| Overall Grade: |
A |
|
| Story: |
A+ |
|
|
| Acting: |
B+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
B+ |
|
|
| Visuals: |
C- |
|
|
Civil war, balanced but too clean
by Adune S (movies profile)
Jul 21, 2007
5
of
5 people found this review helpful
First off I'll begin by stateing that I am a Canadian man and probably doesn't have the same romantisism about the Civil War as most Americans have but I still have an interest in it. And Gettysburg is a testament to why the US Civil war is worthy of study for historians, American or not.Gettysburg is a period peice about battle that became a turning point in a war that divided the United States in half.
But even if history doesn't interest you much would it be interesting? The answer would simply be no. Gettysberg is slow, informative and long, It's not a hollywood mainstream movie that has the manditory good guy or bad guy, with beautiful women in distress, etc. This film is solid history about the Civil War, nothing more nothing less.
What's unique about Gettysburg is how balanced and true to the events and history is to both the Federal Army of the United States and The Confederate Army. Each with their strengths and weaknesses apparent on screen.Also unique is that it is the first Civil war movie that doesn't concentrate on the issue of slavery as it's premise. The 3 days known as 'The Battle of Gettysburg' in it's entirety is what is portrayed in this film.
The actors are a strong point in the movie. Actors that you would never dream for the roles they play, Tough guy Tom Berenger plays a rather gentlemanly and subtle tactician genius General James Longstreet. And often comedic silly man Jeff Daniels plays as the noble and respectable Col Joshua L Chamberlain. And Martin Sheen (Who I'm usually not very fond of) portrays the charismatic legend Gen.Robert E. Lee rather convincingly. Each of the actors bring to 'Gettysburg' the richness and a true look at the civil war mentality of the time, the aristocracy of the time is hinted with every high class character portrayed. However what is lacking as a consequence is the exposure of how dull and at the same time terrifing life was for the lowly infantryman dureing the time. Another strong point was the vastness and sheer magnitude captured on screen when an engagement commeneces.
The movie has alot of strong points, But it also has flaws that have scarred the movie more then is often admitted. What is not too well known is that Gettysburg was made as 'A TV movie' But Ted Turner managed to get the production into movie theaters. So consequently the flaws are few but severe. The first is the laughably fake beards and mustaches that are 'literally' tied on the actor's faces. Gen.Longstreet's beard is so painfully obvious that it's fake that it's often distracting and takes away the seriousness required in the movie. Another HUGE flaw is the lack of blood and gore that the war was indeed known for. Pickett's charge is known to be a 'Mayhem of carnage that exploded in sprays of red along with tumbling corpses horribly mangled.' And yet the charge portrayed in the movie was incredibly clean and non-violent with men just being pushed away when they had a canister charge from a cannon fire pointblank in their faces. And every corpse and wounded men are perfectly intact. And as a rather interesting note, they never show medicle practices of the time. And last but certainly not least, the dispare of the men is not very believable, You get more of a sense that they are trying to be heroes instead of the ordinary men fighting a hellish and brutal war.
All in all Gettysburg is a great peice of history movie makeing, despite it's flaws because of the TV budget and execution, the actors and story is worthy of motion picture quality and worth watching. However Gods and Generals is better overall at portraying actual warfare of the time. |
My Public Profile 
