Gettysburg (1993)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Jeff "

  
  Gettysberg directed by Ronald F. Maxwell and financed by Ted Turner is an epic war film. The film recreates the battle of Gettysberg during the American civil war. During the three days of July 1,2 and 3rd 1863, the Confederate army and Union army clashed head to head to gain control… More
  Gettysberg directed by Ronald F. Maxwell and financed by Ted Turner is an epic war film. The film recreates the battle of Gettysberg during the American civil war. During the three days of July 1,2 and 3rd 1863, the Confederate army and Union army clashed head to head to gain control of Gettysberg Pennsylvania. Gettysberg was a strategic point of interest for the Confederate army as Gettysberg had a network of important roads that led to the Northern states. taking Gettysberg would have permitted to Confederate forces to march on Washington D.C. This film chronicles the battle in vivid detail. This is an incredible film to watch because the attention to every single detail is well done. I would say that this film is quite accurate and it has minimal inaccuracy. Jeff Daniels delivers his greatest performance as Joshua Chamberlain. Martin Sheen plays Robert E. Lee, the much respected Confederate general. Gettysberg is a different kind of war film as this is set during the Civil war. The three days of brutal warfare are astounding to watch on the big screen. Everything about the battle is huge and its really awesome to see this incredible battle unfold on film. Maxwell direction is superb and the actors involved in this project really deliver something special on screen. As a war film, Gettysberg delivers something very epic, this is a four hour long film compressing three big days of battle into those four hours. If you're a civil war buff, you must watch this film. The film is quite the experience, and the film has a lot going for it. One thing thats great is that it shows both sides of the conflict, Confederate and Union. Despite some conflicting opinions on both sides, you come to understand why these men would fight for something. Gettysberg shows us not only the battle, But the reason why both sides are fighting. To that degree, Gettysberg is one terrific film as this was a war that ravaged not only America, but families and friends as well.

• Derek D

  
  Now, moving onto a completely different war Gettysburg is Ted Turner's Civil ar epic about the major turning point in the war when the Confederacy officially started getting its ass handed to it due to Lee's stubbornness, for the most part. The movie is long, over 4 hours,… More
  Now, moving onto a completely different war Gettysburg is Ted Turner's Civil ar epic about the major turning point in the war when the Confederacy officially started getting its ass handed to it due to Lee's stubbornness, for the most part. The movie is long, over 4 hours, but it's not stretched out. The battle scenes are unbelievably realistic with people getting blown away and hurled across fields by cannon blasts. Plus the acting is top notch, but the only real complaint here is the dialogue. Sometimes when a General or Colonel gets to rambling on a simple answer or explanation it turns into a speech and this happens several times. But that's the only real complaint here. Serious time and effort were put into this movie and it shows.

• Bobby H

  
  Im a major Civil War buff, and Gettysburg too me, was the greatest. I bought it as soon as I watched it and I've probably seen it about 20-times. But, as I said, I think this is moreless because of my historic loving of this period. I think the movie itself has a downfall, of… More
  Im a major Civil War buff, and Gettysburg too me, was the greatest. I bought it as soon as I watched it and I've probably seen it about 20-times. But, as I said, I think this is moreless because of my historic loving of this period. I think the movie itself has a downfall, of just being carried out for SO long. I think they needed to that too make sure they included everything that mattered (because it all did) but at the same time, it's hard for alot of people to actually sit and watch this movie all the way through - remain thrilled - and enjoy it. But overall, I really liked it and I probably wouldnt change it for nothing. Just, not reccommend it too anyone who isnt serious civil war fanatics.

