Before Ken Burns,
Glory, and
Gettysburg, the Civil War proved an effective backdrop for this 1982 miniseries--available complete and uncut on this three-disc set--about two families divided by the War Between the States. John Hammond stars as John Geyser, a Southerner caught "betwixt and between" when he becomes a war correspondent for the Northern newspaper published by his uncle. Like a Civil War-era Forrest Gump, he finds himself "where history's in the making," from the Battle of Bull Run to the scene of President Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Stacy Keach costars as an Army scout who takes the "fresh off the farm" Geyser under his wing. Julia Duffy is the schoolmarm who loves Keach. The ham-handed dialogue is a guilty pleasure ("What's wrong with this land that produces such a bitter fruit?" asks the embittered Geyser). The meticulously mounted battle scenes, though, are a Civil War reenactor's dream.
--Donald Liebenson
1 Good for kids or people who dont expect contemporary quality
My parents got me this movie when I was a kid and I must agree with another reviewer in that it opened my eyes to the uglier side of war from starvation to POW camps to the psychological effects of war.
I dont like the way people like to compare it to other Civil War films. It's truely nothing like Gettysburg at all. It follows the main character who chooses not to fight for the South and pursues a career as a newspaper illustrater for Northern Newspapers.
Someone pointed out that Vicksburg happened After Gettysburg. Not really. Vicksburg Surrendered July 4th, 1863. Gettysburg was the 3 days before. Keep in mind, the movie doesnt actually portray the battle of Gettysburg. What you see after Vicksburg falling is only the corpse strewn battlefield and a cavalry skirmish which I took it was after the battle.
And I never got the feeling the main character teleported anywhere. He started in Virginia, moved around that theater of operations then went to Vicksburg which was besieged.
Bull Run was as good as the action of the movie got. There could have been more but I think they made the best of the ammount that they put in. It did a very good job at portraying different areas of the war.
Some people say they wanted an action movie, other people wanted some strict steriotypical portrayal of the life of your typical people at the time. No The Blue and the Gray just portrays 2 families related, focusing on a few characters and the many different problems. Really, so what if one character was psychic and others dont follow the rules of the time. It cant be a history lesson in every area. It does a very good job to portray the characters as humans and show the situations they were in. If you want a history lesson, you should get that PBS documentary on the Civil War. I'd recommend this movie for kids. Maybe if I watched it for the first time at my age I would not like it too much. But it could do a lot for a kid, I believe this movie played the critical role at turning me into a Civil War buff.
I despise Soap Operas, this movie was not a soap opera but it is 23 years old.
2 Corny but watchable
OK people. No way could this be rated five stars. Anyone who did is way to easy to please. I watched the whole thing and thank god I had a fast forward button that was used quite often. The whole war seemed to be fought by 50 of the same people. Uniforms were ridiculous. Gregory peck should be ashamed, though he did a splendid job of acting the script was un-believable. Stacy keach did a great job of acting. The Geyser family did not make you feel like they were a real family. This really took away from the reality of the whole mess. Again, I watched it. I will never watch it again so Im going to sell this. I made the mistake of watching Maxwells Gettysburg and God and Generals. Those were the BEST EVER MADE SO FAR! All other movies cant compare to those. Blue and Grey is a joke compared to them. Now that I think about it. I really should have given this series one star. Sorry but it was corny as hell.
3 Civil War 101
Once upon a time in a place far, far away, I was a Civil War buff. I couldn't read enough books about the massive war between the North and the South from 1861 to 1865. I paged through texts about ironclads, reveled in the descriptions of Shiloh, Bull Run, and Cold Harbor. I studied pictures of the movements of troops led by George McClellan and Ulysses S. Grant, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. I thrilled to the drama of Lee's surrender to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse. And I mourned as Abraham Lincoln fell to a southern assassin's bullet at Ford's Theater. I would read books by Bruce Catton, a sort of everyman's historian of the war who churned out books by the boatload twenty or thirty years ago. Moreover, and probably most importantly, I yearned to watch shows and movies based on events during the war. I remember being presently surprised at the time to learn that a huge mini-series, called "The Blue and the Gray," would soon air on television. Finally, I would see the events, people, and places I had only read about before. Yep, I vividly remember watching this series when it first premiered on television over twenty years ago. And I liked it, at the time. When I saw it coming out on DVD, I decided to watch it all over again.
The passing of years can definitely modify prior assumptions. While I found parts of "The Blue and the Gray" intriguing, far too often the film descended into the deepest depths of sentimentality of the sappiest sort. The star of the picture is John Geyser (John Hammond), a young man with a knack for drawing who lives on his parents' farm in Virginia. He's got a bunch of brothers, a sister preparing to marry a successful businessman from Vicksburg, and several slaves. He yearns to head north, to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania where his Uncle Jacob runs a newspaper. John figures his relative will hire him on the spot once he shows the man his drawings. Geyser gets the job when his uncle assigns him to cover the John Brown trial and the abolitionist's subsequent execution. At the proceedings, John meets Jonas Steele (Stacy Keach), a shady character with ties to the Pinkerton Agency and to the White House. A fast friendship forms between the two, with an even faster bond emerging between Steele and John's cousin Mary Hale (Julia Duffy). John heads back to his Virginia farm just in time to witness a bunch of bounty hunters commit a heinous crime against Jonathan Henry (Paul Winfield) for harboring a fugitive slave. At one point, young Geyser even meets the newly elected Abraham Lincoln (Gregory Peck).
By the time the war breaks out, John Geyser's artwork covering the Brown trial lands him a job at Harper's as a war correspondent. It's just as well since John refuses to fight for the Union or the Confederacy, a position that alienates him from his pro-southern family. His anti-war views do not stop him from facing danger as he rescues the daughter of Senator Reynolds (Robert Vaughn), a girl named Kathy (Kathleen Beller), at the Battle of Bull Run. Predictably, John and Kathy become an item. So do Jonas Steele and Mary Hale when they tie the knot after Jonas joins the Union Army. We also learn Steele possesses an annoying psychic power that allows him to foresee disastrous events. Meanwhile, as Vicksburg falls to the North, John's sister loses her husband and nearly loses her child in the siege of that city. As the war grinds on and on with no end in sight, members of both branches of the family, Hale and Geyser, fall on the battlefield from bullet, disease, or both.
This rather slipshod summary will have to suffice for a series that runs nearly six hours. The filmmakers did a good job covering many of the important issues of the day. John's internal conflict over whether he should fight or not, and for what side, is one many Americans faced during that conflict. Battle sequences inevitably rely on budgetary restrictions, so the only lengthy combat sequence is the Battle of Bull Run. It seems the filmmakers wished to focus on things not widely known about the Civil War, such as the use of hot air balloons for aerial surveillance, a repeating carbine, and the horrible conditions of prisoner of war camps. The movie keeps violence to a minimum, as per television standards, but a viewer does get the sense that the Civil War was no walk in the park for both soldiers and civilians. What do not work as well are the inaccuracy of the uniforms, the occasional digressions into comedy and romance, and the tendency of characters to teleport themselves across the country. I realize the whole idea of the movie is to show the war through the eyes of one man, but it gets ridiculous after a time when you see John Geyser popping up everywhere from Vicksburg to Bull Run.
The cast roster is enormous. In addition to the actors listed above, you will see Sterling Hayden, Lloyd Bridges, Colleen Dewhurst, Rip Torn, Rory Calhoun, Warren Oates, and Geraldine Page filling roles both major and minor. Mr. Bentley from "The Jeffersons" even shows up for a minute or two! I think I can safely recommend this film to movie buffs. It's not perfect, not even close, but it would give a viewer a general idea of the issues that led to the war. You can't really hope to adequately inform through the medium of television, but what you can hope to do is get someone interested in reading more about a topic. "The Blue and the Gray" will do that, with a little luck.
4 A wonderful emotional view of the Civil War
First off, yes there are a lot of problems with this as factual history. This is not Gettysburg or Gods and General. Don't think they ever set out for it to be. This is for the person who wants more personalities, more emotions and less history. So PLEASE do not judge this against the two movies based on the Shaaras' Books. This whole intent of this was distinctive different and it achieves what it set out to do.
