Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAn examination of the Battle of Gettysberg on both the personal and strategic level.An examination of the Battle of Gettysberg on both the personal and strategic level.An examination of the Battle of Gettysberg on both the personal and strategic level.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Vincitore di 4 Primetime Emmy
- 5 vittorie e 5 candidature totali
Foto
Peter S. Carmichael
- Self - Director, Civil War Institute
- (as Dr. Peter Carmichael)
Garry E. Adelman
- Self - Historian, Civil War Trust
- (as Garry Adelman)
Steven Knott
- Self - Instructor, U.S. Army War College
- (as Captain Steven Knott)
Edward L. Ayers
- Self - Author, The Crucible of the Civil War
- (as Dr. Edward Ayers)
James M. McPherson
- Self - Author, Battle Cry of Freedom
- (as James McPherson)
Josh Artis
- Colonel James Wallace
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Greg Berg
- James Wallace
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Anton Blake Horowitz
- General Carl Schurz
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Gary Green
- Union soldier
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Stephen Jennings
- Maj. Gen. George G Meade
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Charles Klausmeyer
- Amos Humiston
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Recensioni in evidenza
This "documentary"'s only positive quality might be as a comedy. But then, it's hard to laugh when you can barely stand the shaky cameras, the overtly jarring editing and supreme close-ups that would make even Stanley Kubrick cry out "enough!"
Bad cinematography aside, there's the acting. Apparently all men from the 1860's were jittery, ugly, and maniacal. Yes, War is Hell, and it makes demons out of normal people, but the people in this program are caricatures. This may have something to do with the fact that they hired a cast of Europeans, who do not speak a lick. They only grunt, yell, carry on, and generally make fools of themselves.
It's puzzling why the producers cast their gaze to Europe for reenactors. Apparently they didn't get the memo that the last Civil War movie was a dud, and that American Civil War reenactors are just dying to help someone get it right. For FREE. Movie producers have a ready-made cast of extras, who only want the privilege of portraying Civil War soldiers ACCURATELY.
And this documentary is horrendously inaccurate, not only in the minutiae of what the soldiers were wearing or what they looked like (Monty Python's rule about high-ranking people not having crap smeared all over them does not seem to apply here), but also in more important ways. Such as how cannons operate, or when the Federals reinforced the Round Tops, or who was making the decisions about the Federal left flank.
There is growing research about "negative knowledge." This is the idea that what some people say can actually DETRACT from the sum of knowledge in the world. This program fits that theory. It can only misinform, and one would do well to ignore this unqualified disaster.
Bad cinematography aside, there's the acting. Apparently all men from the 1860's were jittery, ugly, and maniacal. Yes, War is Hell, and it makes demons out of normal people, but the people in this program are caricatures. This may have something to do with the fact that they hired a cast of Europeans, who do not speak a lick. They only grunt, yell, carry on, and generally make fools of themselves.
It's puzzling why the producers cast their gaze to Europe for reenactors. Apparently they didn't get the memo that the last Civil War movie was a dud, and that American Civil War reenactors are just dying to help someone get it right. For FREE. Movie producers have a ready-made cast of extras, who only want the privilege of portraying Civil War soldiers ACCURATELY.
And this documentary is horrendously inaccurate, not only in the minutiae of what the soldiers were wearing or what they looked like (Monty Python's rule about high-ranking people not having crap smeared all over them does not seem to apply here), but also in more important ways. Such as how cannons operate, or when the Federals reinforced the Round Tops, or who was making the decisions about the Federal left flank.
There is growing research about "negative knowledge." This is the idea that what some people say can actually DETRACT from the sum of knowledge in the world. This program fits that theory. It can only misinform, and one would do well to ignore this unqualified disaster.
You can make the case that the grammar of the regular enlisted man for North or South would be very basic, their vocabulary severely limited by a lifetime of not receiving any education.
But even the Generals and other officers, particularly those on the South, are speaking gibberish, not one discernible English phrase. And it takes away from me taking this program seriously to any degree.
