Yar, you be here: Gettysburg > Customer Reviews

Gettysburg Customer Reviews (4 - 6 of 64 Reviews)

I wish I was in Dixie...
This is one of the best movie about the civil war I've ever seen. It is the most instructive, realistic, with very good actors playing in it ! For once, just like in "Gods and Generals", the movie is more focused on the southern side, which is not very often the case.
I am a fan of this part of the U.S. history, and especially of the South, and I was really captivated by this movie from the beginning to the end.

Good Civil War Movie
This is a good depiction of the Gettysburg Civil War battle.
Plenty of action...realistically portrayed.

Flawed, but effective
Despite the chintzy, unconvincing facial hair (Jeff Daniels' being the exception); Martin Sheen's too-gentlemanly interpretation of Gen. Lee's accent (and his beard); obvious & saccharine soliloquies about the higher purpose for fighting the war; generalized (and largely inaccurate) interpretations of the underlying history of the war; and hopelessly, ridiculously, wildly off-the-mark attempts atNew England accents, the film still works.

I understand that to get a film produced and distributed, it is often necessary to have recognizable names in the cast. But an unknown who looks more like General Lee than Martin Sheen would have been a better choice. And C. Thomas Howell's performance--well, let's just say that his glued-on beard was more convincing than his acting. Jeff Daniels, however, does an excellent job, in large part because he doesn't try to convince you he's from New England and consequently does not come off like Cliff from Cheers, using every stereotype associated with nasal 'r'-dropping. Instead of focusing on the so-called nasality of the NE accent (think of Sheen in The Missiles of Octobah), Daniels allows the viewer to suspend disbelief. But then, here comes CT Howell again to slap you across the face and remind you that Sheen and Kevin Costner aren't the only actors who should have appeared as New Englanders in an Ed Wood production.

I think the story works because there's enough commitment to historical military fact to make it believable. The battle scenes probably should have been more visually graphic to evoke the horror of the battle, but the movie makers either didn't have the budget for gore (maybe it was spent on the obviously fake beards) or decided to err on the side of forbearance. If Gettysburg had been made 8-10 years later, it might have benefited from the newer style of violence-depiction, as in Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, or Gladiator. It falls a bit short of that, however.

Finally, it should be noted that the producers/director seem to be operating on a rather simplistic view of the war's historical underpinnings, opting to represent the northern point of view as one united behind the idea of freeing the slaves. Anyone who knows about the Boston busing riots of the 1970s will understand that not all of the north is steeped in racial generosity and brotherhood. Very few who fought on the side of the blue fought because they believed in the abolition of slavery. They fought to preserve the Union, which is a very different concept. Abolition of slavery happened to be the issue that forced the South's hand, but it was not the sole cause of the war. The movie dumbs this down a bit, making the message more like what you'd find in a 5th-grade text book.

The battle at Gettysburg was certainly pivotal, but viewers should remember that it did not end the Civil War. The north absolutely needed to win it, but Lee continued to cause the North fits for almost 2 years after Gettysburg. C. Thomas Howell will continue to cause me fits every time I think of this movie.

Still and all, the film is very watchable. And due credit should be given to the re-enactors, arguably the greatest source of credibility for the film.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Next Page