This is not for historians, this is for the people who have a little knowledge and interest in the Civil War - and likely that is all they want.
For someone looking for a more emotional view of the Civil War, with more 'people and feelings' than true history, then this is a very nice read. It is the fictionalised account of the Geyers and the Hales, cousins - one family of the South, the other from the North, that find themselves divided and fighting each other during the War Between the States in the US. The Geyers were farmers, of the land, though were not slave owners, and the story focuses around their eldest son, John, an artist who went into the war as an artist correspondent, torn by his love for both families and seeing both sides of the argument. He hates the institution of Slavery, a hatred amplified by the hanging of his black friend, a freed man for hiding fugitive slaves. The Hales were city-folk. Not only were they divided on their views, but by their styles of life. You see all the various scenes of how families were divided, how the glory of war could turn sour for the many boys simply looking for adventure.
There was a real John Geyser, and he did draw a lot of pictures as his time as a soldier. But he was not a war correspondent, and not that professional of an artists. Still is immature drawing carry a power to convey the horrors of war.
So take the 'history' with a grain of salt and enjoy the 'emotions' of the great conflict that ripped families and friends apart.
Stacey Keech is simply marvellous as Jonas Steel, and I defy anyone not to be moved by his and Julia Duffy's Mary performance as Mary, the woman Jonas loves and loves. Duffy, best known for Designing Women and Bob Newheart, show a charming, heart-wrenching portrayal of sweet Mary. Peck is super as Lincoln, in a roll he really wanted to play.
So pop the popcorn and sit back and enjoy the sweeping 'Gone With the Wind' Hollywood version of the Civil War. There is fine acting and a lot of nice 'historical' touches since Bruce Catton was consultant to the film.
The DVD is the full length version. Many video copies are a shortened version, so you you will be thrilled the see it in its intended form.
5 An Introduction to the Civil War.
I remember watching this miniseries when I was five years old. I was amazed by the whole thing. Being a little kid, I wanted to watch it for the cool looking battles, all the guns, swords, horses, and cannons. What I didn't know when I was watching it that it opened my eyes to a whole bunch of things I had never thought about before. For example, soldiers peeing there pants and running away in the thick of battle; innocent people being shot by straying gunfire; people who were so hungery that they would eat horse meat; the non-fighting hero taking up arms to defend his family and home; were all things that had never entered my mind before. The miniseries gave me a greater appreciation of the Civil War and a beginning understanding about the grimness of war in general.
Now, with that said I must admit that some of the acting is kind of lame and a lot of the dialogue is cheesy. However, keep in mind that this was a television miniseries made in the early 1980s. Computer special effects were non-existant and the film had to appeal to a huge audience of people over three different days. The whole prophetic gift of Major Steele is a bit farfetching, but other than that everything flows together fairly well. There are some fine acting performances and the battles aren't too shabby. A good film to introduce people to the Civil War.
6 Civil War Lite, Very Lite
When watching this mini-series its best to keep in mind that it was made about twenty years ago and shown on television over several nights. The over acting and the simplistic dialogue were probably a lot less cloying when spread out over many hours and interrupted by commercials. This version of the Civil War leaves out most of the grime and blood and introduces a number of anachronisms and phoney sidetracks, among the most bizarre of which are the Stacy Keach character's numerous "psychic episodes" and the incident where one of the characters informs some slaves on a Mississippi plantation that they are free by letting them read the Emancipation Proclamation. (Any one care to bet how many slaves knew how to read in 1863?)
Having said this, I should also point out that there are some reasonable reenactments of battles, particularly First Bull Run. You can also get a fairly good idea of the way families were torn apart by the war and the dilemma that conflicted loyalties caused many people. I guess my favorite character is Malachi Hale, who joins the Union Army sure that he will be a great hero, then has to deal with his terror when he comes under fire. He eventually makes friends with a similarly frightened Confederate and ends up with a battlefield promotion! I don't know of many other scenes in war movies that point out the absurdity of the whole thing so successfully.
