Opiniones de usuarios

`The Blue and The Gray' is not a story about the Civil War. It is a long drama about a family set at the time of that war. Running more than six hours, it is indeed long. Yet, anyone interested in human relationships will find that the time is well spent and that no dead points exist. The snippets of the Civil War form a focus for the story and explain some of the relationship issues. They also remind the viewer what a truly difficult time it was for families and for our nation.

I'm not going to nitpick this film because the wrong number of buttons are on a Civil War jacket nor am I going to criticize the fact that certain battles are presented out of chronological sequence, as some others have already pointed out.

But taken as a Civil War drama, THE BLUE AND THE GRAY ranks with the very best movies made about this era of American history and all of the performances are splendid. The human drama, both on the home front before the war and during the various battles, is portrayed very realistically, as are the graphic battle scenes.

The cast assembled does a wonderful job with characters that come alive. GREGORY PECK does well as Abraham Lincoln, although his make-up is a bit disconcerting and he was a bit too mature to play the role in the first place. But STACY KEACH and JOHN HAMMOND carry much of the film as the two leading characters who witness various aspects of the Civil War, seen through their eyes and experiences, and they are excellent.

The supporting cast includes vivid performances from LLOYD BRIDGES, COLLEEN DEWHURST, RORY CALHOUN, GERALDINE PAGE, RIP TORN, STERLING HAYDEN, DIANE BAKER. BRIAN KERWIN is excellent as the Hale brother facing battle for the first time, and the sequence with the balloon to observe the enemy from the air is full of tight suspense.

It may not be a perfect history lesson, but it is photographed beautifully in color (all of it filmed in Arkansas), has a fine musical score and is well worth the time it takes to unwind a very compelling story with characters any viewer can relate to.

I consider it one of the finest made-for-TV miniseries ever made.

As others have mentioned, this is a series of recollections of events which may (or may not) have occurred during the American Civil War. It is related from the point of view of a 'neutral' war correspondent, who's talent is for drawing sketches of what he has seen on various battle fields, from Bull Run to Appomattox Ct. House. There is considerable 'time jumping' from one period of the war, to another, which inhibits continuity to some extent. For me the best part of the mini-series was watching Gregory Peck (as Abraham Lincoln) deliver the Gettysburg address. However, we are thrown into that scene without adequate preamble, so even this is diminished from what it could have been.

I am quite an avid amateur Civil War historian, having read many books and watched many TV series (including the excellent PBS series by Ken Burns, and the complete 3 volume set of books on the Civil War by historian Shelby Foote) on the subject. If you are looking for historical accuracy you will be disappointed. If you, on the other hand, are simply looking for a decent dramatization (ala "Gone With the Wind), you will enjoy this series.

The acting by the cast was, in general, C+, with the exception of a few of the notables (Gregory Peck, for one). As my summary states, this is a dramatic romp, so if you keep that in mind and set your sites correspondingly on the low side, you will not be disappointed.

I first saw this mini-series while in 5th grade history class as part of our studies on the Civil War, and I thought it was excellent. Many years later, I watched it again after finding a copy of the unabridged version (all 6+ hours of it!). I wasn't sure how it would stand the test of time (both as a 16 year old production and my own view of it, being 16 years older now) and braced myself for disappointment; however, I was very pleasantly surprised. The movie is as well done as I remembered it.

It's an engrossing movie that gives an honest, frank look at the inherent moral ambiguity of war, as well as the additional consequences of the Civil War, where "brother fought brother". Although the movie certainly takes dramatic license (the main character, a young Southerner who relocates to the north after becoming disillusioned with the cruel treatment of slaves, ends up stumbling across his staunchly pro-Confederate siblings as if they're all wandering around in the same town instead of an entire country!), you can see that the film makers took great pains to portray as many perspectives as possible, to show that each and every person involved in the war was human, with their own thoughts and feelings. I'm certainly no Civil War expert, but I thought it was a very balanced portrait. What's more amazing is that the mini rarely drags despite sometimes taking a leisurely pace during its 6 hour run-time. Although we all know how the movie with ultimately end, it keeps you interested in the lives of all the characters it introduces. I thought Stacy Keach did a particularly good job despite a few hammy lines. This mini-series should definitely be on any must-see list of war films.

