Richard A. Reed

(2013-05-17 17:02:16)

Outstanding!

I have the video, have almost worn it out. I wish I wish I wish I had seenit in the theater!A great and understated epic.

Ilias Tsiphlidis

(2013-05-16 21:55:21)

A very good movie.

I saw this movie years ago on TNT and I thought very well of it. I thoughtit to be a bit long but other than that it was a very good movie with anexcellent cast. After visiting the actual battlefield in early June (I suggest to you anyonethat has a chance to do so, it is a great experience), my interest wasrenewed. Sitting on top of the little round top and looking down and aroundthe hill I could envision the 20th Maine. Looking over the grounds wherePickett's Charge took place I could hear the canon's thunder and the bulletsflying by.This movie captures the essence of the battle and it has to be long in orderto do so. The torment of the Generals was more than apparent throughout themovie. The emotions run deep and the actors did a very good job ofconveying them. The soundtrack complemented the movie a 100% and gave theright accents at the right moments. The cinematography was awesome andaccurate, since a lot was filmed on location. The acting is great and thereenactors should also be praised for their participation.If you watch this movie and criticize its historical inaccuracies you willmiss the point. It does the best job it can, to give you the feel andoverview of the entire battle. You will be crying at some point, for all the men lost in vain in the civilwar. The most terrible kind of war in which brothers, relatives or friendsface each other with the intend to kill each other. You will also realizethe heavy burden of the officers leading their men to a battle where theirdeath is most surely waiting.Above all, the film will tell us how insane we are as a human race. Weorganize ourselves and develop weapons in order to mass destruct each other. Over 50000 men died in three days, how many mothers, wives and familieswere destroyed as a consequence is something for all of us to think about. One thing is certain, it is a very high price to pay for any cause no matterhow `sacred' or `right' this cause may be.Look at me I am mumbling on with my emotions and thoughts that have emanatedfrom the movie. Watch the movie, for all its shortcomings; it is stillright up there with Schindler's List and Saving PrivateRyan.

stonthcrow

(2013-05-15 14:04:38)

For what its was, Pretty good

No historical moment will ever be preserved to perfection by Hollywood,butI feel that this was one of their best performances. Berenger, Lang,Daniels, Howell, Elliot and Lancaster all had masterful performances. Ionlyfeel that Sheen came up a bit short. Yes it was long, but it had tobe.....there are too many stories to tell. Yes at times the dialogue gotwinded....but it had to be to get the stories across. Watch the movie forwhat it represents, not for just seeing a "good movie". The importance ofthose three days should never be forgotten, and I believe that this movedoes and outstanding job of preserving it. 8.5/10

Puck-20

(2013-05-15 12:28:55)

Great movie, despite a few flaws.

Gettysburg, based on the best-seller "The Killer Angels", is certainly oneof the better war flicks I've seen. Despite some of the dialogue beingfictional, the historical context of themovie is quite good...To have filmed the movie on the actual battlefield waswonderful, and kudos to the Civil War re-enactors who devoted their time tomake this such a grandepic. I especially liked how the movie concentrated on several "unsung"heroes such as John Buford and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, who went on tobecome one of the greatgenerals of the war, and whom General Grant picked over all other generalsto be with him at Lee's surrender at Appomattox....But there were a fewproblems with the movie. Ihad problems looking at many of the corpulent reenactors, knowing that themonths of marching and being on lean rations would have made for a muchthinner army. Also; Martin Sheen as Gen. Bobby Lee...Everything I have readabout Robert E. Lee tells of him as a tall, handsome man; quite dominating,and a commanding presence.. Sheen merely comes across as dumpy andwimpy.However, all in all...these were only minordistractions in an otherwise excellent movie on the Civil War.

louielol

(2013-05-10 00:58:39)

Stirring, and disappointing

I find "Gettysburg" to be a moving film, and very interesting to mebecause of the subject material. However, every time I see it I amdistracted by so many misses. At the top of the list is the facial hairon the many of the actors, which look like the products of a highschool make-up artist. Martin Sheen, while a fine actor makes for avery poor General Lee; not only would several other actors look morelike Lee, Sheen plays the general as some sort of spacey mystic.General Lee, while always the gentleman, was decisive in speech andaction. Several of the roles are over-acted to the point of seeminglike caricatures; Lee, Buford, Tom Chamberlain, and Armistead come tomind. The movie could not have been made without the reenactors and forthe most part they do an outstanding job. There are times though whenit is obvious that they lack the professional training to convincingly"pull a punch" while attacking the enemy. My heart would give this filmeight or nine stars, but my head pulls it down to a six.

