Gettysburg (1993)

7/10

Not the best, but a great representation of the epic battle of the Civil War

Hancock_the_Superb10 July 2002

All I hear is people griping about how long this film is. That's not the point. The point is it represents what is considered by historians to be the most important battle of the American Civil War.

I will admit that the length of the film kinda takes away from it, but it is nonetheless good.

Save a few historical gaffes (eg. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine at Picket's Charge - in reality, they were being held in reserve near the Round Tops with the rest of the V Corps), this film is very realistic, using thousands of professional re-enactors to fight the battle scenes, which adds to it.

Many battles and side notes were left out (eg. Vincent was mortally wounded on Little Round Top; or did they mention this, I don't remember), but that is okay, given the film focuses on Joshua L. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, who saved the day at Little Round Top on July 2.

Skirmishes at the Herr Tavern, McPherson's Hill, Little Round Top, and Picket's Charge were all the fighting I remember. But, again, this doesn't really take anything away.

The sweep and grandeur is helped by the superb cinematography (by Kees Van Oostrum) and great acting on the part of Tom Berenger (Longstreet), Martin Sheen (Lee), Jeff Daniels (Chamberlain), C. Thomas Howell (Tom Chamberlain), Sam Elliot (Buford), and the rest of the superb cast. A standout is the late Richard Jordan as Lewis Armistead, the brigade commander in Picket's division who was killed leading his troops "over the top" against Union artillery.

The battle scenes are excellent; Picket's Charge, in real time, is superb, but the furious battle for Little Round Top is one of the most desperate battle scenes ever filmed. You can feel the fear and tension of the 20th Maine as the 44th Alabama (I believe this is correct) charges up the hill again and again. When Chamberlain and his men finally sweep their opponents off the hill?

I think that it may have been good to portray the charging Confederates as well, since they had many interesting stories among them (e.g., the commander of the 44th, William Oates, had a brother, John, who had been ill with a fever and refused to stay behind, and was mortally wounded in the carnage), and the heroics of such people as Vincent himself, and Patrick O'Rourke (who led his New York regiment in a counterattack that saved Vincent's right flank and was killed in the charge) are neglected, but I'm not complaining.

Despite the length and a few overdramatic speeches, this is a great movie.

Seven out of ten.

45 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Excellent, not perfect, but excellent

F6Pilot6 February 2000

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.

75 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Gettysburg and Re-enactors

twhiteson20 October 2002

I just want to respond to the criticism of this movie's use of Civil War reenactors as extras. Yes, the average reenactor is a heck of lot older and fatter than was the average Civil War soldier. Reenactors are great at dressing as Civil War soldiers, but most of them don't LOOK anything like Civil War soldiers, who were very young men reduced to sinew and bone from physical exertion and poor diet. Also, reenactors are not professional actors or stunt men which is very evident in this movie. (In some scenes you can actually see some of them staring into the camera while everyone else is looking off in another direction. Also, their embarrassing attempts to recreate hand-to-hand combat during the finale of Pickett's Charge are just pathetic to watch. Not to mention the melodramatic "deaths" and the guys grinning like Cheshire Cats while they're supposed to be acting as in fear of their lives.)

However, there is NO way "Gettysburg" could have been made without reenactors. In order to give the movie's battle scenes an "epic" look, it needed several thousand extras and this film didn't have anyway near the budget to afford professional extras or travel overseas to rent-out a small European army as Hollywood films used do to. Heck, the production company couldn't even afford a decent make-up department (which is obvious from those awful, fake looking beards) let alone hire hundreds of professional extras, costume them, and train them. Reenactors, despite their faults, made this movie possible by working for free and by bringing their own uniforms, equipment, knowledge of Civil War tactics, and enthusiasm for this project. It was either use the services of reenactors or no movie about the battle of Gettysburg was going to be made.