7 One of the worst movies ever made!!!
This movie was such a disappointment that I am embarrassed to say that I wasted my money on it. It was my hope that this would be an informative, historically accurate film about the War Between the States but, to my dismay, I found this feature to be some second-rate melodrama that should only be shown on Lifetime or the Oxygen Channel. This was like watching a day-time soap opera that never ends and I am amazed that anyone with a clear-conscience could write a postive review about it. If after reading this review you are still thinking about buying this I'll make you a deal. You can have my mine for free; that is if I can remember where I threw it.
8 Worth a watch......
This is a nice tv mini-series, and explains the Civil War and it's era pretty well. It's about a neutral Virginian farmboy/amateur artist (played by John Hammond) who leaves his home and family to work as a newspaper artist up north, eventually becoming a war artist for Harper's Weekly. Along the way, at the trial of John Brown, he befriends Stacy Keach's character, a U.S. army scout and good friend of Abe Lincoln named Jonas Steele. While his brothers fight for the Confederacy, his cousins fight for the Union, tearing their family in two.
It is, as other customers have said, a good introduction piece to the War Between the States. It tells the basics of the war and it's time period pretty well. However, it is not without it's errors: I don't know why there's the murder subplot....it's kind of odd, but still spooky. The love stories are a bit corny at times, but otherwise the story is interesting. The music score is VERY early eighties, but that's okay. The thing that made me want to laugh though is that each army seems to have about 50 people on each side, though the battle scenes are pretty good. The cavalry battles are great though! Oh well, if you want vast armies, watch Gettysburg (a GREAT Civil War movie), or something. Hammond and Keach give good performances, while the best is Gregory Peck's performance as Lincoln. He fits the part very well, and is quite believable. (but stay away from the overacting of sister Emma's overacting!) So, if the Civil War is your thing like it is mine, take a look at this. It's worth a watch!
9 Interesting approach to the Civil War
Everything can't be perfect. Being 2002 it's easy to look back and be critical of filming in the early 80's. As we see some 80's filming styles and approaches common of television come through. This 3-DVD set is perfect for those who really don't have a general knowledge of the war. The story follows historical timelines (most of the time) and also brings up key events to situations like John Brown's Raid, Bull Run, Vicksburg, Gettysburg,etc.. This movie includes common and popular situations that arose during the war such as an army trading coffee or tobacco with the enemy, or punishment procedures for being a coward, popular soldier and civilian life. It is almost like the movie has taken the most popular things of the Civil War and created a 6 hour movie from it.
Sometimes I thought the acting and romance was a bit "sappy" for the movie but I realize that it is nearly 20 years old. As far as actors I found Gregory Peck acting as Lincoln to be more believable than most of the characters in the story. This movie isn't a Gettysburg though it isn't a flop. It is a perfect movie for people learning about the Civil War. Blue and Gray explores the realities of families broken up by war and how people had to ask and find themselves when choosing to fight for the North or South. It brings a well rounded view of the war and puts it together in a fine movie. I would recommend it for many ages as I think children learning about the Civil War can find great value in this movie.
10 1 star is too much for this movie...
It's bad - really, really bad. If you are able to get past the early 80's haircuts, uniforms which don't look quite right, Civil War battles that look they were fought by maybe 30 people, and painfull to watch overacting, then there is still the writing. Stacy Keach's character for example, had dreams in which he predicts the future (you hear about them throughout the movie - somehow Keach is able to deliver his lines with a straight face). Hard to believe someone wrote this movie on purpose, harder still to believe that someone thought it was a good idea. Save your money and get Gettysburg instead, or make your own movie with sock puppets, which will still be much better than The Blue and the Gray.
11 ...
... To be critical, the acting is somewhat a mixed bag. There is some good acting and great actors like Gregory Peck and Stacey Keach, and some so-so acting on a par for a made-for-TV drama. And it's not so historically accurate....the siege of Vicksburg happens before Gettysburg, not after, etc...
And the movie is supposed to be based upon Bruce Catton's "A Short History Of The Civil War". Hmmm...I don't know about that; I read that book. Certainly it is not based on that book in the way that the movie Gettysburg is based upon Shaara's "The Killer Angels".