(2013-05-09 13:08:40)

An excellent film

Anyone remotely interested in history especially the civil war should see this movie. It is historically accurate for the most part and is very well made even though it was originally filmed as a made for tv film to be shown on TNT. I do like that it was shot at the actual battlefield and used reenactors as extras. If you like history and own a DVD player but do not have this film but it now you will not regret it.

(2013-05-07 11:52:48)

gettysburg

This film is one of the greatest reinactments I have seen. Michael Shaaras novel was brought to the screen with extream detail.

twhiteson

(2013-05-06 22:10:31)

Gettysburg and Re-enactors

I just want to respond to the criticism of this movie's use of Civil Warreenactors as extras. Yes, the average reenactor is a heck of lot olderandfatter than was the average Civil War soldier. Reenactors are great atdressing as Civil War soldiers, but most of them don't LOOK anything likeCivil War soldiers, who were very young men reduced to sinew and bonefromphysical exertion and poor diet. Also, reenactors are not professionalactors or stunt men which is very evident in this movie. (In some scenesyou can actually see some of them staring into the camera while everyoneelse is looking off in another direction. Also, their embarrassingattemptsto recreate hand-to-hand combat during the finale of Pickett's Charge arejust pathetic to watch. Not the mention the melodramatic deaths and theguys grinning like Chesire Cats while they're supposed to be acting as infear of their lives.)However, there is NO way "Gettysburg" could have been made withoutreenactors. In order to give the movie's battle scenes an "epic" look,itneeded several thousand extras and this film didn't have anyway near thebudget to afford professional extras. I believe "Gettysburg's" budgetwasaround $14 million, which is a pittance for a movie. Heck, theproductioncompany couldn't even afford a decent make-up department (which isobviousfrom those awful, fake looking beards) let alone hire hundreds ofprofessional extras, costume them, and train them. Reenactors, despitetheir faults, made this movie possible by working for free and bybringingtheir own uniforms, equipment, knowledge of Civil War tactics, andenthusiasm for this project. It was either use the services ofreenactorsor no movie about the battle of Gettysburg was going to bemade.While "Gettysburg" could not have been made without reenactors, I do feeldirector Ronald Maxwell could have done a better job of filming aroundsomeof the more ridiculous looking ones. Instead, he almost seems to revelinshowing off the fattest and oldest of the bunch- the first Confederatesoldier with a speaking part is a man over 60 yrs old who had to be atleast300lbs! Now how can anyone believe that this man marched 20 miles a dayinJune heat while carrying a 50lb pack? Supposedly, Maxwell has learnedfromhis mistakes. While he is justifiably proud of "Gettysburg," he was notdeaf to the guffaws at all those chubby Rebs and geriatric Yanks. Thus,forthe upcoming "Gods and Generals" his casting directors were ordered to bemuch choosier in deciding which reenactors will be in that movie. (Inotherwords, they were ordered to cull out the fatbodies andoldsters.)Despite being a big fan of this movie, I can recognize the weaknesses ofusing reenactors as extras in a period war film. However, anyone whoapplauds the fact that "Gettysburg" was ever made must also commend thededication of those reenactors who made its creation possible.

gmorgan7649

(2013-04-28 14:08:48)

The Best Civil War Movie of All Time

I continue to be amazed by two things: First, the sheer emotion I feelevery time I have watched this movie. You would think after watching it10-15 times, that it would begin to subside. It doesn't. This is one ofthe greatest movies ever produced. I can only imagine what the realbattle was like, but, this re-creation gives me a much better idea ofthe passion and tragedy that must have engulfed those brave men whowere there. Their bravery, valor, and sacrifice, was indeed heroic.Second, I'm amazed by how many people have not seen this movie. Forstarters, this movie should be required viewing by every high schoolstudent in the country. Maybe, they would appreciate this nation alittle more, and the cost that has been paid by our ancestors topreserve our country.The acting was very good in most every area. Richard Jordan gave hisbest performance as General Armistead. Tom Berenger was excellent asGeneral Longstreet. Jeff Daniels was great as Col. Chamberlain. GeneralLee was an impossible task, but Martin Sheen did a good job portrayingsomeone that is almost revered as God. There is almost no way to meeteveryone expectations.The music and photography were outstanding.How this picture did not get an Oscar for something, is beyond me.Movies far worse than this have won awards in the past. The MotionPicture Academy must be brain-dead.I recommend that everyone who has seen it, make sure their families andfriends see it. It is well worth the time!!

anonymous

(2013-04-28 03:51:17)