While "Gettysburg" could not have been made without reenactors, I do feel director Ronald Maxwell could have done a better job of filming around some of the more ridiculous looking ones. Instead, he almost seems to revel in showing off the fattest and oldest of the bunch- the first Confederate soldier with a speaking part is a man over 60 yrs old who had to be at least 300lbs! Now how can anyone believe that this man marched 20 miles a day in June heat while carrying a 50lb pack? Supposedly, Maxwell has learned from his mistakes. While he is justifiably proud of "Gettysburg," he was not deaf to the guffaws at all those chubby Rebs and geriatric Yanks. Thus, for the upcoming "Gods and Generals" his casting directors were ordered to be much choosier in deciding which reenactors will be in that movie. (In other words, they were ordered to cull out the fatbodies and oldsters.)

Despite being a big fan of this movie, I can recognize the weaknesses of using reenactors as extras in a period war film. However, anyone who applauds the fact that "Gettysburg" was ever made must also commend the dedication of those reenactors who made its creation possible.

23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A Woman's Perspective

Holly265479 July 2005

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.

87 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Gets Better Each Time

glgioia2 November 2003

Utterly superb dramatization of the turning point battle of the Civil War. A clash so enormous in scale that whoever won, was destined to win the war. Brilliantly directed and screenwritten with top notch moving performances by all. Almost makes you understand why so many people are into those reenactment things.

I think to fully appreciate the more intelligent war films, you almost have to know the battle in detail going in. The movie uses dialogue to try and explain whats happening, but its extremely hard to conceptualize without the aid of graphics. I'm not saying you won't enjoy this film without a firm grasp of the battle details, only that you will enjoy it much more if you are able to do a little reading beforehand. Either way, see it. I am truly amazed by the depth of feeling all these guys were able to put into this project. Daniels and Berenger, in particular, give Oscar caliber performances. A total home run.

95 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gettysburg: All Time Top 10

shermatz23 November 2004

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!

97 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Stirring, and disappointing

louielol11 October 2011

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

10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

My favorite movie of all time!

SnugglySoft9 October 2002

This is undoubtedly my favorite movie of all time. Martin Sheen and Jeff Daniels give, in my opinion, the greatest performances of their careers. The music and cinematography is also excellent.

I have heard of complaints that this movie is too long. But to fully understand the story, it takes this much footage to make the movie complete.

I think that Ronald F. Maxwell did an excellent job in taking "The Killer Angels" (the book that the movie is based on) and turning it into a movie. The trilogy of novels surrounding this story i.e. "Gods and Generals", "The Killer Angels", and "The Full Measure" are excellent reads for any war or history buff and I would strongly recommend them.

The battle scenes are also very realistic. This movie was a dream for every civil war reenactor alive. Thousands came from across the country to be in this movie. They were not paid with money, but paid with the chance to reenact their passion for history on the same fields where their ancestors spilled there blood over 100 years ago. That is a feat in itself.

In conclusion, this movie is a 10. It makes me cry every time I watch it. The acting, cinematography, and music, make history come to life. Go and see it! Can't wait till "Gods and Generals" comes out!

20 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Long, But Worth The Effort Of Watching

sddavis631 November 2001

A very interesting take on the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, which is unfortunately marred by its excessive length (well over four hours), which could easily have been cut by at least an hour if unnecessary marching scenes were cut out. (I timed one point in the movie when a full six minutes went by showing nothing but troops marching. This was absolutely tedious!)

There isn't much "drama" involved in this. How can there be? Everyone knows the Battle of Gettysburg, we all know that the North won, and serious students of the Civil War know most of the military manoeuvres that were used, as well as the fates of the major combatants. So, it was up to the director (Ronald F. Maxwell) and the various actors to give us something of a unique spin to hold our attention through the long story. For the most part, they were successful.

I was quite intrigued by Martin Sheen's portrayal of General Robert E. Lee. Lee comes across almost in a mystical way - a man of vision and courage, and yet also very human. The debates between Lee and General James Longstreet (played by Tom Berenger) over strategy were realistic, and the fact that Longstreet was proved for the most part to be right demonstrate the fact that Lee - while a great General - was subject to human failings as well. Sheen portrays a Lee who is coming to terms with his hero status among his troops, but also shows him subtly uncomfortable with it.

