Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

mrharper77 Short and to the point, i LOVED the idea that someone would make a movie from one of the few books i have read more than once, Robert Maxwell, who was a devotee of the book The Killer Angels did just that., i get it i get it you wanted to worship at the altar of the author's altar, but could you have gotten a better writer and composer for this film? MAN oh man,! it wasn't the bloviating i minded, it was the stupid banal dialogue that was coming out of the actors mouths AS they were bloviating. The most childish. insulting to the viewers, type of dialogue EVER. The scene that stinks the most is the scene where the scout tries to get the pickets to let him see General Longstreet, and then the dialogue between the scout and Longstreet with the "good Virginia tobacco" line, or the over blown Sam Elliot's speech about the "the High ground, the high ground" my friends and i, just laugh at that bit, hey Sam why don't you just drop to your knees and pound the dirt with your fist as you say it..ack!!. The rest of the film really needed to be shown as it was intended to be, on TBS, over a couple of nights. it would have helped. Oh while im ranting that God awful hat Berenger apparently, INSISTED, on wearing even though it bore NO resemblance to the real Longstreet's hat..that being said it WAS a Civil War film and it was better than others. BUT....! just think if Maxwell and Turner had hired the writers for "Glory",it would made a ton of difference.

gwstorey Gettysburg is one of my all time favorite's. Even though, I don't live in the United States, I really enjoy doing research on the history of the country. I also have a lot of respect for all those who fought and died. Both Union and Confederate alike. The movie does a great job in showing the emotions of the characters/ historical figures. In the American Civil War, a soldier regardless of rank, must have been always feeling mixed emotions and thoughts,like; Am I going to be killed in battle? Am I going to be wounded or captured? This movie shows it all. The music is beautiful and well suited to that time period. I encourage everyone who likes history or anyone who is just curious, to watch this awesome movie.

Jonathan C 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.

Tanner Metcalfe Although I am not usually interested in history movies, the movie did a good job of keeping me interested throughout in the Civil War. It also opened my eyes to the true horrors of the Civil War. Although not gory or graphic in any way, the movie depicts the high death rates in the war and how it deeply affects the soldiers and especially the generals. I thought the acting in the war was good as well. Sheen's portrayal of Lee was very good, I thought. The movie has some good scenes as well, the action scenes especially. However, the movie fails in some parts, too. Most noticeably, it was obviously too long. It has the record as the longest American movie ever made, I think, and it shows. It could have easily been cut down by at least an hour, by shortening some of the seemingly endless marching scenes. There was one marching period that I timed to be nearly six minutes long. This had no dialogue and just showed people walking and bring on horseback. Overall, I thought the movie was good and kept me interested throughout, but it could have been much better. It remains, to me at least, a good movie, but more for people who are very serious about history.