Despite the problems, I enjoyed this movie. What I liked best was the length of this movie. Six hours on 3 DVDs is great and abundant content for general viewers and Civil War readers who just can't get enough. The costumes and sets are realistic, and the battle recreations seemed generally realistic.
I enjoyed this and am giving it 4 stars.
12 Am I the only one that liked this?
Yes I will admit that the acting is the level of "The Young and the Restless" but for Gods sake it is still interesting enough to hold the attention. A story about 2 sides of a family divided by war and then go off to fight one another, while common place was never dull. However the Major who could see events in the future as they happened was a little bit much.
Overall it was very good if you liked north and south you will like this one.
13 do you like Bold Girls?
Has anyone noted the similarities between the duel scene in this and the one in North and South with Charles....my mother and i noted this the other day...they both end the same way but this one incorporates a joke...i thought it was cute.
as for the person who commented on the proper ways of the southern lady....if you had indeed watched the movie you will have noted that "Mary" was from the NORTH. And for that matter, the type of women portrayed in this movie weren't the type to sit on a cushion and be pampered ( with the exception of Kathy, in the beginning). These were middle class women who were hard working. Though i love North and South (i'm an addict) i think that the Blue and Gray paints a better portrait of the average family and household......think of the line "slaves, heck we couldn't afford slaves. We could hardly afford shoes."
This movie also has my fave kissing scene......
kathy: " This is so you dont go away mad"
(they kiss, john thinks, scrunches his head)
John: I'm still mad
(they kiss again)
i love that scene!
14 Not Quite Authentic
This film did contain many correct historical facts as far as the war itself, and I did enjoy the quotes and terms that were used from that time era. However, it was quite apparent that not enough research had been done as far as the appropriate dress and conduct of women (especially southern women) during the Civil War. I have done quite a bit of research on this topic since I am a reenactor, and I portray a southern woman. They were not "bold and brazen". Southern women were sheltered and protected by their men--not out flaunting themselves, chasing men, and bragging on being "bold". Low neck dresses were worn late in the evenings--not the middle of the day. They did not pick up their skirts with both hands, high above their ankles (heaven fordid!), and run chasing a man on a train asking him to come visit. Women were either escorted by a male relative, if not married, or some older woman. They did not go out in public alone. Also, one scene shows John Geyser running down the dirt street in Vicksburg--someone forgot to cover up the cement sidewalk with dirt!! No cement sidewalks then! All in all, the acting in this movie was something to be desired. It seemed like most of the actors were just repeating memorized lines--not really living it. The acting did not appear natural. Abraham Lincoln's face looks like a monster. Mary Todd Lincoln did not accompany him on the train to Washington, D.C. There was an asassination plot, and Lincoln went by himself traveling at night. She followed later with her sons. If you are looking for facts about the war battles, this will suffice. However, if you are looking for information about everyday life and how it was lived during the Civil War, do not use this as a reference item. I watched it once, had my laughs, and then sold it.
15 Excellent made for TV mini-series
I just finished watching the complete 3 disc set and found the quality to be somewhat better then regular TV and not as good as what you would expect from a DVD. The actual story is excellent yet it can not recieve 5 stars because of the regular quality and the audio selection of this DVD. (mono only).
I know that this mini series was originally shown and made for network TV and not intended for DVD but, because I have other movies on DVD in the same situation, I know this one could have been done much better.
16 A Very Worthy Civil War Mini-Series
This has to be one of the best Civil War stories made for the small screen yet. The movie depicts a southern family and their relatives as they experience the harshness of the war between the North and the South where Brother is against brother and cousin against cousin.
Also, the use of historical acts and people is wonderful as well, even if the filmmakers took artistic liberties. The main battles and historical figures are depicted, from the Battle Of Gettysburg to the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
And the best part about this series is the plot doesn't deviate from the main characters and their heart-wrenching story.
This, along with North and South and Gone with the Wind, should be a permanent fixture in any Civil War Fiction buff's library, or on anyone's library for that matter.