Also interesting was the constant hearkening back to the pre-war relationship between Union general Winfield Hancock (Brian Mallon) and Confederate General Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan). Good friends before the war (almost brothers, as both describe the relationship) they now find themselves on opposite sides of this great battle, wanting to see each other because they are friends and yet not wanting to see each other as enemies. Tears well up in both as they speak to fellow officers about the relationship. A believable portrayal of how many Americans must have felt in this conflict which divided friends and families.

Most interesting of all, though, was the portrayal of General Joshua Chamberlain (by Jeff Daniels), the colonel of the 20th Maine Infantry. I was only vaguely familiar with Chamberlain when I first saw this movie, and was motivated by it to become more familiar with a truly fascinating individual. Hardly a classic soldier (he was a university professor of English and Religion back in Maine) Chamberlain displays a solid grasp of tactics, and comes across as the great Northern hero in this account of Gettysburg.

So, there are a lot of good things in this movie. Don't let the length of over four hours put you off. Although there are a few tedious scenes (such as the marching scene I described earlier) it's worth hanging in through them to get a very realistic and largely historically accurate picture of perhaps the greatest battle of the US Civil War.

6/10

35 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

One of the Great War Films of All Time

dbborroughs12 June 2004

Its over four hours long,but doesn't feel it. Any while its not gory you do get a sense of the hell of war.

What can I say that hasn't been said already?

The film works mostly because at its center its the story of Jeff Daniel's Joshua Chamberlain, a well educated man who goes off to do his duty even though he knows he may end up dead. Daniel's gives a performance that should have been noticed by the Oscars but wasn't. Its through Daniel's interaction with all the other characters that we come to understand what the war was about.

Even if the odd facial hair makes you crazy, its a great film. I can't recommend this film enough.

57 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Way Too Long

xiaoli73772 April 2023

I love Michael Shaara's book, "The Killer Angels." It's a book that I read in college when studying the Battle of Gettysburg. This film adaptation is way too long and drawn out though, at nearly four and a half hours. It easily could have been three hours at the longest, and a lot of filler could have been cut.

I don't like Martin Sheen's version of Robert E. Lee. I've never seen "Gods and Generals", but from what I've heard, Robert Duvall does a much better job in that film. Martin Sheen's accent is just not very good to me, sounds like the normal Martin Sheen voice trying to mix a slight southern aristocrat twang onto it.

Jeff Daniels and Tom Berenger do a lot better jobs as the films central characters, the Union Colonel Chamberlain and the Confederate General Longstreet, respectively. I like how the film alternates between the stories of the two men and really tries to drive home the differences between the northern and southern armies.

The battle scenes, cinematography, and such are all kind of a letdown to me. I would have wished for a little more flair in the battle, a little more dirt and blood and swearing. I think that this film was originally planned as a TV miniseries which explains the PG rating and the lack of mature content.

Personally, I thought it was decent and worth watching as the only really big film version of one of the most significant battles in American history. It still kind of puzzles me that there aren't more versions of this story. I wouldn't recommend this for casual viewers or for those who would like a little more of an in depth look at Civil War politics. As stated earlier, the lack of grittiness in its tone also was a bit of a letdown to me, I would have loved to see an R-rated Gettysburg movie. If you can put up with the over four hour run time and a slower pace, you'll get a pretty decent adaptation of a novel that is much better to just go and read. Try not to fall asleep and take it in chunks.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

An American will like it; a Yankee will love it

moviecat-619 September 1999

Warning: Spoilers

Warning: Somewhat of a spoiler on historical points.

As a civil war buff, I can tell you that this is the best movie ever made of the civil war, perhaps the best war movie of all time, and possibly one of the best movies of all time. I find it enjoyable to rewatch frequently.

The movie is surprisingly, historically accurate. I have read over two hundred books on the civil war and I can tell you with at least a little authority, that the three main characters in the movie deserve their treatment.

