5.0 out of 5 stars
THE BEST CIVIL WAR DOCUMENTRY, Feb 12 2004
By A Customer
This review is from: Civil War Combat: America's Bloodiest (Full Screen) (DVD)
Look this is a dvd that not only is boring and tells you words but it gives you the front seat in the battle scene the reanactment is very realistic with blood moans gunshots are acurate. It's the best buy if u don't want to fall and sleep and watch something good buy this and I am a Civil War historian who has studied the war for 10 years so I know what is accurate and what is not.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3.0 out of 5 stars
so so, Oct 15 2003
Not a particualarly interesting or information packed video set.
If you are a die hard historian of that era or particularly the civil war, then not much will dissuade you from getting it and you may learn something you didn't know. If you want to learn about the civil war in general and you aren't a scholar, stick to Ken Burns The Civil War.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3.0 out of 5 stars
A unique approach to Civil War documentary, Dec 27 2002
This review is from: Civil War Combat: America's Bloodiest (Full Screen) (DVD)
This series of four documentaries are different from most Civil War films in that they highlight specific points of four battles, whereas most documentaries are content simply to provide an overview of the battle itself. Because of this, each episode contains many little-known facts about the battles of Antietam, Cold Harbor, Shiloh, and Gettysburg. And, at an hour long (more or less), they are not excessively long.
The highlights from each of the battles are interesting, but probably only so for someone interested in the war. Watching an hour-long reenactment of the wheat field at Gettysburg is probably meaningless without at least some appreciation of what was happening at the other parts of the battle. Anyone who studies the Civil War closely will appreciate these little-known facts, but casual viewers may find it a bit much.
In addition to its narrow scope, these four documentaries are riddled with errors that should have been obvious to the folks at the History Channel. For example, saying General Grant was in charge of the Union Army at Gettysburg is just plain false, as any amateur historian should know. These erroes detract much from the reliability of the accounts.
Despite these two setbacks, this is a noteworthy documentary, worth your time at least to check it out.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No