Gettysburg

This is one of my favorite movies, and the comments of fans on this site notwithstanding, I think it was underrated. From the first time I saw it, it exemplified a personal theory that women (until very recently) rarely see men at their very finest, and that is unfortunately often (obviously not always)in battle. The courage, commitment and humanity that this movie portrays, on both sides of the conflict, moves me to tears every time, and the humanity is key. I don't know enough about the battle to point out any glaring historical inaccuracies, but the acting was exemplary across the board, with Jeff Daniels outstanding. The battle at Little Round Top is one of the finest movie scenes I've witnessed. I particularly like the expressions of respect and awe on the faces of Chamberlin's men when he tells them to "fix bayonets". What's striking is that there was no "good" choice; there was a clear and compelling objective in a much bigger picture, and this schoolteacher rose to the challenge, and his men went with him. This movie conveys a lot-through the long philosophical discourses and the action-about how people behave when they are inextricably joined with other people, for a cause that they don't fully understand, charged with a responsibility that no individual should bear, and with the desire mainly to return to the way things were before. It conveys a lot about true leadership and sacrifice. It conveys that individual choices and motivations always impact others, sometimes on huge scales. Guys, I don't know if you can convince your wives/girlfriends to cuddle up with this film, but I would make the attempt; there are obviously very ugly things that people did to each other in this and any conflict, but if I ever got a sense of the nobility of men and their push in this world, it was from this film.

With a few notable exceptions Schindler's List, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and Glory, history based movies usually die quick and quiet in the movie theater (The Messenger, Ride with the Devil, Cobb) History flicks cost a bundle to make with the costumes and the challenge of finding a place to shoot that's nowhere near highways, bridges, and cities, and they don't always appeal to mass audiences.

So it's not that often that really good historical film comes around. As a result, it's good not to be too fussy when one does. Both Gettysburg and the Killer Angels, the book it was based on, were stuffed with historical inaccuracies, the grossest of all being the presence of the 20th Maine regiment anywhere near Pickett's charge (this happens in both the movie and the book).

For all the lengthy soliloquies, historical misses, whitewashed violence, and the fact that only about 30% of the battle of Gettysburg is shown on film, Gettysburg remains as the best effort to capture the sprawling battle of July 1863 on film. Where the movie lacks in realism, it makes up for it's dialogue, and in the scope of the battle scenes, which are on a scale so grand, that the bloodless body count and the inaccurate tactics can be forgiven. The sheer numbers of soldiers taking part in Pickett's charge was breathtaking. Kudos to the reenactors.

Martin Sheen and Tom Beringer were they're usual excellent selves as Lee and Longstreet and for me, their ongoing debate of the strategy of Gettysburg helped make the movie. Other highlights include the disenchantment of Union soldiers at this stage of the Civil War, and the personal trauma Richard Jordan's Lewis Armistead felt at having to fight his friend Winfield Hancock not only in the same war, but in the same sector of the same battle of that war.

Much of Gettysburg has to be viewed with a grain of salt, but until a Stephen Speilberg or other directing genius with a knack for war footage comes along, it's one of the best we have. And it's pretty good.

I've been reading all the other comments pro & con with great interest, and I just have to add my voice to the "pro" side for this ambitious and stirring epic. Gettysburg is indeed one of my "all time top 10" movies. I was especially curious to see it on initial theatrical release because of the casting of Martin Sheen as Lee; were I to cast a civil war movie, the name Martin Sheen would NEVER have entered my mind as an appropriate performer for this make-or-break role. To my astonishment, Sheen was MAGNIFICENT in his portrayal of Lee; in appearance, demeanor, and aura of command, Sheen COMPLETELY sold me. A stunning performance from an unexpected casting choice. I agree that "Gods & Generals" would have benefited from Sheen's re-casting, though Duvall did his best with the more limited part he was given.

Yeah, I agree that the script tended to a lot of bloviation and speechifying by the principals. I do think we need to make allowance for the fact that in this pre-technological 19th century era portrayed, people DID communicate in ways that seem artificial and awkward by our standards. This was a time when oratory, whether in churches, politics, or general discourse, was valued both as communication and entertainment. So even if the dialogue got a bit overblown, I was more than willing to cut the production some slack.

The beards were a problem for me also, especially poor Tom Berenger's. Still, he (like ALL the lead actors) transcended the limitations and delivered what resonated for me as a credible interpretation of the time and situation.

MANY details of the movie can be nit-picked, and of course, those determined to hate "Gettysburg" can always find a reason, rational or not. I was BLOWN AWAY by the quality and passion of this movie from my first theatrical viewing and it was one of the very first DVD's I purchased. After multiple viewings (all 4 hours) I'm still impressed and grateful that Ted Turner had the desire and ambition to tackle such a BIG project that would be sniped at from all corners for eternity. My goodwill extends to the much weaker (but still defensible) "Gods and Generals"; if they go ahead and produce "The Last Full Measure," I promise I'll be first in line at the movie theater AND pre-order the DVD!

10 out of 10!