The first character is Tom Berenger giving a superb portrayal of Lieutenant General James (Pete) Longstreet, a Confederate corps commander. For the benefit of those who are not that familiar with civil war history, the monumental battle of Gettysburg occurred just past the halfway point of the war. Significantly, it occurred after the death of CSA Lieutenant General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson. Longstreet graduated to General Lee's most trusted lieutenant. The movie accurately portrays the tug of wills between Longstreet and Lee. It is historical fact that Longstreet argued against invasion of the North, agreeing to it only after getting some vague assurance from Lee that the battle would be defensively fought. It is fact that Longstreet argued for an attack around the Union's left flank (if there was to be an attack at all). Finally, it is undeniable fact that Longstreet argued with Lee so vehemently against the final failed attack that he later wrote that he thought he had stepped over the military line and would be relieved of command. I don't see how Berenger could have done a better job and I am still upset that he received no Academy Award recognition. I would imagine that Americans from the South are a little uncomfortable about Longstreet being right and the supposedly lovable Lee being wrong. But, history is history. I should mention that Longstreet is my favorite Confederate Officer.

Martin Sheen does only a fairish job of portraying General Robert E. Lee. He seems to have only one facial expression, that of pain and worry. Perhaps that is understandable considering that Gettysburg was such a Confederate disaster, but I believe it was overdone. What I do find interesting is that historians are coming more and more to the realization that Lee was not such a great general and perhaps not even a very good one. Looking at this movie unbiasedly, you can't help but get that impression yourself.

Jeff Daniels, playing the character of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, does a job that is every bit as good as Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet. Chamberlain was very much the Union hero as portrayed in this movie, so Northern Americans may especially like this movie. Chamberlain did in fact win the Congressional Medal of Honor for his performance during the Battle of Gettysburg. A non-regular military man, a non West Point graduate, Chamberlain went on to great glory even after Gettysburg. Promoted all the way up to Major (two-star) General, Chamberlain was more than with Grant at the final surrender of Lee at Appomattox Court House, as pointed out by another reviewer. He was given the singular honor of officially receiving the surrender and parole of Confederate troops three days after Lee's negotiated surrender, and well after Lieutenant General Grant had left for Washington. He also won recognition for his dramatic salute to the defeated Confederate soldiers that both Union and Confederate people of the time appreciated.

The movie is beautifully choreographed with thousands of extras, many, most, or perhaps even all being professional re-enactors. It gave the movie a realism lacking in many other war movies. The pathos of some of the Officers was palpable and made one sad whether of Union or Confederate sympathy. The musical score was memorable. I give it a ten out of ten and I, for one, enjoyed the length of the movie which is admittedly long at just over four hours.

Rent this movie. You will learn a great deal of American history, and have a good time doing so.

21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Very good movie, interesting not only for military historians

jpg-819 February 2000

Watching "Gettysburg", you will know everything about the battle. Where the armies marched, who attacked, where the fighting took place, etc. Facts are very precise. You will also find out how the chain of command works, from the highest general to the men fighting of the front row. Anybody interested in military history has plenty to learn and won't feel the 4 hours of the movie. One of the good points of the screenplay is that it keeps coming on the discussions between general Lee and lieutenant general Longstreet : what those two officers decided is indeed a main point. Those who are not fond of strategy will perhaps appreciate very spectacular combat scenes, like the assault on Little Round Top or the charge of the Pickett division. They may also like the performances of the actors. Martin Sheen, Tom Berenger, Sam Elliott, Jeff Daniels... All are very believable Civil War officers. They don't just act, they also managed to have a physical aspect close to the historical characters. In the end, there are only two reproaches to be made to "Gettysburg". The first is about the music : sometimes there is too much of it. The second is about the speech of colonel Chamberlain to the mutinous soldiers from Maine. I don't really know how officers cheered troops reluctant to fight. But this speech looks like a cliché when you hear it. Those two drawbacks are very minor, fortunately. The movie is anyway very good : it is not up to anybody to keep interest going for 4 hours.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3/10

An Epic Disappointment

fritzgray19 January 2003

Director Ronald Maxwell had a great opportunity to make a first rate film of the epochal battle of Gettysburg. First and foremost he had wonderful actors under his direction, particularly Richard Jordan and Jeff Daniels; superb source material in Michael Shaara's "The Killer Angels"; superb camera work and a very high budget. Unfortunately the whole film disappointed me.