This is such a good movie mainly due to the lack of bias and multiple story lines which keep you hooked throughout the extensive length of the film. I thought that the film was, although of course not the greastest of civil war films, it definitely desearves nothing but good reviews. I saw this movie when i was visiting Utah with family and i had to live in a trailer with my brother and his friend for a few days and all we had was a DVD player and a few movies and some paper and pens. So when we finally decided to watch what seemed like a boring war movie...we never wanted to leave the trailer. Even when invited to go horse-back riding by some neighborhood girls whom my brother had been eyeing. the movie was completely captivating. Everyone should definitely see The Blue and the Gray at LEAST once.

Back in the early Sixties there was a short lived television series called The Americans about two brothers who after their father was killed decided to fight on opposite sides in the Civil War. The whole business about brother against brother was no exaggeration. Right up to the very top with Mary Todd Lincoln having relatives who fought for the Confederacy, families were torn apart. The Blue And The Gray brings that aspect of the Civil War better than any other film made for the big or small screen since The Americans.

The families are the Geysers and the Hales related by the mothers, Diane Baker and Colleen Dewhurst being sisters. The Hales are from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the Geysers from what would now be West Virginia in and around Harper's Ferry and that's not even 100 miles distance. But the families are true to the sectional divide.

With the exception of John Geyser played by John Hammond who has made a black friend, a free man played by Paul Winfield who gets lynched for helping runaway slaves. He won't fight for a section that espouses slavery as a cause, but won't enlist in the Northern Armies either. A passing acquaintance played by Stacy Keach who gets himself involved in a lot of the major events of the war and married into the Hale family with Julia Duffy persuades Hammond to become a war correspondent and put his artistic talents to good use. Hammond becomes a pictorial chronicler of the seminal event of his generation.

Without ever losing control of the main story lines, what happens to the various Geyser and Hale family members, The Blue And The Gray captures the sweep and pageantry of the Civil War. Such real characters as Abraham Lincoln played by Gregory Peck and John Brown played by Sterling Hayden in what was his farewell performance do take a life of their own. With Peck we see a public and a private Lincoln which is true to the Lincoln mythology and yet quite a human character.

If I had to single out one performance that was especially touching it would be that of David W. Harper as one of the Hale brothers. The young man was eager to be the first to enlist in his town of Gettysburg, but he never made it to the battle that town became famous for. A not well covered portion of the war was the lack of sanitary facilities in army camps. Young Harper falls victim to dysentery and his performance will move you.

A few years later North and South covered a lot of the same ground that this particular mini-series did and it was as well done as The Blue And The Gray. I would recommend them both highly especially for young audiences to gain a real understanding of what the Civil War meant to the average individual/

This miniseries shows the war primarily through the eyes of a Virginian who wants to witness history but cannot commit to either side of the conflict. His new-found profession of journalism allows him to participate as a neutral observer. He is surrounded by relatives and friends on both sides, and the miniseries shows events through their eyes as well.

The human side of the war is stressed, and it excellently portrays the toll the conflict took on families.

Many of the subplots are taken from Civil War historian Bruce Catton's final work, "Reflections On The Civil War." However, none of the people in the book, including the real John Geyser, appear in the miniseries. Rather, observations made in the book are woven around the main storyline as supplementary material.

Most of the military aspects of the miniseries are laughable and bear little resemblance to reality. Due to the miniseries being done on a miniseries budget we see none of the grand scale evident in "Gettysburg" or "Glory."

Stacy Keach gives a terrific performance as Jonas Steele, the Federal special operations agent. We see from his performance a little of the decentralized, more personalized ways in which intelligence gathering and other non-standard military operations were conducted in the nineteenth century.

The miniseries ran for over six hours on CBS in 1982, but well over an hour was cut for the two-cassette video release. Get the whole treatment if you can.

Released in 1982 and directed by Andrew V. McLaglen, "The Blue and the Gray" covers the Civil War era from 1859-1865 focusing on two related families: The Geysers, farmers from Charlottesville, Virginia, and the Hales from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who own a newspaper. John Geyser (John Hammond) leaves Virginia to get a job as a sketch artist at the Hale's newspaper in Gettysburg. When war breaks out after the Southern states secede from the Union, John covers the war for Harper's Weekly.

