Though I liked the cast for the most part- I did think Robert E. Lee was best portrayed by someone other than Martin Sheen- this movie was mostly 4 hours of gentlemanly Southern dialogue lightly intermingled with actual battle scenes, during many of which I saw very few soldiers fall... on either side. This was the bloodiest battle on American soil, over 600,000 lives lost, yet I barely saw any blood in this movie. The fighting only picked up in the last third of the movie- actually, soldiers were falling and dying for the entire 3 days. To state it simply, it's no Saving Private Ryan caliber representation of war. It's way too squeaky-clean for my taste, I like a lot more authenticity in these types of movies. If this film were made today, we'd all have a better idea of what really took place. Also left out were some key participants like Daniel Sickles, General George Meade, who was hardly a blip in this movie, even Jenny Wade, the only civilian killed, was left out. Speaking of which, where was the part of the battle that raged in the town of Gettysburg in which Jenny was killed? Seems to me they could have covered more in a 4 hour movie, and left out some of the pretty speeches.

This is entertaining. I will not deny that. However, the factual errors are outrageous. One of the former reviews accused those who don't like it as armchair historians. I have my Master's in History, and have done my theses on Gettysburg (particularly cavalry actions there). I must say that this is highly inaccurate. Watch it if you want to see blood, gore, and action. It is great at making the story intense. Just do not take it for the gospel.

The editor keeps using the same video clips over and over. I cannot believe that there was not enough material filmed to choose from. This is just lazy editing.Every couple of minutes I would recognise something as already seen and loose the narrative. I just hate that. Therefore this vote is for editing because it seriously spoilt my enjoyment.I did not like the use of colours, in my opinion b&w or sepia would work better. Washed out palette with dominant purple is so easy to do but it looks artificial and cheap.Also I did not like how interviews were used, all cut into three-words slices. It felt taken out context and faked, the true meaning cut away.

This "documentary"'s only positive quality might be as a comedy. But then, it's hard to laugh when you can barely stand the shaky cameras, the overtly jarring editing and supreme close-ups that would make even Stanley Kubrick cry out "enough!" Bad cinematography aside, there's the acting. Apparently all men from the 1860's were jittery, ugly, and maniacal. Yes, War is Hell, and it makes demons out of normal people, but the people in this program are caricatures. This may have something to do with the fact that they hired a cast of Europeans, who do not speak a lick. They only grunt, yell, carry on, and generally make fools of themselves. It's puzzling why the producers cast their gaze to Europe for reenactors. Apparently they didn't get the memo that the last Civil War movie was a dud, and that American Civil War reenactors are just dying to help someone get it right. For FREE. Movie producers have a ready-made cast of extras, who only want the privilege of portraying Civil War soldiers ACCURATELY. And this documentary is horrendously inaccurate, not only in the minutiae of what the soldiers were wearing or what they looked like (Monty Python's rule about high-ranking people not having crap smeared all over them does not seem to apply here), but also in more important ways. Such as how cannons operate, or when the Federals reinforced the Round Tops, or who was making the decisions about the Federal left flank.There is growing research about "negative knowledge." This is the idea that what some people say can actually DETRACT from the sum of knowledge in the world. This program fits that theory. It can only misinform, and one would do well to ignore this unqualified disaster.