The screenplay is overladen with speech after speech after speech by each of the generals involved with the battle on either side. There is ironically very little tension and drama in the film. The music is overdone with a vengance, and it seems to sound the same. It is underlying just about every scene. It does get tedious after over four hours. In every scene we get the impression that the director is telling us 'this is great, this is memorable, what a sad thing to have happened, get on your knees and genuflect and reflect on the great tragedy.' I don't really mean to be sarcastic. The battle of Gettysburg was a great, tragic day for America. Its importance can't be overestimated. But director Maxwell keeps hitting us with this point over and over again that the message he was trying to convey gets lost in the morass. I visited the battlefields of Gettysburg myself, and it had an overwhelming impact on me. It was haunted with a sadness and loss that was both inexplicable yet very evident. There is almost none of that same feeling inherent in this film. It is watchable for the beautiful cinematography and the beautiful location scenery. Again, I want to single out the late Richard Jordan. He was remarkable. I suppose my ultimate judgement on "Gettysburg" is that it is a competent primer on the battle of Gettysburg, yet a disappointing, stilted drama.

12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

An amazing battle picture

vaughan.birbeck5 March 2002

A film that runs longer than 'Lawrence of Arabia' and only covers three days of action sounds a long haul but it is not. As someone who is both British and interested rather than an expert on the Civil War I found 'Gettysburg' very satisfying. The prologue makes the objectives of the two armies clear and the 'updates' in the form of dialogue between the commanders mean the viewer doesn't lose sight of the course of events. The battle scenes capture the "terrible beauty" of combat, conveying terror, claustrophobia and violence without being too horrific.

More important, the film makes the most of the remarkably rich characters who took part. My only hope is that Col. Chamberlain was as intelligent, humane and courageous in life as Jeff Daniels's performance. This is just one example, and there are many men one would like to know more about as a result of seeing this.

The one question I was left with came from Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee. I know Lee had been unwell before the battle but Martin Sheen seems strangely remote from events, with a glazed look in his eye and high-pitched 'other worldly' voice. Is this fair and accurate? At least Lee has the moral courage to say "It's all my fault" when he sees the result of Pickett's Charge. I don't remember Douglas Haig saying that after the first day on the Somme in 1916.

32 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

My favorite movie of all time

jnwa37 September 2004

Gettysburg is the best civil war movie I have ever had the privilege of watching. Martin Sheen would not have been my choice as General Robert E Lee but very quickly into the movie I found myself truly believing he was the great general himself. Jeff Daniels as General Chamberlain was simply amazing in his similarity to the real person in looks and his performance brought me to tears. Once I got past the awful beard of Tom Berenger who was playing General Longstreet, I was delighted at his performance which to me was an academy award worthy performance. Ronald Maxwell is my hero for bringing this wonderful story to life and to all the extras that were needed to make this movie a complete success my hat is off to you. If you can see this movie without immediately planning a trip the the beautiful town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, I will be very surprised. It is my favorite movie of all time.

15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Wow!

grahamsj35 September 2000

Warning: Spoilers

What a film! This one grabs you right from the start and keeps you. And it needs to-it's a long film. The film is fairly accurate, historically, and was shot partially on location. The performances of Martin Sheen as General Robert E. Lee and Tom Berenger as General James Longstreet are nothing to get excited about, especially during one scene where both of them deliver their lines very woodenly. Nearly everyone else in the film is great! The most galvanizing performance is that of Jeff Daniels as Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. I'd have followed him into hell, which his men did. The battle scenes in this film are truly epic in size and the cinematography is brilliantly executed. When all those dozens of Confederate cannon fire one by one, it made me feel as if those cannonballs were headed for me. The soundtrack is spectacular, particularly if you have DTS 5.1! I gave it a 9 only because I felt that Sheen & Berenger could have done a little better. But it is truly one of the great war films of all time.

