Stephen Lang :up:

Yeah, hopefully a little more. I think that it's rated PG-13 for the purpose of attracting more viewers; a number of pedagogues, history buffs, and librarians! all seem to agree that it'll be good for the "younger readers" and history students. Hrm... I remember sitting in the theaters surrounded by history kiddies during Amistad one time. *yeesh*

MOVIE SPOILERS
 

Wow... I rank it a solid 9 out of 10.


Rambling... this is all I'm going to do. Here goes:

Nonetheless, there are plenty of other things that I loved about this movie, but it already has a place ready in my DVD collection.

Anyone check out the deleted scenes on the movie album? Thoughts on them?

FHaggis:

This is what you type when you have spoilers to give:

[spoiler]SPOILER Goes inside here[ /spoiler]

One thing though, do not put any spaces inbetween the brackets.
Try it out by editing your post.

well, from what i've read so far G&G is a good movie, but also terribly DRY. It sounds like the historical details are fantastic, but only because of loooong periods of Duval et al going over plans, etc ad infinitum. So perhaps a great flick for true CW buffs, but probably not for the casual fan. I'll be skipping it in the theater, largely because it's friggin 4 hours long.

The funniest thing about this is a radio comercial i heard for it which offered a disclaimer at the end that it 'may not be suitable for young children due to battle scenes." :lol: how about may not be suitable for young children because they will go insane if you try to make them sit in one place for FOUR HOURS!@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What? I wonder if you were reading comments about Gettysburg because Robert Duvall barely had any protracted monologues; he was actually pretty succinct and delivered his lines very well. When Martin Sheen played Lee, I kept yawning, turning up the volume, and checking my watch.

It's seriously not that dry though and the near 4 hours... well, there's an intermission for potty breaks and food.

It seemed a lot longer than four hours.

FHaggis - note i said "Duval et al"....and i said Duval only because that was the one name i could recall off hand. I'm not sure where the review i read was - either RT or in a local weekly. Like I said, they didn't say it was bad, but that it could be terribly tedious for lengths of time in a way that a non CW buff might find pretty boring, if not excruciating in the detail. I'm a historian actually, and will definately see this, but not in the theater....I'm sure i'll enjoy the 'detail' on my couch with plenty of snacks and beverages ;)