I know the Civil War is a very 'american' thing, so i hope folks won't mind me poking my British nose onto the board. I got Gettysburg from Blockbuster on 2 video tapes & watched it in 1 go, though I gather it was made for tv in 2 instalments. Utterly watchable and, yes, very moving, especially when you consider it was actually filmed on the very ground where so many brave men fought more than 140 years ago. Just imagine what those soldiers would've made of it? I wonder if they realised their struggle would become part of history? From what I know of the Civil War the battle and command decisions were faithfully re-created with none of the banal sub-plots, ridiculous "love interests" and fictionalised scenes so beloved of Hollywood. It was also wonderful to see the massed infantry composed of real human beings without a hint of CGI. Pickett's Charge was incredibly poignant, especially as 'we' know what the outcome will be. I noted there isn't a single actress in the film. Apologies to all ladies out there, but that's the way it really was. ALL the actors gave fine performances; particularly the always great Tom Berenger as General Longstreet. I could feel the strain of 'command' every time he was on screen. I've always felt Robert E Lee was the finest general the USA ever produced. Such a tragic irony he ended up fighting against it. By the way, Lee was originally offered command of the Union army but declined out of loyalty to his beloved Virginia. That's the way many americans felt back then. They saw their nationality as their State. Martin Sheen gave a 1st class performance, though I personally wish the role had gone to a taller and (sorry Martin) more "distinguised" actor. Lee was an intellectual and a gentleman. His troops followed him from respect and love, whereas Grant's soldiers were motivated by respect and fear. A subtle difference, but important. There are faults with this film. Firstly I was slightly irritated it keeps alive the myth that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. A nice idea, but un-true. Slavery was an obscenity, but that wasn't why the war was fought. It was fought to either preserve or end the Union, depending on which side a person was. By the way, Abraham Lincoln & US Grant both came from slave-owning families! Another fault with this film is the almost complete abscence of blood, 'gore' and real suffering. All the hundreds of extras look remarkably fit and healthy. In actual fact both sides (but particularly the Confederacy) suffered appaling squalor, hunger, disease and misery. There were no medics back then, no morphine, no helicopter casevacs, just the slim chance of an ill-trained & probably drunk "surgeon" turning up with a dirty saw and a bottle of whisky for anaesthetic. Vast numbers of injured men died from infected wounds, or were simply left where they fell. I wished the film had shown a bit more of the 'down side' to war. And then there were the beards. Oh God. Anyone who's seen the "women at the stoning" in Monty Python's Life of Brian will know what I mean. Most high scholl drama prop boxes contain more convincing false beards than the ridiculous items Berenger & Sheen were wearing. Martin Sheen looked like a mall Santa & Tom Berenger's was just surreal. Anyway. The strengths of this film far outweigh its faults. I remember seeing a US Army newsreel shot in the 1930s which filmed the Civil War 75th anniversary reunion. A small number of very elderly veterans, from both sides, gathered in friendship. It's such a shame so many fine men died in this dreadful conflict.

This movie picks up steam as it goes along - leading to its wrenching end, as did the battle.

The performance of Richard Jordan as Lo Armistead must be singled out for praise - his anguish was very moving. I'd loved the actor in The Friends of Eddie Coyle and what a job he does. (It helps that he's given the best lines in the movie). Martin Sheen as Robt. E. Lee is not the first name that would come to mind - but I think he gave a fine performance - his accent was entrancing. Sam Elliott is perfectly chosen as (and wonderfully played) the western General John Buford. I also think Jeff Daniels was absolutely wonderful - conveying so well the different manner of someone who until a year before, had been a civilian professor, not a colonel. Unfortunately although I'm generally a fan of Tom Berenger, I wasn't particularly moved by any scene he was in - he kind of walks through it.

The movie is written so well - and its pace just fine. There are so many interesting scenes, touching on many different aspects of life and war - from the nature of man and race to the paradox of a general loving his army yet having to sacrifice it. Jordan brought home so well the closeness of the senior officers to those on the other side.

I loved how well they showed the varied purposes for fighting of the different armies, and the occasional reference to a perceived resentment by the Union soldiers over what they saw as Confederate pretensions to higher social class. ("They're so arrogant", etc.).

The music is first rate - and definitely enhances the drama. The depiction seems quite authentic.

Some niggling criticisms: aside from the map at the start of the movie, there is none. Maps would definitely have helped to undeerstand the overall picture. People commonly refer to directions (from the norht, from the west, etc.) or "we must flank them to the right" and it's hard to understand if you haven't read about the battle.

The scene with the runaway slave is too abbreviated from the book - it doesn't have much impact in the movie.

Kevin Conway's dialogue and accent was a bit over the top, and the English military attache was rather clicheed.

For all that General Hancock is referenced, we see very little of him.

We see the diatribe by General Trimble against General Ewell - but without seeing anything of that battle (or Ewell ever), it just hangs there - rather than being part of any continuous story. (In the book, Ewell's and Early's conduct is more discussed - including a wonderful scene by the two with Lee). If they weren't going to discuss that side of the battle, they should have left Trimble's (well-played) trembling anger out of the story - it doesn't belong in this movie.

Gen. Longstreet is the star of the book and movie - yet I never sensed from Berenger the great brooding quality (and he wasn't given any reference to the fact that his thre children had just died) that he has throughout the battle - according to the book. Similarly, Gen. Lee's health (his heart and headaches, etc.) is a constant factor - not shown in the movie.

Despite the criticisms, this is a wonderfully done movie - from a Pulitzer Prize winning book. It's long - but quite clear, and very deeply moving. I defy anyone to see the last 1/2 hour and not have tears in their eyes. I'd very strongly recommend this.