Prev: Re: Combat films Next: Re: Mission to Mars

Re: Combat films

From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:17:55 PST
Subject: Re: Combat films

Loved Gettysburg, Loved Killer angels even more.  But I've since been 
disavowed of many of my own misconceptions about the battle that I
from that book. (Being a Civil War rookie and all).  However, I think
like SPR, the great thing about this movie is not it's historical or 
technical accuracy or inaccuracy, it's the portrayal of the humans
in the events that stay with me, nt the events themselves. (Although I
Shaara was a tad too harsh on Lee, especially on the personal level.)

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: Allan Goodall <>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Combat films
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:55:43 -0500

"Gettysburg" wasn't bad, but it wasn't about the battle, it was a
Schaara's "The Killer Angels". Now, "The Killer Angels" is a fine book,
historically it perpetuates some aspects of the battle that have since
denounced. It doesn't talk much at ALL about the battle on the Union
and when it does it blames Ewell (I've been on Culp's Hill... I don't
Ewell could have dislodged the 11th Corps after it dug in on the first
It doesn't blame Longstreet enough, by any means. And it also misses the

travesty that was Dan Sickles on the Union left.

Get Your Private, Free Email at

Prev: Re: Combat films Next: Re: Mission to Mars