Gettysburg

Rating:
Summary: A Standard Movie for any serious War Movie Collector
Review: This movie is an absolute classic (to me at least). Every year I see it, I watch the First day of the battle on July 1st, the second day of the battle on July 2nd and the third day on the third of July, in keeping with the pace of the events. I have watched it numerous times on other occasions since I was 8. This movie captures the true spirit of the Civil War like none other. It perfectly portrays the generals who were there. Lee, Longstreet, Hood, Armistead, Hancock, Buford, Reynolds and especially Pickett. Not to forget of course Colonel Chamberlain. In the many Civil War books I have read, this movie is one of the most accurate historical movies I have seen. In fact, it even keeps quite close to the book it was made from, The Kiler Angels by Michael Shaara. The books by the Michael and Jeff Shaara are all must reads. The battles do not add unnecessary action but show the desperate effort of Pickett's Charge and Chamberlain's pivotal defense of Little Round Top magnificently. One unnecessary addition, however, was having Chamberlain witness Pickett's Charge and have that conversation with General Hancock. Despite the length, this movie holds your interest quite well. The emotion of each of the generals is portrayed so well. The sulleness of Longstreet, the serenity of Lee, the flamboyant Pickett, the philosophical Chamberlain and the calm Armistead are the starts of this film. I have personally been to Gettysburg 14 times and still have not seen everything there and feel that this movie so well portrays such a complex battle. Gettysburg, Gods and Generals are must-see movies while The Killer Angels, Gods and Generals and all the other Shaara books are must-read books.

Rating:
Summary: Absolutely excellent film making from a historical novel.
Review: I am writing this review after my review of "Gods and General." I realized the measure of any subsequent movie would be "Gettysburg," and the problem is going to be that it is a hard act to follow. Gettysburg is everything a historical novel to movie should be. Start with a Pulitzer prize winning book, "Killer Angels." This is impeccable story telling. On the confederate side, Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee and Tom Berenger contributed career best performances and compelling chemistry. On the Union side, Jeff Daniels as Colonel Chamberlain, C. Thomas Howell as his brother and Lieutenant, and Kevin Conroy as the tough old Mick Sargeant /veteran, provide the compelling chemistry. Sam Elliot fits the part of a veteran cavalry General perfectly. In fact, I can't think of anyone that fits the part of acting from the saddle better.

If Stonewall Jackson had lived and had surrounded the federal troops at Chancellorsville, the war might have ended. If Lee had listened to Longstreet and withdrew from Gettysburg to high ground of his own choice, he might have won the battle and ended the war. This defensive style of fighting is why Lee earned the nickname "Gray Fox." Lee made the same mistake as Union General Burnside at Fredericksburg in advancing troops uphill against an entrenched enemy while taking canon fire on three sides. If General Meade had pursued Lee out of Gettysburg to where he was backed up against a storm swollen and impassable Potomac River, the war might have ended. Instead, war went on for more than two more years, and the death toll rose to over 615,000 Americans. This section of American history is critically important and what will be a set of three movies will serve a very commendable purpose.

Rating:
Summary: A Momentous Presentation Of An Epic Story
Review: I decided to watch "Gettysburg" again during the 4th of July Weekend. It is truly a momentous presentation of an epic story. The emphasis on the Chamberlains of the 20th Maine and the long distance relationships of Gen. Lew Armistead and Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock introduce a human dimension into an inhumane story.

Although Martin Sheen is a bit suspect as Robert E. Lee, Jeff Daniels as Lawrence Chamberlain, Tom Berenger as James Longstreet and Richard Jordan as Lew Armistead combine with others to carry the film.

Overall, this is a moving film to watch again and again.

Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Ever Made
Review: Gettysburg is one of the greatest moveies ever made, and astoundingly accurate. My favorite move of all time. The soundtrack is just as great, and worth every penny. This is a must have movie for people that love good action and drama movies, and any Civil War Enthusiast.

Rating:
Summary: "Tastefully done" battle scenes--an oxymoron and an affront.
Review: Although one of our fellow Amazon customers has praised this film for its "tastefully done battle scenes" which are to be commended for lack of blood and gore, our friend misses a crucial point. Battle is about blood and gore, and about death and destruction. Wars are ugly--arguably necessary from time to time but grotesque in their very premise. Organized killing should not be sanitized, for to do so mimimizes its horror. If we are to make and watch films about war, then we should watch the truth. Only then will the cinema remind us of the cost of war and the need, when possible, to avoid it. To sanitize battle scenes in the hope that viewers will not be offended is to diminish the sacrifice made by those who really died in the real war being depicted. I fault not the film so much as the reviewer who evidently wants his movie wars to entertain, rather than to profoundly disturb.