12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

The movie served it's purpose well but could have been more exciting.

lexi-2302820 December 2015

Warning: Spoilers

I,myself,am not a historical movie lover and I require a lot of action on screen to hold my attention. This movie had a decent amount of action/fighting scenes (but what do you expect with a pg rated movie?). Although I was a bit bored without the extra action, the movie hit many major points about the decision making that happened during the war. Honestly I learned many facts that I would never have known about the Battle of Gettysburg without watching it. The movie was quite accurate with dates,backgrounds,props,etc besides a few mishaps such as a few views of paved roads at different scenes and the view of an air conditioning unit at a farmhouse. The actors were amazing and showed a lot of emotion especially the actor who played as Col.Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. I wish that the actors voices were a bit louder because at many points during the movie it was very hard to hear them even with the volume on 60 and I am sure I missed many important lines because of this. Overall this movie satisfied it's purpose perfectly and the director couldn't have chosen better actors.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

A very good movie.

itsiph16 August 2001

I saw this movie years ago on TNT and I thought very well of it. I thought it to be a bit long but other than that it was a very good movie with an excellent cast.

After visiting the actual battlefield in early June (I suggest to you anyone that has a chance to do so, it is a great experience), my interest was renewed. Sitting on top of the little round top and looking down and around the hill I could envision the 20th Maine. Looking over the grounds where Pickett's Charge took place I could hear the canon's thunder and the bullets flying by.

This movie captures the essence of the battle and it has to be long in order to do so. The torment of the Generals was more than apparent throughout the movie. The emotions run deep and the actors did a very good job of conveying them. The soundtrack complemented the movie a 100% and gave the right accents at the right moments. The cinematography was awesome and accurate, since a lot was filmed on location. The acting is great and the reenactors should also be praised for their participation.

If you watch this movie and criticize its historical inaccuracies you will miss the point. It does the best job it can, to give you the feel and overview of the entire battle.

You will be crying at some point, for all the men lost in vain in the civil war. The most terrible kind of war in which brothers, relatives or friends face each other with the intend to kill each other. You will also realize the heavy burden of the officers leading their men to a battle where their death is most surely waiting.

Above all, the film will tell us how insane we are as a human race. We organize ourselves and develop weapons in order to mass destruct each other. Over 50000 men died in three days, how many mothers, wives and families were 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 matter how `sacred' or `right' this cause may be.

Look at me I am mumbling on with my emotions and thoughts that have emanated from the movie. Watch the movie, for all its shortcomings; it is still right up there with Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

The story of the actual "heroes" has not been captured

steiner-sam17 June 2023

It's a war movie about the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 and covers four days--June 30 to July 3--in this pivotal Civil War battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was initially a mini-series for the TNT cable network.

"Gettysburg" is told from the perspective of leading military officers in the Union and Confederate armies. The film begins with Confederate spy Henry Harrison (Cooper Huckabee) reporting to Confederate General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger) about the movements of the Union Army, newly under the direction of General George Meade (Richard Anderson). It then launches into protracted day-by-day presentations of the various battles over the next three days, with some of the filming on location in the Gettysburg National Military Park.

All the foremost leaders are there. On the Confederate side are Generals Robert E. Lee (Martin Sheen), George Pickett (Stephen Lang), Lewis Armistead (Richard Jordan), Isaac Trimble (W. Margan Sheppard), and British Colonel Arthur Fremantle (James Lancaster). The Union side includes Generals John Buford (Sam Elliott), John Reynolds (John Rothman), Winfield Hancock (Brian Mallon), Colonel Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels), and Lieutenant Thomas Chamberlain (C. Thomas Howell). There are many other historical characters, as well as some 5000 Civil War reenactors, included in major battle scenes.

The approach relies heavily on tactics and disputes between generals; this is not about the life of army privates in battle. Maxwell works hard on the authenticity of appearances, and the visualization of marching infantry columns and cannons roaring is impressive. However, the battle scenes lack essential reality, as there is minimal blood (soldiers seem to die from bloodless gunshots quickly) and no shouts or screams of pain from injury despite significant hand-to-hand battles.