Response to JOHN'S POST from AUSTIN, TEXAS

Now I usually despise nitpicking in forums like these, but... John fromAustin, Texas' claimed that "Gettysburg" is "revisionist history at itsworst"...what movie were you watching, John?? I can't think of a moregrossly exaggerated line than that!John must be reminded that "Gettysburg" was a Hollywood feature filmproduction, and not a play-by-play documentary narrated by eye-witnesses.Even without stating that fact, "Gettysburg" is remarkable for its accuracy,ESPECIALLY as Hollywood films go. John claims Longstreet did in fact favor adifferent strategy than Lee, but there's no evidence that supports he didn'taccepted it. So what does that mean? Whether Longstreet accepted it or notis a moot point. A) Longstreet was a human being like you and me and did notshout out every thought or disagreement he had floating around his head,especially if the disagreement is with a highly respected superior, and B)this is a movie, and movies tend to have personal conflicts for the benefitof a storyline. The fact that Longstreet favored another strategy alone isgrounds enough to assume he didn't accept the opposing strategypersonally.Chamberlain is slammed by John as a stuttering idiot...what stutteringor stammering was in the film was a clever touch by actor Jeff Daniels tomake Col. Chamberlain more real to the audience, and thus more vulnerable.As well, the speech he made, how do we know if he made it or not? Were youthere, John? Do you think every spoken line was written down in 1863?Regardless, its a movie, and the speech was a development of character and avehicle for the modern day audience to further understand the causes of thewar and the countless men enlisted in it. I also failed to see when theFederal troops were portrayed in the movie as though they were on a holycrusade...I was a participant in the filming, and can tell you first handthere was no such atmosphere, nor were we given any such direction; I can'teven see this coming across once during the film.As a final point (I'm trying to be quick, I can go on), Hancock's lineof "There are times when a corps commander's life does not count" wassomething the real Hancock was quoted as saying during the actual battle; itwas not made up Hollywood fluff as you'd like to believe.John's comments are both fiery and exaggerated, and while I respect hisopinion on whether he liked or didn't like the film, I believe he basicallysat down expecting a 4 hour and 8 minute truth-telling history lessonwithout extensive knowledge of the battle in the first place (this is notmeant to be a personal attack, how many of us really do have such aknowledge?) or a well-enough understanding of Michael Shaara's novel onwhich the film was based on, almost more so than the battle itself.

Sternenfahrer

(2013-04-27 04:35:17)

Realy great stuff

I saw this movie about three times, and although being not as involved asany american might be, me as a german got a real good impression of thetragedy of these days, as brothers fought against brothers.I think this is one great movie: Tragedy, Heroism, Patriotism, Honor,Luck,Fate... and not a single word spoken by a woman! ;)

(2013-04-26 19:19:31)

Excellent movie, Jeff Daniels and Richard Jordan were superb

The Gettysburg gift box set is a must for any Civil War buff. The directors cut adds so much more to the story, with the additional footage of John Bufford and his role at Gettysburg. We love the movie, the extras in the gift set are well worth it, the making of Gettysburg vidio,sound track, book, bullet and pictures. A definite collectors choice

tfrizzell

(2013-04-20 22:09:40)

Long, Drawn-Out Civil War Migraine-Inducer.

The film that was supposed to serve as a jump-board for producer Ted Turnerto make the very large leap from television production to the silver screen,"Gettysburg" ends up becoming a trial of a film to sit through. It is alegitimate kidney buster/sleeping pill as the film runs over 250 minutes(not a misprint). The title says it all as the Battle of Gettysburg is thefocus to bring a wide range of characters together from the Union and theConfederacy back in the summer of 1863. Most definitely the most famousbattle of the U.S. Civil War was Gettysburg. That is why this movie is sucha large disappointment. Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger and Stephen Lang (playinga different role from "Gods and Generals") are the key performers from theConfederacy's perspective while Jeff Daniels, Sam Elliott and C. ThomasHowell dominate the action on the North's side. Writer-director Ronald F.Maxwell shows his shortcomings as a film-maker here as he tries to make anepic ala David Lean and ends up landing flat on his face. The productionvalues are not as high as they should be and everything has that televisionmini-series feel to it. The actors struggle through with corn-filleddialogue and interminable battle sequences that looked rushed andun-choreographed. More dull than being in a sorry teacher's history class,"Gettysburg" shows some of the worst things the cinema has to offer. It isan under-achieving dud of epic proportions. Would be followed by equallydim-witted prequel "Gods and Generals" 10 years later in 2003. 2 stars outof 5.

