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.

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.

moviecyborg Gettysburg is one of the most realistic and best told documentaries in the world. Not only does Gettysburg masterfully tell the story of this epic three day fight but it tells it in one of the most awe inspiring experiences in documentary history. The fashion in which this documentary is told realistically depicts the events that happened on July 1,2 and 3 by the masterful use of diagrams and reenactments. Half of Gettysburg is told through the eyes of soldiers who fought during the battles that occurred on the three faithful days at Gettysburg. The other half is a combination of narration simulations of charted movements and some of the most brutal but realistic reenactments in history. Overall Gettysburg is an amazing, realistic, well acted, well reenacted and well told documentary. The amazing amounts of information acquired from this documentary make this History Channel special a movie to see. I give Gettysburg a 10 out of 10 for it's amazingly told and reenacted story. Nobody should miss out on this amazing historic experience.