As Gettysburg tries to be very accurate on what happened on the battlefield when you look at the formations, historic weaponry, correct uniforms etc. it utterly fails to show the psychological "cracks", the inconsistencies, the doubts that every participant in a war always has. Even when the men are exhausted and deadly wounded, there is always a general in this film with some heroic words that can keep the moral of the troops up. Under the utterly heroic tunes of the pathetic soundtrack you see thousands die, just to make a few hundred meters on some grassland hills. Nobody deserts, nobody goes crazy by the horrors. This is as glorifying as the Riefenstahl-Movies in the 30s.This might work for civil war romantics, but as a propaganda movie its a bad one. Its at least two hours too long, badly edited, it has no tight rhythm and only alternates between overlong large battlefield scenes and heroic speeches on both sides.So I think the only ones I would recommend this are film-buffs and historians, who are interested in how even badly made propaganda movies about the civil war get so much praise from their fans.

Gettysburg is a great war movie if you are interested in them (war movies) as I am. Many historically based movies are out there in this world and this is one of them...although it took pretty much 4 hours to watch the whole thing, it held my attention. Through the constant fighting, and watching the stress the commanders and soldiers were experiencing were very real. Real, as in you're fully attentive to see what's going to happen next and if the North will really be able to keep the South back! Historically, you can also relate as many of the true issues of the Civil War were mentioned and/or apparent as you watched. One, being the difficulty of loss and the tragedy of the situation...men from the same country were killing each other...men who were friends were supposed to be killing each other...starvation, over-exertion,and simply, yet, very importantly...the necessity of winning the battle of Gettysburg. The battle that we all know, was the defining moment of the war and its winner. Along with the historical allusions, the characters made it very real-the division was quite clear. One of the colonels had even said that this war was being fought due to the fact that it is the right thing to do; and along with that,freed states vs. slave states is not something that should be happening and that unity is an essential value of a functioning country. In all, the con for me was the time consumption...however the action and the history made it enjoyable.

Gettysburg, an adaptation of the novel by Michael Shaara, is a huge war epic that tells the story of the famous three-day battle in Civil War Pennsylvania. Like the novel, the film centers on the experiences of a few main characters, especially Joshua Chamberlain, the Yankee colonel commanding the 20th Maine regiment, and James Longstreet, the dour Confederate corps commander who foresaw the final disaster, and uses their lenses to tell the story of the battle as a whole. The film has a terrific ensemble cast including Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain, Tom Berenger as Longstreet, Sam Elliot as Union cavalry commander John Buford, and Martin Sheen as Confederate army commander Robert E Lee.Gettysburg differs from its source novel, the Killer Angels, by projecting a sense of vastness and majesty. The battle scenes are done by thousands of volunteer reenactors, and the musical score by Randy Edelman projects a sweeping romantic breadth. The novel was more of a character study of Buford, Chamberlain and Longstreet and how they are essentially both killers and virtuous human beings at the same time ("Killer Angels"). The movie, on the other hand, gets caught up in the project of reenacting the battle as a sort of visual memorial to those who fought. Some scenes in the movie develop the book's characters well, but others seem a bit clunky and clichéd. Also, because the movie follows the book in its narrative conception, some key parts of the battle are left out of the movie. Civil War buffs will notice these deficiencies and might wonder why the movie omitted such important details (the battle for Culp's and Cemetery Hills, for instance).On the other hand, this movie succeeds brilliantly in creating that sort of visual memorial that the makers were seeking. The reenactors perform a tour-de-force, really taking us to the center of the action. The tactics and strategies are very clearly relayed in the movie, the sense of terror and courage are all well projected. Northern and Southern ideologies are presented without bias so the audience can draw its own conclusions. The production is very lovingly done, with tremendous admiration for the officers and soldiers of both sides. It is also one of the rare movies that is four hours long but seems much shorter because of all of the very gripping drama that happens on screen.In short, Gettysburg will certain thrill the Civil War buffs, but will likely entertain and interest others as well. The time capsule is not perfectly faithful in all of its details, but its spirit is spot-on.

This by far one of the longest movies i've watched. In some scenes when it wasn't an action scene, it was hard to focus on what was going on. The acting in this movie was very good. Jeff Daniels, who played General Chamberlain had the best acting performance. It was also a very realistic movie without being a gory movie. I've visited one of the battlefields pictured in the movie so i had a connection to it. Some parts were truly inspiring and moving which makes it a good movie to watch as a family. The director definitely took the time to research the facts about the war and included as much historical context as possible. In the end, i would recommend this movie to friends and family due to the historical accuracy of the battle at Gettysburg.