• Mark K

  
  Ted Turner is a Civil War nut, and so it?s no surprise that he helped fund this sprawling, re-enactor-laden production of the famous battle of the American Civil War. Director James Maxwell and the production team did a pretty good job of coordinating the film and the… More
  Ted Turner is a Civil War nut, and so it?s no surprise that he helped fund this sprawling, re-enactor-laden production of the famous battle of the American Civil War. Director James Maxwell and the production team did a pretty good job of coordinating the film and the actor/re-enactors that form the battle scenes. If you?re not a history buff, though, there will be little to latch onto regarding the why of the tactics and the flow of the battle. The best that can be said is that it hits the high points of the multi-day action pretty well. The script was lifted from the very good novel Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. The movie, like the book, tells the story of the battle from the viewpoint of a few key individuals, of high and low rank. Jeff Daniels is the standout here: He's very believable and comfortable in his role as Col. Joshua Chamberlain. He has the best scenes, and we know the most about his character from the real Chamberlain?s writings so there's plenty of depth to his portrayal. It's interesting to note that the whole war could be said to have hinged on what his character did at one point in the action. Truly a case of how one man made a big difference. Less effective is Martin Sheen as General Robert E. Lee. An enigmatic figure at best, Lee?s character here is mostly reconstructed from a very romantic viewpoint. The real man is elusive, although Sheen does his best in some of the smaller scenes give a glimpse of what he might have been like. Tom Berenger suffers from bad makeup, but he manages to act past that as General James Longstreet. One of the more sympathetic characters is Confederate General Lew Armistead, played by the late Richard Jordan in his last film. It?s interesting to note that Jordan died the day of the premiere of the movie, almost to the minute that his character dies on screen. He does a good job portraying a war-weary, disillusioned commander who?s been losing his friends one by one over the years of war. It?s a nice performance, and amidst the patriotic drumbeats of the film, a welcome shift from the stiff marble-statue portrayals of most of the rest of the generals. Sam Eliott also has a nice role as John Buford, whose defense of the roads into Gettysburg was perhaps the whole reason the battle was fought. There?s certainly plenty of action, spaced throughout the film. The battle sequences are pretty good, and accurately capture the tactics and cost of an attack. The ?fog of war? and lack of information about the opposing armies? movements is also a central theme to the movie, as it was for warfare of the period. But none of this will really interest the average viewer, and that?s where the movie fails to engage: It?s a niche film, with a big budget and lots of sweeping camera work, but no one except a student of history will really care much for what?s going on. It?s somewhat of an anti-war film, and doesn?t point fingers at the underlying reasons for the war. For the Confederacy its still about state?s rights in 1863. For Lincoln?s general?s it?s trying to lift the war to something nobler: setting other men free. Only Chamberlain really makes this clear in a nice speech delivered by Daniels. Otherwise, we?re left adrift in a critical battle that we don?t really understand. It was a turning point in the war between the states, but no one realized it at the time. If you like period pieces with warfare, there aren?t many films about the Civil War that can match this one. While it?s far from perfect in terms of acting or dialogue, and there are some cheesy effects (the beards are really poorly done!, it?s still interesting to watch and marvel that people once killed each other who worshiped the same God, and who truly were from the same families and circles of friends. It's a four hour film, so be prepared with plenty of snacks. You might also want to watch something like Ken Burns Civil war before viewing, it will give you much more perspective on the war up to July 1863. Trivia: See if you can catch Ted Turner's cameo appearances in the film.

• Jared H

  
  This movie is something to be admired sheerly based on how ambitious it is. Clocking in at a little over four hours long, this is the most comprehensive war movie I've ever seen. It doesn't play into the normal stereotypes of other war films(e.g. the courageous and honorable… More
  This movie is something to be admired sheerly based on how ambitious it is. Clocking in at a little over four hours long, this is the most comprehensive war movie I've ever seen. It doesn't play into the normal stereotypes of other war films(e.g. the courageous and honorable good guys against the barbaric bad guys). It shows that the Union and Confederate soldiers were equally brave, passionate, religious, and American. Of course, one side had a skewed perception of the morality of slavery, but this movie reinforces the idea that everybody in the war was human, and, even the Southerners, deserved to be respected. Like "Schindler's List", the primary goal of "Gettysburg" was not to entertain the audience, but show them, to the most accurate detail, what happened during that long bloody battle. It succeeds enormously, and also deserves to be placed in a league of its own; it's something much larger than a "movie". It does run quite long, and the dialogue is sometimes overly-dramatized, but after "Glory", this is probably the best Civil War movie ever made.

• Moe E

  
  I'm sorry, but Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner took an excellent book and turned it into a farce of a movie. I mean my gosh, even Ken Burns had a cameo! And Martin Sheen should be ashamed of his whimpering portrayal of Marse Robert. Thankfully, Robert Duvall got it right in Gods and… More
  I'm sorry, but Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner took an excellent book and turned it into a farce of a movie. I mean my gosh, even Ken Burns had a cameo! And Martin Sheen should be ashamed of his whimpering portrayal of Marse Robert. Thankfully, Robert Duvall got it right in Gods and Generals. Jeff Daniels, Sam Elliott and Stephen Lang should be commended for performing well in their respective roles.

Read all 6 featured audience ratings