Gotta agree with Geo here on almost all counts.
I own few movies - one of them is "Gettysburg". (You can guess by my sig what two of the others are...
) Great stuff. I too was interested in seeing G&G for that reason. I too came away very disappointed. Several points stuck out in my mind...
1) G&G, for having excellent source material (the history itself, and the Shaara novels),
had no plot. There was little or nothing to tie the whole mess together. It was the filmed Version of the Cliff Notes of the first three years of the war...
2) Bad casting. Lang did an excellent job as Pickett in the first movie - he fit the part well. That was his undoing in G&G. I couldn't separate him from Pickett, and what I saw on-screen was a mishmashed Stonewall Pickett.
I'm also no fan of Martin Sheen, but he at least
attempted to portray Lee in "Gettysburg". It seemed to me like Robert Duvall was just reading the dialogue deadpan. (I'd also mention something about Col. Chamberlain having put on some weight, but that would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black
) And
don't get me started on Ted Turner's cameo. Mind you, directoral cameos are a time-honored tradition in Hollywood, but most directors (like Hitchcock and Peter Jackson) only appear on-screen for a blink. Turner was on for a good 2-3 minutes, and it was
all too obvious that he was immensely enjoying himself.
3) Pacing. When I watched Gettysburg, the four hours in the theatre went by like that - never noticed them. In G&G, I kept looking at my watch wondering "When will this end?"
In short - no Oscars for G&G, give'em to PJ and the rest of the Tolkien Kiwi crew instead.
EDIT - Gotta get spellchekcer for this...
[ February 14, 2004, 01:38: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]