Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)

A Magnificent Production! Remains true to the book on which it is based, "The Killer Angels."

Being an active professor, a war film collector, and a twenty-five-year military veteran, I sometimes tend to be overly-critical of war films, mostly in terms of historical accuracy and "situational believability." The pains the producers took make this both an enjoyable film yet as historically accurate as they could are especially noteworthy.

Numerous other reviewers have accomplished excellent detailed descriptions of the unfolding events that evolved into the Battle of Gettysburg, as described in the film, so I will limit my comments to those that I believe will focus on overall quality.

The film accurately presents the evolution of events that slowly build into one of history's most important battles, one that neither side really wanted to fight on this site, despite the fact that it proved to be "good ground" for such a massive engagement. One aspect of this "crescendo approach" that I most appreciated was the presentation of many views of the characters and personalities of the military figures from both sides of the conflict.

One of the most important revelations was the fact that General Robert E. Lee was not the strategically infallible figure that many historians portray, and that certain decisions he made, despite the opposition of his excellent corps and division commanders, ultimately turned the battle in the Union's favor. The film also subtly presented the effect on the battle's strategy and outcome of the untimely death of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, as presented in "Gods and Generals."

When I first saw the listings on the cast of this film, I was taken aback, since I had mentally stereotyped some actors' in previous roles that would not seem to be a "fit" for their roles in this film. However, Martin Sheen did a fine job as Robert E. Lee, Tom Berenger was superb as General Longstreet, Stephen Lang excelled as General Pickett, and so on. The greatest surprise was the performance of Jeff Daniels as Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, whose performance is followed here and further expanded upon in "Gods and Generals," "Gettysburg's" prequel. This film, and his performance in "The Crossing" clearly showed what a fine and versatile actor Daniels is.

It would be redundant to describe some of the most fantastic battle scenes ever filmed, as this has been well-covered by other reviewers. "Utterly fantastic" about covers it, in terms of realism and a "spare no expense" attitude on the parts of the producers who desired historical accuracy in the making of the film.

I seriously cannot imagine any collector who would not place this film near the top of most valued films of all time. Simply priceless, especially in terms of emphasizing the always elusive "human side" of war films.

This movie is based on the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara The Killer Angelswhich is an excellent read, especially if you enjoy the history of this war. The book is based largely on the writings and letters of Longstreet. The book covers in depth the feelings and ideas of the men who planned and fought the battle, something I felt the movie failed to do. When reading the book I found myself deeply saddened by the losses the confederates had because you got to see inside the men's minds and know what they were thinking and feeling and that they were extremely brave and gallant men, this does not happen in the movie. In the movie the fault of the southern disaster lies fully with Lee but when I read the book I had to place some of the blame on Longstreet and other southern generals for not standing up to Lee more forcefully to press their point to fight elsewhere where they would hold the high ground. Something they had done very successfully up until now. In the book Lee thinks that the second day of battle was almost a success while Longstreet does not see it this way. Longstreet, however, does not press this point with Lee. In the book Longstreet goes through every step of the last day of battle in his mind. He knows his men will be cut to pieces but also knows that it is useless to argue with Lee, because Lee will not change his mind. He lets himself and his men down and he knows it. After giving the order to attack on the last day of this battle Longstreet walks off alone and leans against a fence with his head down while tears run down his face as the battle rages around him, he knows what the results of the battle will be and what he has done. You don't get this kind of feeling in the movie. In the movie you get to see the battle but it fails to make you realize what the men were about and the vast amount of men that were killed and wounded in this one battle. Over 50,000 men killed.

Martin Sheen was horrible as Lee, very poor acting on his part as far as I am concerned. He managed to make Lee look almost lifeless and almost retarded. Picket never seemed to lead the infamous charge that bears his name and that virtually destroyed his division. Most of the other main parts, those of Longstreet, Pickett and Chamberlain were well acted which saved the movie from being a total flop.

Read the book and you will get a better feeling of what this battle, and the men who fought it, were all about.

This ia an excellant picture The acting and everything pertaining to the picture is in my view a 10........SEE IT, YOU WONT BE DISSOPOINTED

This movie is based on the book "The Killer Angels" which is an awesome work of art (Pulitzer Prize winning novel). I HIGHLY RECOMMEND reading the book thoroughly before attempting to watch this movie. The book is flat out phenomenal. The movie, on the other hand, was disappointing for me. I'll try to explain why I thought so. First of all, the acting in this movie is not the best work done by the actors that appear in the movie, most of whom have impressive resumes. The way Martin Sheen portrays Robert E. Lee makes one wonder how this General could have achieved such a lofty reputation. I think Sheen was off base in his effort here. Tom Berenger, however, plays a great General Longstreet. The fake beards in the movie are terrible and hard to over-look as you're watching it and trying to follow this gripping story. You almost can't stop yourself from laughing at the makeup. The movie itself is very long, around 4 hours, and you have to flip the DVD over after viewing the first half, which in itself is not a problem, but I would think that the director could include more important scenes in a movie of that length than some of the scenes left in. For example, I would have liked the movie to explore the interaction between Lee and Longstreet AFTER the battle (which the book does some). This movie is hard to follow if you haven't read the book and already have an idea where the story is going. The movie jumps around and it is easy for the first time viewer to get lost and not understand where the movie is going as it bounces around from one side of the battle to the other and from one character to another. The movie makers didn't do a good enough job transitioning from scene to scene to keep the audience clued in to what was happening and why a particular chain of events was important to the story and the outcome. If you are a true civil war "buff" I definitely think you should watch the movie, but don't expect a masterpiece or a great piece of work. Movies are NEVER as good as the books they are based upon. It seems that the acting in this movie is "wooden" with the actors reading from pages of script, as if hurried along to get finished. The way the scenes were shot gives the movie an "artificial" feel as if they are on a stage with a bunch of props and as a result the movie doesn't feel "realistic". It seems as though you are watching a re-enactment instead of actual events (other war movies escape this trap and make the audience feel they are watching the actual event). In summary, I'm glad I watched it but I thought it could have been better. This movie is average at best.