The large tapestry makes "Gettysburg" impressive, but one feels the story of the actual "heroes" has not been captured.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

No Civil War Buff, But I Still Enjoyed It

ccthemovieman-123 March 2006

At four hours-plus, this is one of the longest movies I own but is well-made and worth owning, and I'm not a "Civil War buff," either. I would probably appreciate this movie even more if I did know more about that horrible conflict. Being familiar with all the small towns surrounding Gettsyburg wouldn't hurt.

The movie is well-acted, nicely filmed and has some memorable scenes. My only complaints are that some of the action scenes go on too long and I didn't appreciate the plug for Darwin's evolutionary theories, which had no place in this film. However, this is a Turner Pictures film and the "Turner" is outspoken atheist Ted Turner, it's no surprise we get this thrown in our faces.

Otherwise, they stuck to the war story. It was interesting how they portrayed Robert E. Lee. They make him look a little stupid in his strategy but also gave him a compassionate look, and you couldn't help but feel sorry for the man. Actually, all the officers on both sides were portrayed fairly as nothing but good and brave men.

Jeff Daniels, as Colonel Joshua Chamberlain, had the best role and came off looking the best. It may be Daniels' best work ever, too. Martin Sheen was outstanding as Lee. Kudos to Tom Berenger (Lt. Gen. James Longstreet) and Richard Jordan (Brig. Gen. Lewis Armistead) for their performances, too.

It's a quality show, filmed on the Gettysburg sites, too. Although there are a few long fight scenes, this is not a bloody film. Language-wise, this probably holds the record for the most usage of the word "damn" but that's it, profanity-wise.

I wouldn't let the length of this movie prohibit you from watching it. You can always break it up into segments over a couple of days.

39 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Good film slightly flawed by Turner TV style production

louiss14 January 1999

When I saw Gettysburg the weekend it opened I think around summer of 1983 I was somewhat disappointed but considering the rarity of historical epics " my favorite film genre " and the quality or lack of 80's & 90's films it was a refreshing change of pace and a decent film. Gettysburg was also a subject I had been waiting a lifetime to be put on film having been a Civil War buff. I was disappointed even prior to seeing the film with the knowledge Ted Turner was involved with the production. I expected and was correct in my assumptions that it would be similar to many of the TNT made for TV productions in style and pace, have some political correctness and be mild in the area of blood and graphic violence all of which were detrimental to the film. On the first point I thought the direction was lackluster and the battles did not have the intensity of the much more moving and exciting Glory. Concerning PC I thought the speech by Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain was moving and one of the best scenes in the film however his sergeants comments about blacks was out of place and a little too much for 1863 ! I don't think its always necessary to have blood & guts all over the screen as in most current films depicting violence but I do believe that if ever graphic violence was necessary to convey a historical event it was needed most notably during Pickett's charge in which bodies were ripped to shreds by the massive fire that was inflicted upon them and was part of the great tragedy and horror of the Civil War. I would have also liked the film to be in a wide screen format but again I think this has to do with Turner and TV. I liked all of the performances of the small star cast in the film even Martin Sheen as Lee " I'm not sure why his performance was criticized so much " my favorites were Jeff Daniels and Tom Berenger with the only exception being Sam Elliott a perennial TNT movie star who was annoying with his over-acting. On the plus side was the very fine score and for a 4+ hour film it flew by and had many moving scenes one of them was the rousing cheer of Lee's men as he came to greet them prior to the climactic battle and two great scenes involving Chamberlain " his speech early on and leading his ammunition depleted men on a desperate bayonet charge" . I also have to admit I watch this film every time its on Turner and my appreciation grows for it with every viewing and the shortcomings I mentioned bothered me initially but not in my repeated viewing and considering the extreme rarity of Civil War epics I now would highly recommend seeing Gettysburg.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

This should be show in schools to understand what the American Civil war was about.

nrummey22 November 2021

Warning: Spoilers

As as historian, watching movies about historic events worry me. 99% of the time films like these are full of historic inaccuracies or include side love stories that have not relevance to the event which is being told ie Braveheart and the relationship between Wallace and Princess Isabelle.