I mean, do the actors get paid less if they just speak gibberish instead of English? Is that in the union contract or something? Case in point: Barksdale, he is shouting orders out that are in a language totally foreign to anything heard on planet earth. It really bothered me too because this was a pretty important commander in the "history" of the South, something the "history" channel doesn't take as seriously as most people, which in itself is confusing. Showing this man to be an illiterate buffoon that can't even muster a single properly structured sentence let alone a few words to his own troops does him a disservice.
Just nonsense. History Channel has produced another winner here.
But even the Generals and other officers, particularly those on the South, are speaking gibberish, not one discernible English phrase. And it takes away from me taking this program seriously to any degree.
I mean, do the actors get paid less if they just speak gibberish instead of English? Is that in the union contract or something? Case in point: Barksdale, he is shouting orders out that are in a language totally foreign to anything heard on planet earth. It really bothered me too because this was a pretty important commander in the "history" of the South, something the "history" channel doesn't take as seriously as most people, which in itself is confusing. Showing this man to be an illiterate buffoon that can't even muster a single properly structured sentence let alone a few words to his own troops does him a disservice.
Just nonsense. History Channel has produced another winner here.
I'm not going to claim that I am an expert on the American Civil War, however I am a lover of history and as such I've studied it quite closely. Before watching this "documentary" I read up on the battle of Gettysburg and watched videos made by the tour guides who work there.
It made me very interested to learn more and then found this "documentary". Figured it couldn't hurt to see it. Right? What met me was a disjointed, uninteresting, muddled portrayal of the events that took place at Gettysburg. You have Rebel soldiers dressed in rags, not uniforms. You've got people running all over the place pretty much never staying in any kind of formation. Not to mention all the things they get wrong both big and small in terms of history.
The cinematography is sub-par to say the least, the camera is constantly shaking, it's cut up to all hell, using slow-motion as well as extreme close-up shots WAY too much.
Even with them trying to focus on specific soldiers to portray whatever story they were trying to tell the whole thing is hidden by a 20 inch layer of vaseline.
I have no idea what they were going for with this. It's boring, disjointed and impossible to follow from start to finish. Whoever says that this is a good or great film/documentary clearly have no point of reference because this is EASILY the worst historical portrayal of any kind I've EVER seen.
Then again, what else should I have expected from a History Channel production?
It made me very interested to learn more and then found this "documentary". Figured it couldn't hurt to see it. Right? What met me was a disjointed, uninteresting, muddled portrayal of the events that took place at Gettysburg. You have Rebel soldiers dressed in rags, not uniforms. You've got people running all over the place pretty much never staying in any kind of formation. Not to mention all the things they get wrong both big and small in terms of history.
The cinematography is sub-par to say the least, the camera is constantly shaking, it's cut up to all hell, using slow-motion as well as extreme close-up shots WAY too much.
Even with them trying to focus on specific soldiers to portray whatever story they were trying to tell the whole thing is hidden by a 20 inch layer of vaseline.
I have no idea what they were going for with this. It's boring, disjointed and impossible to follow from start to finish. Whoever says that this is a good or great film/documentary clearly have no point of reference because this is EASILY the worst historical portrayal of any kind I've EVER seen.
Then again, what else should I have expected from a History Channel production?
As a student currently in U.S. history, I found this film to be informative in the battle of Gettysburg and what the strategic plans for it were. However the historical fallacies were inaccurate, such as terrain, uniforms,and they missed a large portion of the history in the first day. It was not necessary to focus on one or two generals, however the movie itself was informative and the graphic details well done. If the movie focused more on surrounding area and the question of escaped slaves - which was brought up and dropped - this would be slightly more riveting. It was not intended for the armies to meet, however it was not Lee's turning point in the war as this could've been pointed out in other battles. The movie itself was slightly unconnected as the plot moved forward, and the whole thing was drawn out, even for a three day battle. The highlights were the explanations of bullets and canister, which i identified as grapeshot, as these were helpful in showing how there were innumerable casualties with each hit. It was an interesting movie, but inaccurate in it details and portrayal of the event.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- ConnessioniFeatured in 2011 Primetime Creative Arts Emmys (2011)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 25min(85 min)
- Colore
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti