finally, a film is made to try and portray history as accurate as possible, something that is not financially viable hence all the hollywood films, but instead of supporting it all you idiots vote this film down.
shareRemember, this is IMDB, not the History Channel. Movies are not being ranked here by how accurate they are. I loved the movie, but, as art, I would be hard-pressed to give it much more than an 8. Mind you, I don't think the story could have been told any better (except... I am sorry to say, Martin Sheen just didn't cut it as Robert E. Lee). Rather I think think the story is just not one that can be accurately told in a way that makes for great art. This came down to a choice between getting the story as accurate as possible or making the best movie possible. The producers chose getting the story right, and I applaud them. Unfortunately, that just means their "rating" is a couple of ticks below a perfect score.
shareI gave it a 9 but it does have flaws I can overlook that others may not
shareIt's pretty historically accurate, except for the personalities of the men involved which Schaara said straight out he developed on his own. People tend to watch it for its historical value, which IMO is missing the biggest part of the story - the historical facts are the plate, the reactions of the personalities and their interactions with each other are the food on the plate. It's about men trapped - in a war and battle they don't want, in personal situations they don't want, in internal agonies they don't want. It's about how they handle being so absolutely trapped.
shareJust some context.
Glory 7.9
Braveheart 8.4
Platoon 8.1
Full Metal Jacket 8.3
Thin Red Line 7.6
We Were Soldiers 7.1
Saving Private Ryan 8.6
Black Hawk Down 7.7
It was accurate to the book, history not enough that I'm going to give it some special bonus points for it.
Must accuracy be everything? The battle didn't really start because of shoes, Chamberlain didn't actually order a bayonet charge, Pickett's Charge wasn't Lee's first plan for the third day, the Round Tops weren't the intended target of the second day but I'm not going to dock it a point because of that. All things considered 7.7 is a fair rating.
The actual fighting scenes look like made by reenactors. As there was for sure not enough budget to do special effects to the needed massive extend, you can actually see that the soldiers try to avoid causing injuries. So all close combat scenes are looking made up.
This is not especially bad as most war films do not show close combat realistically and most give a vastly wrong impression of the encounter of troops. Spartacus for example made a very good choice: avoids showing the (wrong) mass action. A war film demanding a 10 has to do the same or need the huge effort to show things right as Saving Private Ryan for example. By failing this, Gettysburg gets a good 7.7.
Best regards
Dietmar
i gave the movie 9 rating but overall 7.7 is pretty decent..perhaps ppl would have rated more if the battles scenes were done in more modern way..that is with special effect or close up shots..but that would required budget..personally i prefer the battle scene as it is ..i find it more realistic this way..
shareJust finished reading Stephen Sear's "Gettysburg." He describes a scene during Pickett's charge in which the rebels are near the wall and approaching a battery of 3 cannons. The Union fires a salvo of double canister and the 20 or so rebels "dissolved into a pink mist. After the smoke cleared there were hardly even destroyed carcasses remaining." I'm with you; most of the fighting was realistic enough for me.
share