This movie failed to deliver; far to sterile

Rating: Null/10 (22 February 2000)

Though it may be regarded as blasphemy, I did not think that "Gettysburg" was very good. In fact I thought it failed miserably to deliver the horror of 19th century warfare as well as the mood of the country in 1863. By that I mean how Lincoln was under tremendous pressure to find a diplomatic solution after several bloody attempts at capturing Richmond had failed. This is very important to remember in understanding what was at stake when R.E. Lee made his move into Pennsylvania. While watching this movie one does not get a sense of urgency that the Union Nation has been invaded and there is a general panic throughout the lower north. I said blasphemy because I would not have followed Michael Sharra's format so faithfully, but rather use a little of what Sharra did and join it with a little of what Attenborough did in "A Bridge Too Far" and you will get the perfect mix of History and dramatic license. As far as the horrors of 19th century warfare this movie was so incredibly sterile. "Glory" was a FAR FAR better movie (on all levels)in it's depiction of Civil War combat. I guess it's a question of quality "Glory", over quantity "Gettysburg". Do Civil War Reenactors really make the best extras? it sounds like it would work on paper. Professional Civil War soldiers must sound great to movie studios but in reality they are entirely too well fed and far to old. Were there really so many white haired privates and corporals? "Getysburg" tried so hard to be profound and sublime but it just fell so flat. I don't think the cast would have been anyones first choice and some of those actors were down right bad (the guy who was Hancock)!!!! And if your not going to develop Gen. John Reynolds character then don't show us his death and try and create a powerful 10 second scene in which we're supposed to be riveted by the heroic death of a character whom we don't even know. "Gettysburg" should and could have been one of those "David L. Wolper" extravaganzas from the 70's or 80's nice, censored, sterile, and hardly uncomfortable to watch.