Lang as Jackson is the best thing about that movie.

@@oldrestless Mr. Lang is a wonderful actor, student of civil war history, and human being.

DEEP envy from Canada.

Mmm I wish I could have been there. Just to see the director cut alone would have been amazing

Short answer, from what I hear... no.

Are you complaining because the man isn’t a racist like you are now?

You must be joking.

Pretty bad take; But try to hear me out here… This is a historical film. The most important question to ask when determining if it is good or bad is: Did it get the history right? Everything else is secondary. But you focus on the more artistic elements of its production so let’s break it down. The film was actually intended to be a miniseries for TNT, so I guess that’s where that “air” comes from. In order to appeal to the sensibilities of a wide TV audience, several elements such as combat depiction and discourse of slavery and the southern cause had to be watered down. Yes, Glory is absolutely the better Civil War film and no, Ron Maxwell is no Edward Zwick. But no one else before or since has dared to create something with the same scale, detail, and faithfulness to the subject matter. Ron did come back a decade later with Gods & Generals but I think we can all agree that film was disappointing. Gettysburg’s directing was not terrible by any stretch. It was merely passable to allow the film to accomplish what it sets out to do, which is to depict the battle as accurately as possible. As to those “overaged and overweight reenactors”: the film simply would not have happened without them. You simply can’t find that amount of men _anywhere_ who possess the equipment, weaponry, clothing, historical knowledge, and physical build of a 17-25 year old Civil War soldier. Not to mention, these men _volunteered_ to be in this film so you’re talking about thousands of men who were willing to work on and off set for weeks on end without even being paid. As a whole, the acting is not as bad as you have led yourself to believe. There were a number of phenomenal casting choices for this film, which carried memorable performances. Jeff Daniels, Stephen Lang, Sam Elliot, Richard Jordan, and Kevin Conway more than made up for any “really bad acting” you may have perceived. Even Marin Sheen, who probably receives a lot of flak for his portrayal of Lee and I would agree to the notion that he was not as good as many had hoped , had some great moments. I hope this will, if not change your mind, at least convince you to rethink your analysis of this remarkable film. Flaws and all. Now, as a certain someone said: “Let us speak no more of this.”

@@cyhawk4788 Well Hawk, as a character in a much better movie said, you honor the unworthy.

@@tombrennan6312 it is the opinion of some excellent KZfaqrs and commenters that you have let us all down. There will be none of these one-liner quips or “no, you’re just wrong” counter arguments, there is no time. Tom, your mission was to either restructure your criticism of _Gettysburg_ instead of painting it with a “nothing good about this film” and not even consider the lasting impacts it has had in today’s community of historians, and to explain in further detail with examples each of your points. That mission was not fulfilled. You came here and dropped a bomb with no word of your intentions or reasoning behind such claims. Meanwhile, a few of us were engaged here. Drawn into this thread without adequate knowledge of this film’s apparent endless amount of shortcomings. So it is only by God’s grace that we did not meet disaster here by getting into some sort of twitter style, ad hominem argument. Perhaps you did not read my comment in its entirety, perhaps the points I made were not clear. Well sir, this must be _very_ clear. You, sir, are the leading voice of criticism in this comment section. Without a proper explanation from you we are made blind. That has already happened once. It must never, _never,_ happen again.

Gettysburg was a great movie.