MAIN CAST includes Stacy Keach as a Pinkerton-turned-Union-officer who romances John's cousin (Julia Duffy); Gregory Peck as Lincoln; Kathleen Beller as an aristocrat-turned-nurse; Dan Shor & Michael Horton as John's brother; Rip Torn as General Grant; and Lloyd Bridges & Colleen Dewhurst as Mr. and Mrs. Geyser. These are just the principle characters; there are scores of others (Robert Vaughn, Geraldine Page, Warren Oates, Robert Symonds, etc.).

I prefer "The Blue and the Gray" to the similar "North and South" (Books I & II, 1985-86) because it's more streamlined and less soap opera-y. Director McLaglen had decades of experience by this this time with both TV shows and films, including a few notable Westerns, like "Bandolero!" (1968) and "Chisum" (1970); in fact, his "Shenandoah" (1965) was a Civil War 'Western.'

The first half is great, but the second half flounders a bit and includes some cheesy plot gimmicks, like the mad slasher Confederate officer and John mistaking his babe (the nurse) supposedly making out with the Union stud (Keach). The 'floundering' includes some abrupt shifts, like from the Battle of Vicksburg (July, 1863) to the Battle of the Wilderness (May, 1864), which can likely be explained by cuts from the original mini-series. If you watch the longer version you probably won't encounter this problem.

What I like best about this "miniseries" (i.e. long movie) is that, despite some elements of TV-production cheese (e.g. the two Union & Confederate deserters' almost goofy meeting in the woods), the film takes you back in time to the Civil War era and provides a quality picture of what it was like.

Some of the notable events covered include: The Battle of Bull Run, Army camp life, dysentery in the camps, cowards in battle and the branding thereof, balloon reconnaissance, fraternizing with the enemy after hours, brother vs. brother, the Gettysburg Address, the siege of Vicksburg and the desperation thereof (e.g. the Caves), prisoner-of-war camps (Elmira), Lee's surrender and Lincoln's death. Yes, some key events are off-screen (e.g. the Battle of Gettysburg and Lincoln getting shot), but that's the nature of the beast with a TV-budget and an overview-styled story. Lastly, Keach shines as one of the main protagonists, easily one of his best rolls, and Duffy is a delight.

The film runs 296 minutes (4 minutes shy of 5 hours), with the original 3-part miniseries running 381 minutes. It was shot entirely in Arkansas (Fort Smith, Eureka Springs, Fayetteville, Van Buren & Prairie Grove Battlefield State Park). The script was written by John Leekley & Ian McLellan Hunter based on Bruce Catton's material.

GRADE: B

I first saw this film when it was televised in 1982. My family taped it at that time and it remains one of our favorite films. Even with its' six-hour length, it flows well and I never find myself becoming bored while watching. The best aspect of the movie is the characters, who seem real to us. It shows how families, North and South, were affected in a profound way by the Civil War. Every time we watch The Blue and the Gray, it is easy to develop feelings for the characters, who could almost be members of our own family. It is this humanistic feature rather than dwelling on the intricacies of the battles themselves which makes this film great viewing, even for those who aren't "into" war movies.

The Blue and the Gray took an already exhausted topic and gave it a new spin. The idea of one brother torn between two sides of a conflict it intriguing on any level but to add the turmoil of a country split in two add to the pull of this film.

Despite the lack of big name actors present in this film the acting is wonderful. Given the right amount of publicity and introduction the blue and the gray could become one of the nations leading civil war films.

The Blue and the Gray does not in any way compare visually to films like Gettysburg and Gods and Generals but the plot and characters make up for the lack of that big budget film feel.

This was a very good film about the Civil War. It showed the mindset of people living in the south during that era; how they were swayed into entering a futile and dangerous undertaking. The agony of war was shown at its worst, depicting the loss of the combatants as well as bystanders. Any war is horrible, but the war between the states is more so because of its utter uselessness. The waste of life and material should never have been allowed to happen. I recommend this movie; the action sequences are dramatic and well done, however, I felt some of the scenes seemed a bit underpopulated.

