 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Urbana, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
| View single post by GenHood | |||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Nov 3rd, 2005 02:03 am |
|
||||||||||||
|
GenHood Member
|
I think part of the problem with "G & G" was that it had far too broad an era to cover, even for a significantly longer film. "Gettysburg" focused on four days, and the people involved in the events of them. "G & G" tried to shove in events from secession to Chancellorsville, a period of over two years. I think this makes for a film that's difficult to establish characters that people care about. Although I liked "G & G" it didn't have near the effect on me that "Gettysburg" did. Moments such as the late Richard Jordan's powerful scene where Lo Armistead reflects on his friendship with Hancock are absent from "G & G". This is one of only many scenes from "Gettysburg" that stay with me, and are sorely missed in "G & G".
|
||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||