Rating:
Summary: A riveting, but incomplete history
Review: What they included in this movie was exciting and intense. Unfortunately, what they left out was, in some cases, more important than what they put in. Three fields of battle (one for each day) were highlighted in this movie: the initial engagement on the Chambersburg Pike, the 20th Maine's repulse of the Alabamans at the base of Little Round Top, and Pickett's Charge.

The exclusions were baffling. How in the world could a movie calling itself "Gettysburg" completely ignore the most controversial event of the entire three days? Dan Sickles' unilateral decision to abandon his position on Little Round Top might as well have never happened. And since there was no Sickles, there could be no heroics by Warren. There's a statue of the man on Little Round Top, shouldn't he perhaps be included in the movie?

The Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield were only mentioned in passing. It was said that the Wheatfield was so full of dead soldiers that you could walk across it without touching the ground. How could this not merit something more than a throw away line by Longstreet (Tom Berenger)?

You could argue that the movie was already four hours long, so you had to cut something. And you would be right. But the dialogue was populated with too much character development dialogue, speeches, and sermons. How many times did we have to hear about the Armistead - Hancock friendship before they beat that horse to death? OK, OK, brother against brother, we get it - move on. Was it really necessary to show us that Pickett was a raconteur more than once? Love him or hate him, Dan Sickles' story is far more interesting.

Neither the 20th Maine's defense of Little Round Top nor Pickett's Charge would have suffered from some time compression. Both were excellently done. But I would have gladly traded one or two Alabama assaults, and a whole bunch of drumming, walking Virginians for something of what transpired at the Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield.

I haven't even mentioned the Slaughter Pen and the Valley of Death, Spangler's Spring, Culp's Hill, Cemetery Hill or Custer at the East Cavalry Battlefield. But then again, the movie didn't much address them either. To their credit, they did say the words "Devil's Den" a couple of times.

As for historic accuracy, I have to say they were right on. I used my battlefield tour guidebook as a supplement to understanding the movie, and the flow of the battles depicted agreed to the guidebook.

I can't speak for the movie's adherence to "Killer Angels", having never read the book, but the movie was called "Gettysburg", which is a wide scope indeed. Despite these disappointments, I have to say that overall I really do like this movie.

Rating:
Summary: Great War Movie
Review: This was a great war movie. It had everything a good movie should have. Good dialogue, good storyline and obviously good action sequences. Unlike many movies based on historical events this one stays fairly close to actual events. I know I wasn't there but I am well read on the subject. The movie is a bit long but if you have a rainy afternoon it is the perfect movie.

The DVD is also fairly well put together. A good amount of extras, the best being the documentary on the making of the movie. One of the best things about this movie as a whole is that all the extra were reenactors which whether or not you bellieve it or not just about guarantees accuracy.

Rating:
Summary: BEST CIVIL WAR MOVIE!
Review: This film is what got me interested in the American Civil War. It really shows the battle very well from both sides. It was researched carefully, authenticated down to the clothing, and filmed on actual locations! Definately the best Civil War movie ever produced!!!

Rating:
Summary: All-time favorite movie, seen it over two hundred times
Review: God like, is the phrase I use to measure this movie. But If you really like this movie buy the collecters edition. My true love in life is the battle of Gettysburg. I've been there eight times and I owe it all to this Movie. If there was one thing I could say to Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner for making this movie would be "Thank You."

Rating:
Summary: Could not be any more real
Review: I remember first seeing this movie. My dad pulled my brother and I out of school for the day so that we could go see this movie since we all knew we'd learn more from this movie than from school itself. We couldn't have been more right.
For those thinking of watching this for the first time, remember that it is long, and very very accurate. Think of how butchered the film would be if they crammed three days of battles into less than four hours!
What this means is, you don't have a film littered with love stories that never happened, or one main hero out to save the day. Instead you have non-modernized speech, strategy-talk that might not be fully relevant to upcoming scenes, and facial hair that is so amazing it looks fake.
I've felt you can always tell a film is accurate when it seems just the opposite. I remember seeing scenes where charecters seem fake, or out of place, only to hear the stories of the charecters later from my history buff Dad.
My Junior year of college I got the opertunity to go with my father to Gettysburg to see the battlefield. I was amazed at how the directors were able to cover all the monuments and still pull off a realistic look to the movie.
I remember touring the museum, seeing photo's of soldiers. I was amazed at how dead on their portrayals were. I read many reviews from those who claim the actors look unrealistic. I ask them simply to view the end credits where they show the actual person followed by the actor. Jeff Daniels as Chamberlin is almost eerie. And I can see where the directors went with Civil War reinactors, bringing their own outfits, instead of average extras.
In the end, you can't find a more accurate movie when it comes to Civil War history. Even though it's four hours, you'll find yourself not only entertained, but informed.
Any part that may seem confusing is there for a reason. Not so that you can come on here and run your mouth about how bad it is, but so you do something completely foriegn to people today. Crack a book.