An excellent movie and teaching skill-that's hard to find.

Rating: Null/10 (13 May 2000)

I have recently seen the move "Gettysburg" in my Social Studies class (I'm in the 8th grade). We have also just studied the Civil War. Unlike most people in my class, I actually liked it! I have found a few things that I thought could have been improved. For the most part, though, I thought that this was a great movie that was made very well. As you will probably see, this was originally an assignment for my class, but hopefully it sounds okay. Because, hey, I did get an A on it!
One of the many things that I found as a good feature of "Gettysburg" was the people who portrayed the historical people and the people who were responsible for putting the movie together. Instead of just showing the facts, the actors made the characters seem more alive in our time. The actors and the writers or directors expanded the essential information to a thorough presentation, not skipping little things. This helped to me to better understand events that occurred during the Battle of Gettysburg and the Civil War in general. An example of this is the way they had to fight. At Gettysburg, battles went on in open fields and in wooded areas. Both of these places must have been very difficult to fight in. Also, they had single-shot riffles that they had to take time to reload in-between shots. This film also helped me to understand exactly what went on during the Battle of Little Round Top, Pickett's Charge, and many other things including what happened when they weren't in a battle.
Another reason why I thought that this was a great film was because I found it very interesting. "Gettysburg" was based on a book called The Killer Angels. About this book, the author, Michael Shaara, said that he used the words of the men in the battle to write the book. He said that he wrote a lot through their letters and other documents. This makes the movie a bit inaccurate, as another review suggested. It does, however, let the viewer get closer to the characters, unlike a documentary, which only gives pure facts. Although they did not only give facts, the movie was MOSTLY accurate. For example, there is a story that says the Confederate and Union armies went to Gettysburg because there were many shoes there. This is a rumor. I also thought that this was interesting because it was very detailed. Much of this was shown throughout the movie including the backgrounds. Some of this included scenes at the hospitals and at their camps. At the hospitals, it showed that many of the soldiers had to have a limb cut off. At their camps, it showed things that went on including people playing violins and banjos.
Another reason why I found that this was a good film was that it was not at all biased, like a number of war movies are. It did not take sides of the North or the South. The movie didn't show something from just one person or one side's perspective. It showed viewpoints of men of both armies, the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac. Because of this, the viewer got to see what happened to both sides at Gettysburg.
"Gettysburg" also has a different approach to the subject of how slavery was involved with the Civil War. It acknowledged that slavery was not the reason why the war had started. This is said in many other films as well. However, there is something that those other films don't say which "Gettysburg" does. It says that even if slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, the issue was very important to the North and was a reason that many of the soldiers volunteered to fight in the war.
As you can see, for the most part I see this as an excellent and interesting movie. However, I have found a few minor reasons why I believe that it could have been slightly improved. One of these reasons is that it was hard for me to keep track of who was playing who. Even though it showed the actor and the character he portrays at the beginning, I don't remember seeing who the characters' name were; I can only remember seeing the actors' names. I believe that they should have put the characters' names as well, which would have made it less confusing.
Another thing that I think could have been improved was the fact that the showed many different battle scenes, yet they focused on a few and squeezed some others in. It did not seem like a good balance. It also confused me when they talked about those squeezed in scenes; I was not sure exactly what they were talking about.
In summary, I believe that this was a wonderful film and had a lot of hard work put into it, by both the actors and people behind the camera. I found a few minor faults, but nothing too big. I enjoyed this film especially because it was very interesting. It was also very accurate and detailed.