I remember asking myself a very similiar question after seeing Braveheart in the theaters.

In Braveheart the battlescenes I feel are very well done. When the armies collide, the viewer can feel it from his seat.

Gettysburg? Not so much. There's not a hint of addrenaline anywhere on the screen. Reenactors take occasional half hearted swings at eachother, and on more than one occasion you can spot soldiers laughing.

I don't blame those fellows, they are reenactors. Not stunt men. I think one of the biggest problems with Gettysburg is the over use of reenactors.

I recall reading reviews of Gettysburg, I believe it was in the camp chase gazette when the movie was released. Many of them picked out specifics, but one was a one sentenced review that pretty much summed it up. "Too many fat Rebs."

Having said that, I have many other complaints regarding the movie Gettysburg. But I'd be remissed if I did not also include that I have viewed this movie at least ten times now.

What's wrong with me?

I'm rather partial to "The General," though the charge at the end of "Birth of a Nation" is sort of thrilling in a sick kind of way.  I bet veterans had something to say about both of them...

Mike,
My son and I agree with you that "The General" ranks up there as one of the best!  Buster Keaton was a very talented actor and wished more of his movie were available to the public.

After having watched recently Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima.. I would say that maybe ole Clint Eastwood should look to do a Civil War movie.  He did a really good job with those 2 films.

Greg,

I love his CW era flick "The Beguiled". He played corporal Mc "B".

Quote :

Ken Cornett wrote : Greg, I love his CW era flick "The Beguiled". He played corporal Mc "B".

Not sure I have heard of that one.