Cannot believe I never heard of theses mini-series before. But recently, have gotten the complete longer version and watched it all in several takes. Yes, I agree with many of the decent critics about this film. That was the 1982, and yes, if you compare The Blues & The Gray with mighty grandeur of Glory, Gettysburg or Gods & Generals, you will have to admit that the serial suffers all the typical problems. True, the lack of budget is obvious, and it is obvious that there had to be more soldiers on both sides in all shown battle scenes, same may be said about scenes depicting camps or cities. True, some lines of actors are hammy, and some actors simply played not well enough. Yes, sometimes you pay attention to obvious goofs and anachronisms concerning rifles, uniforms, or other minutiae. But still, good impressions remain. Stacey Keach, great late Gregory Peck, John Hammomd, Cooper Huckabee and many many others did a very decent job. The serial captivates and holds you all 7 hours. The love line is of great success, and some mild humor (in scenes with John and Kathy) make it more valuable. Both sides of the war are shown with certain warmth and sympathy, there are heroes, cowards, villains, traitors, real giants on both sides. My personal grade goes to Gregory Peck as Lincoln, Lloyd Bridges, Cooper Huckabee, Sterling Hayden (excellent part of the film!), Rip Torn, Royce Applegate (who will shine soon in Gettysburg), and Julius Harris. To my mind, there are several powerful scened in the serial, but one which is Truly outstanding and mighty is the conversation between John Geyser and a group of black runaways. This scene is a huge success and a moving tribute to those who fought for Liberation. I highly recommend this film

Sprawling miniseries with the wise choice of using a sketch artist as its focal point with sympathies on both sides. Having someone who isn't fighting for one side or the other allows both sides to be presented without one being dominant. John Hammond is fine in the lead but not so strong that he pulls the focus off the story. An amazing cast cycles through the story without most given enough time to really register, it's a shame but with a canvas this large unavoidable. All are fine but a few do manage to make an impression, Gregory Peck is perfectly cast as Abe Lincoln, strong and dignified. Colleen Dewhurst and Diane Baker are an interesting contrast as sisters, although they never share a scene, one a southern farm woman the other a northern homemaker but perhaps the one performer who makes the most of her few scenes is Geraldine Page as a southerner trapped in a war zone who has adapted to survive but still retains her ladylike demeanor. In just three scenes she creates a character that the viewer fully understands. For history buffs or fans of epic scale storytelling this is a must.

I never saw roots, I never saw the Thorn birds, I never saw SHOGUN ... nope ...This was the first ever mini series I watched in my life. It and was the first ever Civil War movie I ever watched in my life. I man did I pick a great first one to watch.

I am 37 years old now, and to this day I still own a copy of the 3 disc DVD set. I get it out at least once a year and watch it. And I still love it to this day. Yes, I have seen better mini-series since then(Lonesome Dove, Horatio Hornblower)...and I've even seen better Civil War movies (Gettysburg, Glory) but this movie still holds a very special place in my heart When I go back and watch this film, I am amazed at how well it has held up against the test of time. (sure the sounds effects aren't up to par with today's super bass driven home theater sound systems) – But the rest of the movie has held up superbly.

And in the years that have passed, I eventually did go back and watch Roots.... Although I still haven't seen the Thorn birds (don't really think I want too though) I am saddened by the fact that there aren't more films like this one being produced these days.

I really recommend this movie to anyone who like Long drawn out storyline (and there is nothing wrong with that) Good battle scenes. My only complaint is that I wish the producers would go back and remaster the sound quality

America's existence, as a beacon for freedom and democracy around the world, has often seemed to be (and frequently is, in reality) a work in progress. Nowhere is that better illustrated in the event that is oftentimes known as the War Between The States (North and South), but generally known as the Civil War. A bitter war fought largely over the question of whether it was right to keep anyone, especially those of African descent, as slaves, the war almost eviscerated the country during four long bloody year, from 1861 to 1865. It was only when the 13th Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation became law that the war ended, as too did slavery, and the long march toward full civil rights had really begun. This was the subject for the epic 3-part miniseries THE BLUE AND THE GRAY, which aired on CBS on November 14, 16, and 17, 1982.

The principal focus is on two families: the Geysers, a farm family from Charlottesville, Virginia who have no prurient interest in the issue of slavery that is essentially fueling the war but are sympathetic to the South; and the Hales, who are owners of a small newspaper in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and anti-slavery/pro-Union. They become a microcosm of this long, costly, bloody war that nearly destroyed America before it could even reach its 90th year of existence as a country; and even in the Geyser family, there is a schism. Both families, though, do reunite after the end of the war, but not before the war more or less claims its last victim in President Abraham Lincoln, when John Wilkes Booth guns him down at Ford's Theatre.