Caramel Corn

(2013-04-20 04:57:05)

HIstory at its best

I read the book the killer angles, then watched the movie and it was so well done and true to the book. I highly recomend this to anyone slightly interested in history, particularly the civil war

swfan94

(2013-04-15 23:15:22)

Mixed Feelings

I have mixed feelings about this movie. It's a slow movie, choosing toshowcase characters and dialogue over the battle scenes. Which is fineas the characters and dialogue are both exceptionally good, and theacting is, for the most part, fine. But there are so many characters,with so many conversations and so many back-stories, by the end I hadtrouble keeping track of any of them. The battle scenes, however, arefantastic. Long and brutal, they really are great to watch, though a PGrating prevents them from being appropriately brutal and thereforerealistic. I also didn't like how one-sided the battles were. Thoughthe movie is quite balanced and has main characters on both sides ofthe conflict, the battles are only shown one side at a time. The firstbig battle on Little Big Top is shown entirely from the Union's pointof view, and the ending battle is shown entirely from the Confederatespoint of view, which kind of hurt the movie and it's characterdevelopment. For instance, Colonel Chamberlain, is shown anticipatingthe final battle, but is never actually shown in the battle, nor is heshown afterwards until the final scene, so we have no idea how he heldup or what he was doing throughout the entire battle. All in all,though, this was a pretty good movie, and a great experience, though itwould have been better if it wasn't four hours long.

sen7

(2013-04-15 06:05:38)

Brilliant

I watched a while ago when it was being shown on TNT. I've always beeninterested in the American Civil War, and this, with the possible inclusionof Glory, is probably the best Civil War film ever made.A host of famous names and a driving soundtrack help this become a classic.It's not the most violent\bloodthirsty film, but besides that, and the factthat its on for 3 and a half hours, I would recommend to anyone who knows agood film when they see one.

An Eater

(2013-04-10 21:00:29)

The best Civil War movie ever.

This movie is a classic, easily the best Civil War movie ever, based on the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Scharra. Outstanding performances by Tom Berenger, Jeff Daniels, Robert Jordan, Kevin Conway and Stephen Lang.The film opens with photographs of the primary characters that fade into photos of the actors playing the role, at the end, the actors are shown fading back to pictures of the actual people. This prepares you at the begining and reminds you at the end that these are not fictional characters.I have probably watched this movie more times than any other film, ever. The battle scenes, the costumes, the action, the cinemetography all place this as one of the best movies of all time.The only drawback is Martin Sheen's Gen R.E.Lee appears dazed at times. Some people find the over 4 hour length a bit much but it allows for fleshing out the many characters without shortchanging anyone or any of the events.

(2013-04-10 09:09:37)

Gettysburg-the Movie

I highly recommend this movie. It is one time when the movie is better than the book. Very action packed and puts you into the battle. My favorite part was at the Battle of Picketts Charge. There is a stirring speech that brings tears to your eyes. I do not want to get into details because I do not want to ruin the movie for others by telling them about it. Mr. Sheen portrays General Lee as if he were actually him. Also you will not believe that the actor that plays Chamberlain is comedy actor Jeff Daniels from such movies as Dumb and Dumber! He is excellent at General Chamberlain. See this movie before visiting the battlefield and it will give you a greater appreciation for what happened there. Also I recommend this movie to homeschool familes and teachers in the public school system as a preview to teaching the Civil War (High school age for battlefield violence). Both sides are evenly depicted so that both are represented as they should be without prejudice toward the north or the south.

(2013-04-10 00:48:37)

Read the book!

I had just read Sharra's "Killer Angels" when I rented this video. I thoughtthat I would enjoy the film, because the book was so excellent. However, Iwas a bit dismayed. The movie simply lacks a lot of the emotion found in thebook. Moreover, the director chooses to ignore some of the more interestingstorylines in favor of some of the more inane ones. In fact, the movie issomewhat contradictory to the book in some places. It does a very poor jobof showing some of the anger that many of the Confederate Generals hadtowards Lee and Stuart. Moreover, it fails to show just how fanatic the Rebswere in there trust of Lee and how that fanaticism, led to their defeat.However, the thing I disliked most about this film was Martin Sheen asGeneral Lee. His accent was laughable and physically was not near thespecimen of the actual Lee. Sharra's book was a very open and critical lookat the battle of Gettysburg, this movie was not. Not a bad movie, it justhad big shoes to fill, because the book was that good.

csy1234

(2013-04-09 11:36:41)

Excellent Movie

Gettysburg is the best Civil War movie out there. It replays one of themost important battles in the Civil War(Gettysburg) The movie takes youthrough every critical event that happened during the three days of theintense battle. The movie was very well done and includes a greatacting cast and wonderful cinematography. The movie shows all of themain generals and skirmishes in the three days including devils den,little and big round top and Pickett's charge. All of these scenes areentirely historically correct and are masterfully done. The detailsthat the director goes into in the movie are incredible and are almostunbelievable. This is a must watch for anyone even remotely interestedin the civil war.