Steineded How sad is this?

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

fxlafferty 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.

MeadeIndeed I'm not going to claim that I am an expert on the American Civil War, however I am a lover of history and as such I've studied it quite closely. Before watching this "documentary" I read up on the battle of Gettysburg and watched videos made by the tour guides who work there.It made me very interested to learn more and then found this "documentary". Figured it couldn't hurt to see it. Right? What met me was a disjointed, uninteresting, muddled portrayal of the events that took place at Gettysburg. You have Rebel soldiers dressed in rags, not uniforms. You've got people running all over the place pretty much never staying in any kind of formation. Not to mention all the things they get wrong both big and small in terms of history.The cinematography is sub-par to say the least, the camera is constantly shaking, it's cut up to all hell, using slow-motion as well as extreme close-up shots WAY too much.Even with them trying to focus on specific soldiers to portray whatever story they were trying to tell the whole thing is hidden by a 20 inch layer of vaseline.I have no idea what they were going for with this. It's boring, disjointed and impossible to follow from start to finish. Whoever says that this is a good or great film/documentary clearly have no point of reference because this is EASILY the worst historical portrayal of any kind I've EVER seen.Then again, what else should I have expected from a History Channel production?

ayoshak 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.

jlhare-1 I'm a cultural historian, and I've don't a good deal of work on representations of history. To expect that a movie will offer a completely accurate representation of events is to ask too much. Still, this one drips with inaccuracies. The devil is truly in the details. For example, maybe some would argue that showing LTG Richard S. Ewell arriving on horseback is forgivable, even though he really arrived in a carriage and his wooden leg was promptly shattered by a Union minie ball. Unfortunately, though, the arrival on horseback supports the idea that Ewell was eager to take vengeance for the leg he had lost. There's nothing to support this. Historians have found plenty of evidence that he was not fighter he had been. MG Isaac Trimble almost begged Ewell to order an attack on Culp's and Cemetery Hills on July 1, before Federal troops had entrenched and solidified a position. Ewell refused. There are similar gaffes throughout. It's not clear what point the producers wanted to make here; if it were, perhaps the reason for the easily avoided errors would be clear.