In the meantime, the Civil War is re-enacted, under the bounds of what could be shown on television, with a fair amount of pain and horror without an over-reliance of melodrama, but with solid acting by a huge cast of great people, including Stacy Keach; Colleen Dewhurst; Lloyd Bridges; Warren Oates (in one of his last roles, as Major Welles); Sterling Hayden (as John Brown); Rip Torn (as General Ulysses S. Grant); Robert Vaughn; Paul Winfield; Julius Harris; Diane Baker; Rory Calhoun; and, last but not least, Gregory Peck, in his first-ever dramatic TV appearance, as Lincoln. All of this is brilliantly bought together by veteran director Andrew V. McLaglen, who had done the Civil War in fictional form prior to this, in the form of 1969's THE UNDEFEATED (with John Wayne), and 1965's SHENANDOAH (with James Stewart).

Even in the restrictive confines of TV, and even when compared to later films on the subject like GETTYSBURG and LINCOLN, THE BLUE AND THE GRAY does very little skimping over what war in general, and this singular war in particular, does to people not only on both sides of the battle lines but also to those innocents caught in the middle. And despite its extreme length, of close to six and a half hours, this is still one of the best miniseries ever produced in TV history. It should be watched by anyone serious in understanding our nation's history in general, and the Civil War in particular, and is essential just for anyone still interested in historically based storytelling, small screen or otherwise.

The Blue and the Grey had a great plot and I really enjoyed this mini series. It showed the horrors of war and showed how some families were broken up by the conflict where in real life brother fought brother. I only wish that the Blue and the Grey could have been more realistic like Gettysburg. The uniforms used in this film are just too generic and too "Hollywood" unlike Gettysburg where the uniforms look authentic. I also dislike the over dubbing of the rifles and cannon that was so common until the last 15 years or so that seems so fake in comparison to Gettysburg. The battle scenes have a lot of action but there just seems to be too few people fighting the battle. Gettysburg on the other hand had plenty of extras; almost all of them Civil War reenactors, making the battle scenes more realistic. Perhaps if the producers of The Blue and the Grey had used reenactors they could have had better battle scenes and the mini series would have been more realistic.

I have watched this movie since I was a child, and I still watch it at least twice every year. All of the actors are phenomenal, and you feel absolutely everything they're going through. You see the struggles of brothers and cousins fighting against each other, and you see just how horrible the war really was and how it tore our country apart. There's love, drama, romance, loss, hate, a crazed murderer, and so much more. I definitely recommend that anyone watch it, as it's not only a beautiful story, but also a glimpse into our county's history. I guarantee you'll laugh, cry, and be totally engrossed in this entire movie!

I remember my high school history teacher making us watch this in class my freshmen year of high school....at that time in my life I could've cared less about seeing this film. many - many years later I watched this again. and I liked it, in fact I cannot remeber why I was unable to get interested in this film the first time I seen it(I was probably too young to enjoy a long drama back then).but although I have seen some civil war movies that blow this one away. it is very much worth watching.---its funny to see this film now because this films cast looks like an episode of "where are they now?" this music score is fair , the costumes are good(same as any other civil war movie)...but Ouch, but I kept noticing that all the actors have early 1980's post disco era hair styles rather than 1860's hair styles and the hair styles cause this film to look dated. I found it interesting that the 4 brother this film is about are named after the 1st 4 books in the new testiment of the bible(Mathew,Mark,Luke and John -I failed to notice that the 1st time i seen this film)This is not the best Civil War Movie(that honor goes to "Gettysburg"), but its not the worst civil war movie either(that honor/shame goes to "The Rose and the Jackail")I give this film 3 out of 5 stars.. see this film at least once,and if you give it a chance it will entertain you

Every cliché' in the book is used. And, worse, far more than once. If you can't guess what's going to happen in a particular scene then you haven't watched many if any movies.

A far better soap opera on the Civil War is "North and South". You will find far better acting as well as a better and more believable story line.

What's really a shame is that there is some very good talent in the mini series that is completely wasted. Even the scene when the Gettysburg Address is given is vastly overblown and forced.

That scene is indicative of the series taken as a whole. Instead of being understated as the original speech was, it and the series take on the tone of Edward Everett, the speaker who was just before Lincoln.

Edward Everett's saving grace is that his speech was only some 2 1/2 hours long. The mini-series is 7 1/2 hours in length, though it seems much, much longer.

Lincoln's famous 300 words than didn't even take 3 minutes to recite.