loveable? Does "Gettysburg's" battle scenes, with their stirring music and minimal bloodshed, do justice to the carnage of July 1-3, 1863? Definetly not. Maybe someday a filmmaker with access to a HUGE budget and all the latest CGI and special effects technology will do for Pickett's Charge what Speilberg did for Omaha Beach; but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. Until then I will enjoy "Gettysburg" for what it is- a terrific attempt to bring to life one of the classic war novels and a film that belies its television production orgins.

Rating:
Summary: Layer Upon Layer, Improves With Age
Review: Having viewed this film several times, and compelled to see it in 70mm on the Big Screen a dozen more, I suppose you could say I am entirely enthusiastic about it. And you would be correct. There are few films that parallel in quality the book upon which they are based..."Gettysburg" does the Pulitzer Prize-Winning "The Killer Angels" justice...and then some. On first viewing, one cannot help but be amazed by the scope of the drama, supported as it is by thousands of Civil War re-enactors without whom such a feat would not be possible.

This film brings all that is important about the great struggle to define our nation, through the bloodiest conflict in American history, and on our on soil, into a sharper focus. It covers major issues and personalities, as does Michael Shaara's book, and shows how men could be so devoted to a struggle on such a grand scale, and face it with seeming fearlessness.

If this is just your start in considering the Civil War, or a waystation on your way to try to understand why it continues to compel many to study, or try to experience some face of it, you'll do well to direct your personal journey through this film.

At one point, two academics (Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and Strong Vincent, of Bowdoin and Harvard Colleges), are face to face, and Vincent says, "Now, we'll see how professors fight." It was that kind of conflict. All of America was involved, in some way, and while we are now involved in a greater conflict, one seemingly more abstract at times, this great film will bring the reality, the glory, the horror of armed conflict into closer focus. It happened here, on American soil, and men who felt as brothers sometimes found themselves just a short distance across from one another, commanding men under them to certain death to make a point--that there would be henceforth one nation, or two.

There is hope in this film...and when you find it, you will have more of a sense of what it means to be an American--and it will change what you thought or felt.

Rating:
Summary: Great minds don't always think alike.
Review: I feel Gettysburg shows the true spirit of the Confederate Army during the Civil War. It shows that two opposite command styles of Robert E. Lee, and Gen. Longstreet. It makes these commanders and leaders human to us. It also shows the devotion to Gen. Lee which made underfed, bare-footed, and uneducated men who were the salt of the earth, follow the Gen into battle against larger numbers and still be successful.
What struck me the most was when Gen Lee realized that he had made a bad decision at Gettysburg, which cost them the battle and took the blame upon himself. He appeared to understand that Gen. Longstreet's plan to flank would have been successfull.
It also gave us an insight to the brillance of Joshuah L. Chamberlain in going from school teacher to Colo in the 20th Maine and leading those men into a successful defense of Little Round Top with a shortage of ammunition and men.

Rating:
Summary: Top notch film despite some historical inaccuracies
Review: To understand this film one first has to come to the understanding that trying to fit the entire battle of Gettysburg in one film is impossable. The battle was 3 days long spread out over a very large area involving over 200,000 men. This film does not try to tell that entire story. Instead what the filmakers have done is take Michael Shaara's historical novel and literary masterpiece 'Killer Angels', and turned it into a first rate film.

What the film Gettysburg does (and what the book it's based on did) is view the battle from personal perspectives. In this case the perspectives of General James Longstreet and his commanders on the Confederate side and Col Joshua Chamberlain, General Winfield Hancock and General John Buford on the Federal side. We see the battle through their eyes and thus we're able to see it in a human perspective. While this make the battle easier for us to follow, it does leave out certain important areas of the battle such as Culp's Hill.

In the end however we do get a film that captures the spirit of the men who fought at Gettysburg and a film that surprisingly keeps very close to the book it's based on. There are historical inaccuracies of course in the film and a few myths are reinforced here and there but for the most part these do not detract to much from the film.

So sit back and enjoy this fine film and if you enjoy it enough that you want to learn more about Gettysburg then pick up Edwin Coddington's or Stephen Sears's book on the battle. Both have written first rate books that cover the entire Gettysburg campaign in one volume.