This one is correct to the history books. (on both sides ** because this film mostly shows the side of the Confederates it does explain it was not about slavery but rights of the states** )

This movie they nailed it 100%. Most descriptions of the film will say it is based on 3 key events in the battle, Buford's holding action, Little round top and Picketts charge but there is more to this battle I do feel they should of got in on the film. (it would of cost a fortune in extras and be 10 hours long however)

Casting - Each actor was picked due to his resemblance to the man he is portraying, however each actor was brilliant.

Martin Sheen played Lee as most from history would describe him - a soft spoken grandfather type figure that commanded respect.

Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain was great especially when he roared 'BAYONETS' (as Ex-British infantry) this gave me goosepimples :) However the best performance by a country mile was Richard Jordan's portraying Armistead, as a Shakespearian actor this was just brilliant. Especially his 'Every Virginian is American' speech.

I think what made this film great is the extras, the reenactors, which oozed the level of commitment the real soldiers had and the location was actually filmed on location.

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

The Best American Civil War Movie

Mara-Jade-Skywalker-2313 July 2019

The American Civil War was a conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, and nearly broke a nation. And the famous battle of that historical conflict, was the Battle of Gettysburg. It was a real turning point in the war, the last attempt of a fragmenting South, to make an advance on their northern neighbors. The attempt failed, and the South was on a long loosing streak, until their eventual surrender.

And this 4 and a half hour epic, chronicles the events of that battle with perfect presision and historical accuracy. In fact, it needed to be accurate if the people who wanted it to be made.

As back in 1993, the director Ronald F. Maxwell wanted to film his movie at the location the battle was fought, Gettysburg, PA. However, if he wanted to film it at the location. He would have to be as accurate as possible. If he wasn't, he couldn't make the movie on that historical landmark. So, he decided to stay true to the events.

First off, the film doesn't antagonize the South or the North, treating both sides of the war with respect. We see the battle from the perspective of the generals who lead the battle, and stay accurate to the orders they gave, and the issues they went through.

The film's 4 hour run time, in my opinion, was also needed, if they wanted to adapt everything that happened. And in my opinion, the film is never boring, it never felt like it had filler. We see the mistakes that all the Confederates continually made. And what lead to them loosing.

"Gettysburg" was a film that required historical accuracy. The people behind it had a passion for this battle, and wanted to portray it on screen. And I think this is a good example of how historical accuracy is possible and required in a movie about history.

The costumes are accurate, the film really focuses on the tactics, staying true to exactly what happened. The acting and visuals are also astounding to watch. The film truly recreates the historical Battle of Gettysburg.

In conclusion, "Gettysburg" a film that respects history, and is almost a love letter to the battle. It doesn't feel long, it rarely makes things up, the acting is great, and the visuals all perfectly adapt the story of the battle. "Gettysburg" is simply one of the greatest historical movies ever made, and the best Civil War movie ever made.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Romanticized war film that hasn't aged very well

kevingj16 May 2020

War is dirty, ugly and desperate, especially a civil war, in its 3rd year, fought by conscripts and volunteers. Among the troops on either side there are differences in class, means, power and origin. While there is plenty of violence and battle scenes, you don't get much of a sense for the power dynamics, the passions and hatreds, the gritty ugliness of a nation tearing itself apart. It's as if the film is holding back, so as not to offend or put off audiences. It's a film about an bitterly fought civil war but this film offends no one.

The dialogue between characters is interesting. The location and cinematography very good. Mostly, I found the soundtrack overwrought and dated, making the film feel overly romanticized and out of step with the subject matter. Sometimes it seemed like a bunch of reenactors got together to make a movie.

Perhaps this movie should be remastered and updated, stripping the film of the musical score. A version could also be paired with some commentary from history experts, to provide some context that feels missing at times.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed