The Crossing (TV Movie 2000) Poster

(2000 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Add a Review
38 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
10/10
Historically accurate, educational, entertaining
Buddah10662 March 2003
One of the best films I have seen on the American Revolution. It took the founding fathers and made them human. I thought Jeff Daniels did an excellent job portraying Washington as a man and a general. I have seen the film a number of times and have shown it to several groups of students. Both my students and I enjoy and learn from it.
26 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Did you know that Washington crossed the Delaware three times.
pksky123 July 2004
I didn't either. This and many other interesting facts are revealed in this exciting and dramatic portrayal of General George Washington. It is basically a war drama played out with high realism. The temptation to reduce this piece of history to some kind of patriotic passion play is studiously resisted. Washington himself is played with real aplomb by Jeff Daniels. There are many excellent and gripping scenes of combat. I was surprised to learn that this was made for television. All in all it is a high quality movie good for casual entertainment and only spiced by the guarantee of some education too.

For some reason or another commenting on this movie requires at least ten lines. As much as I enjoyed it, there was nothing about it that suggest a comment with ten lines or more. Seven or less was plenty.
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Well Done; A Must-See For American History Buffs
sddavis6329 March 2003
I won't vouch for the absolute historical accuracy of what gets portrayed here, but as one take on George Washington's attack on Trenton (the title refers to the crossing of the Delaware River for the attack) it works. Certainly not everything portrayed happened (how can one know exactly what went on over two hundred years ago) but the details of the crossing and the battle were accurate enough from what I know of U.S. history, and the movie itself was dramatic and held my attention from start to finish.

Kudos to Jeff Daniels, who offered a completely believable performance as Washington. Daniels is proving to be quite adept at these kinds of historical movies ("Gettysburg" leaps to mind, and of course now "Gods and Generals.") A good, if lesser known, supporting cast also made valuable contributions to this picture.

In short, I wouldn't use this as a source material for an essay on the Battle of Trenton, but I would certainly recommend it as a very good movie.

8/10
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Intelligent and Engrossing
comquest11 January 2000
A&E's original motion picture, The Crossing, is an excellent historical drama starring Jeff Daniels in a remarkably human portrayal of General George Washington and the events that led up to the Battle of Trenton.

This story of the Delaware crossing is fast-paced and, along with the action, offers an intriguing look into the military strategy, decision-making and sheer desperation that drove the Revolutionary Army to its first great victory.

The Crossing may be a TV movie, but it would be equally at home in theaters. Well done, highly recommended viewing.
25 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Terrific! Now I finally understand that famous painting...
nz man2 September 2001
From the first few minutes this film kept my attention. Even though viewers are bound to know what will happen in the end, this film nevertheless maintains the suspense and excitement. Most people would instantly recognize the famous painting of General Washington standing in the small boat crossing the river, and now finally I appreciate why this instant in time is so significant in American history. The shame of this movie is that probably so many people will pass it up just because it may appear boringly historical, when in fact it is an excellent film.
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
One of The Best Made-for-TV Movies
Mike Herbst17 September 2003
Excellent production with fine acting by Jeff Daniels as Washington. The rest of the cast is also very good. Daniels transformed the stern and stiff George Washington from portraits into the daring and inspiring leader he was. I am beginning to think of Jeff Daniels as being in the same class as Jeff Bridges and Chris Cooper; a true professional. The actual Battle of Trenton was portrayed accurately and serves to reinforce my gratitude for our Founders' courage and dedication to liberty. Jeff Shaara's account of the battle in his excellent book, The Glorious Cause, also depicts Washington as a gambler when the potential rewards justified the risk. I hope it is re-run soon but if you don't see it on TV, buy or rent it.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A must see for true patriots
rfrauli25 December 2001
Too often we forget about our nations roots, this movie reminds us how fragile freedom can be. The story of how one man made such an impact on the future of America must be kept and retold for all times (as all great American stories should). If you're looking for great effects this may not be for you, if your looking to be grounded in your freedom and reminded of what it took to secure it, this is perfect for you. Just a snapshot of Gen. Washington's life, kudos to Jeff Daniels for taking this role.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An excellent film that held my attention from the beginning.
nz man31 August 2001
Ever since I was a young school boy, I have seen the famous painting of General Washington crossing a river in a boat. Now I can appreciate just how significant this event is in the history of the USA. This film was a very pleasant surprise - one of the many 'sleepers' that never get much publicity (at least not here in NZ) but is in fact a quality film that is well worth watching.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Simply superb
mc385229 May 2000
This movie was simply superb. Howard Fast consistently writes excellent fast-moving scripts that film themselves. The movies rarely do justice to history while "The Crossing" succeeded, but this movie can be enjoyed purely as entertainment, a terrific action thriller. Not only did Jeff Daniels fully live up to his role as Father of his Country, but the entire cast was uniformly excellent. Seriously, this movie truly conveyed a sense of what it means to sacrifice and to fight for freedom.

I'd also like to mention the excellent work of Sebastian Roche, who gets my award as the most versatile actor with accents since Meryl Streep. Believe it or not, Roche's biography has him born in Paris, France. Yet in "The Crossing" he plays a Maine Yankee. In Merlin, he played Sir Gawain. In "Liberty", the documentary on the Revolution, he played the Marquis de Lafayette. Although his performance was thoroughly captivating and sometimes moving, I thought his French accent for Lafayette, a genuine hero after all, was so over the top that it verged on being offensive. I couldn't help but enjoy it, but wondered if I would take so kindly to it if I was French. If Roche is French, I sincerely commend him for playing the role with a true sense of humor. His work is so good that I hope he gets his breakout role.

P.S. If you want to see another great performance, check out Philip Seymour Hoffman as Captain Joseph Plumb Martin in "Liberty." He got plenty of kudos in "Magnolia" and did a good job in "Scent of a Woman." When I saw him getting raves in "Magnolia", I was not surprised and very pleased. Let me just add that in "Liberty," there are a lot of terrific performances that may never be acknowledged, but make that documentary one of the best, most-moving in terms of emotional impact that I have ever seen.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A good historical drama
XRANDY21 December 2001
An interesting and fairly accurate portrayal of the events that led to the Reveloutionary Army's crossing of the Deleware River and subsequent victory at Trenton. Daniels does a good job, but his middle-brow demeanour lacks the artistocratic nature of Washington.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
George Washington crosses river Delaware to battle Hessian soldiers in Trenton
ma-cortes8 August 2012
1776, less than six months after the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Army is under the command of General George Washington (Jeff Daniels) , and his officers as Gen. Hugh Mercer (Roger Rees) and Col. John Glover (Sebastian Roché) . Then the army flees into Pennsylvania by seizing the only boats available .The army must cross the Delaware , the frontier between Pennsylvania and New Jersey , to a seemingly relentless battle at a small location , Trenton , being held only by a limited force of Hessian mercenaries.

This epic Telefilm has emotion , thrills, spectacular battles and based on historical deeds . Interesting plot about the dramatization of George Washington's perilous gamble of crossing the Delaware River and attacking the British forces at Trenton , based on a novel written by Howard Fast (Spartacus) who also written the teleplay .Good performance by main starring , Jeff Daniels , and memorable support cast plenty of known TV faces and mostly Canadian actors , such as Sebastian Roché , Roger Rees , Karl Pruner and Nigel Bennet . Evocative and glamorous cinematography by Rene Oshasi . Sensitive and appropriate musical score by Gary Chang . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Robert Harmon , a prestigious filmmaker of series and TV episodes and some movies as the successful The hitcher.

The picture was well based on historical deeds , adding more details , these are the following : In August 1776, British General William Howe launched a massive naval and land campaign designed to seize New York. The Continental Army under Washington engaged the enemy for the first time as an army of the newly independent United States at the Battle of Long Island, the largest battle of the entire war. The Americans were heavily outnumbered, many men deserted, and Washington was badly beaten. Subsequently, Washington was forced to retreat across the East River at night. Washington retreated north from the city to avoid encirclement, enabling Howe to take the offensive and capture Fort Washington on November 16 with high Continental casualties. Washington then retreated across New Jersey; the future of the Continental Army was in doubt due to expiring enlistments and the string of losses.On the night of December 25, 1776, Washington staged a comeback with a surprise attack on a Hessian outpost in western New Jersey. He led his army across the Delaware River to capture nearly 1,000 Hessians in Trenton, New Jersey. The Battle of Trenton was over in less than an hour. American losses were 2 killed and 5 wounded. One of the wounded was Lieutenant James Monroe, the future Fifth President of the United States. Lieutenant Monroe was also reputed to be the man standing next to George Washington and holding the American flag in Emanuel Leutze's famous painting, "Washington Crossing the Delaware". Also, it was widely believed that the Hessians were intoxicated as a result of their Christmas celebrations. That has been proved by historians to not be the case . Washington followed up his victory at Trenton with another over British regulars at Princeton in early January. The British retreated back to New York City and its environs, which they held until the peace treaty of 1783. Washington's victories wrecked the British carrot-and-stick strategy of showing overwhelming force then offering generous terms. The Americans would not negotiate for anything short of independence
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I was very impressed
TexasRedge2 May 2003
I was very impressed --- A & E has the best movie studio on television (bar none) --- i would've paid to see this film if it would've shown at the theatre ... having said that ... i will also say that i give this film a 9 our 10 star, I recommend it --- itcty Bitchy God Damn
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
The amazingly talented Jeff Daniels
WENN*936618 March 2000
Jeff Daniels' acting really holds you spellbound in this movie. Who else can play George Washington, Lawrence Chamberlain (in "Gettysburg"), and still be funny in "Dumb and Dumber"? In the making of "The Crossing" which was shown afterwards, they interviewed him about playing the part of Washington, and I was really impressed with how much research he had done for the movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Good historical movie
rdjunack23 May 2000
This movie was a generally good movie about the Continental Army's early years in the American Revolution, and how close America actually came to staying a British colony for God knows how much longer. The movie shows General Washington's daring attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton, which was the first American victory of the war and one that was vital to maintaining the fragile Continental Army and our young democracy's future. The crossing, the battle, and the unseasonable cold are all shown really well and I liked putting myself in the unenviable position of General Washington who could either do nothing, and lose his entire army and disappear into obscurity(or wind up on the gallows), or attempt something daring and emerge a hero(or a foolhardy general). As it was, George's attack at Trenton went down in history as a great American victory when one was desperately needed at the time. Although the war would last almost 8 years more after this attack, Trenton proved to the British that they weren't dealing with armed rabble who were raising a fuss over a few cents in taxes.

General Washington's meetings with the generals and Colonel Mercer were also very insightful into how close the American Army was to collapse in the early years of the fight. Soldiers volunteer slips were coming to an end, Generals were fighting each other, and the infamous General Winter was coming in to help things... No attack could have been more ill-advised, but Washington's succeeded and this movie portrays everything leading up to it wonderfully

8 out of 10.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A fine example of accurate history brought to light
mOVIemAN562 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Crossing is one film I've been looking forward to viewing. History has always appealed to me and thought it would be a good view. Jeff Daniels holds the lead of the film and hoped he would deliver a good film. And boy does he ever deliver.

Jeff Daniels is Gen. George Washington and delivers the most believable portrayal I've seen. He is portrays Washington as exactly how he would have been: tired, disheartened, but still with a glimmer of hope. His words are delivered in the voice a general way and just seems to capture the man perfectly.

The supporting cast is excellent. Sebastian Roche is perfect in the portrayal of Col. Glover. He is bored, rebellious, and one of the smartest men in Washington's army. Roche is able to deliver every line he says with the emotion (or in some cases the annoyance) needed to give the film a little more humor.

The film covers from the week before the crossing of the Delaware to the Battle of Trenton. The battle scenes, though few, are filmed as they should be in any film. Graphic, intense, and heart-pounding. The battles show the brilliance of his plans and how un-prepared the Hessians were. By far the best part of the film is the way the filmmakers are able to emphasize the importance of the battle and how if they lost it was the war the lose also.

The Crossing. Starring: Jeff Daniels, Sebastian Roche, Roger Rees, and Steven McCarthy.

4 out of 5 Stars
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Let Us Cross the River.....
Robert J. Maxwell12 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
These historical tales are generally informative and interesting, at least lately. The 50s had a way of turning things this way and that until, like a solved Rubik's cube, everyone watching the film felt satisfied because it turned out the way we wanted it to. Usually that meant, "We win." If we lost, it had to be a sneak attack or a gallant last stand against overwhelming odds. This TV movie is better than those humdrum fantasies. General George Washington is faced with one problem after another and the movie doesn't spare us the details.

I don't know about the dialog. There's quite a bit of vulgarity, for one thing. It's not objectionable but it's surprising in a made-for-television movie. For another thing, Washington's men speak in carefully articulated phrases, sometimes flowery. Well, that's the way they WROTE, of course -- those who could write at all. But I suspect there was a more considerable gap between the written and the spoken word than there is today. The natural, unnatural rhythm of speech -- full of hesitations, gulps, crutch words, editing, mistakes, retractions -- doesn't really show up in the literature of the time, fictional or otherwise. It took somebody like Steven Crane to put street talk down on paper in novels like "Maggie" and "The Red Badge of Courage." The gap still exists, of course. In his State of the Union Address the president never talks the way he talks to his wife or his dog. And some of Washington's pronouncement sounds like pomposity. "Gentlemen, if God is willing, we will have our way with the enemy. I bid you a heartfelt Godspeed -- and break a leg." Although, who knows? There were no recording studios at the time.

There are also moments when something Washington says sounds like narcissism. "We have fought many time and been defeated. I will not be defeated again." Surely, he means "We." A promise that "I" will do something is reserved for General MacArthur, not General Washington. (Kids, MacArthur retreated from the Phillipines saying, "I shall return." He said it for three years, then he returned.)

It's the story of Washington's crossing the Delaware with the ragtag remnants of his army and defeating the Hessians at Trenton. The Hessians make better villains than the British because they were mercenaries from another country, unlike the "government contractors" we use today. Another reason is that they were from what is now Germany, though it wasn't then, and we've fought Germany more recently than we've fought Britain.

I'm convinced the crossing we see is more realistic than it is in that famous painting by Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze that hangs in the Metropolitan Museum. It's revolting. Washington stands up near the bow of the boat as everybody else is working like hell to get the vessel across a river choked with chunks of ice. Only ONE MAN in that painting is actually rowing. And an enormous American flag unfolds in the breeze, as if the boat were charging ahead at sixty miles an hour. In this movie, Washington makes a mistake and misjudges the amount of time it will take to get his troops across the Delaware, despite warnings from his subordinate, Colonel Glover, who leads a contingent of Gloucester fishermen.

I said the movie was informative and it is. I didn't know, for instance, that Glover was in complete command of the loading and unloading of the stolen boats, and in command of the crossing itself while on the river. Glover, by the way, is played by Sebastian Roché, whose face was familiar to me. It took me a while to realize he'd played a hedonistic rock star named "C Square" in an episode of "Law & Order." The guy was born in Paris and speaks four languages. I also didn't realize that Alexander Hamilton and James Monroe were with Washington at Trenton. There's more honest brutality than you might expect. Six unsuspecting Hessians are caught after a Christmas celebration, hung over and half asleep at dawn, and Washington's men chop them to pieces with sabers.

It's comforting, though, to see that in such a changing and disappointing universe, some things remain ever the same. The officers ride horses while the enlisted men walk, as I did.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Did Washington really make those remarks?
hisredrighthand9 June 2014
First of all I do like the film, for a TV movie it's more than decent. However I do take issue with the way the hessian "mercenaries" are depicted, especially Washington's monologue on how he can't comprehend men willing to help in the suppression of the American people merely to make money. I don't know if that's an authentic quote and Washington didn't know better, but the fact remains that those "mercenaries" were conscripts from German principalities, especially Hessen-Kassel, whose monarch Landgraf Friedrich II. financed his lavish court life imitating that of Versaillles by selling his troops regiment-wise to the English.

While properly trained, none of these soldiers were mercenaries. They were mostly the sons of peasants and artisans that were pressed into service and sent overseas to fight for a foreign king in a hostile country. With the exception of a few high ranking officers who spoke french or English they were mostly unable to communicate with the locals. Later on however, as the hessians eventually got a better understanding of the conflict, more than a third of them deserted their regiments, joined the American forces and stayed after the end of the war. Also part of the American force that won the final victory over the British in Yorktown was an all-volunteer German regiment under the command of General von Steuben.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Gets it right (mostly)
douglas lally2 December 2013
I first saw The Crossing in 2001, shortly after it was made, and loved it. Although I couldn't help thinking there were some inaccuracies to it, or certain things that were simply imagined. I had a chance to watch it again just recently and my opinions remain largely unchanged. For a made for TV film the production value is tremendous with a skilled cast and compelling direction. The film drives home the brutal reality of the war in the winter of 1776; Washington's army is depleted, down to perhaps 6,000 or so. He has virtually no support or leadership from Congress, dwindling supplies, and after a string of stinging defeats has been pushed across the river in absconded boats to Pennsylvania escaping the relentless British pursuit. In short, the American army is on the brink of collapse and with it goes any hope for Independence. The Crossing dutifully articulates the desperate struggle for GW and his army, the brutal winter in particular, which can be argued was their bigger enemy. Washington's gamble to divide his forces and attack the 1200 strong Hessian mercenaries camped at Trenton on Christmas Day 1776 is a remarkable feat of military/logistic heroism and human endurance. The film really does capture the misery those men must have suffered, freezing, sick, wet, just to get to the Hessians, and then fight them. Visually a great film with a nice pace and flow to it, and moments of real tension. I was actually surprised at the level of violence portrayed in the battle scenes but that's the way it was mostly fought; hand to hand. There are elements in the film that some have questioned as inaccurate or fabricated. Jeff Daniels characterization of GW infers a man with a short temper, rigorously demanding, and with utter contempt for his enemies; this persona is incongruent with what we know of Washington's character as somber, conservative, respectful, brilliant yet somewhat colorless man. GW was a professional soldier for most of his life but I thought Daniel's conceptualization of him rendered him as something of a hot headed rustic amateur. I also took issue with the portrayal of Horatio Gates as a seething fifth columnist. Gates, a former British officer who sought greater personal fortunes in the colonial army, was a poor battlefield commander but a brilliant quartermaster and administrator. Nevertheless, he held GW in low regard and felt himself better suited to lead the army. His contempt for Washington isn't in question. It's the confrontational, combative, nature of his exchanges with GW who naturally dismisses Gates for his insubordinate attitude. This too is in conflict with what we know of Gates. An opportunist, yes, but not a traitor and certainly not inclined to personally attack Washington as he does in the film. There are other historical facts simply left out such as the Hessian's foreknowledge of an imminent American attack, the fact that the army was actually split into three armies, and that the crossing was actually one of three crossings, not a singular event. However, all told a wonderful film with an engaging cast and few dull moments. Very well done.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A nail-biting historical drama
Bevin Chu19 May 2012
Amazingly well written, produced, directed, and acted dramatization of the historic events depicted in the famous oil painting, "Washington Crossing the Delaware," by German American artist Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze.

How often can one honestly refer to a costume drama as a "nail biter" or "cliff hanger?" Yet "The Crossing" is just that. The tension is nearly unbearable at times. The film skillfully communicates the anxiety that Washington and his officers must have felt as the hours slipped by and the fate of a nation literally hung in the balance.

Perhaps most amazing of all, this film, a must see for every patriotic American, was written by Howard Fast, a card carrying member of the Communist Party of the USA. How's that for irony?
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A Fine Christmastime Film
brtv29 November 2010
The creation of the United State was perhaps the other great miracle that happened at Christmas. Produced so well on what must have been a tight budget production calendar, the director makes fine use of both location & effects here to make it feel cold and damp. The film is based on the book of the same name. I will need to check it to search for the scene where an aid to GW speaks to him about taking the surrender personally from the dying enemy general. General Washington was not interested in this "courtesy of war" and finds the term angering. The dialog is far off the otherwise stirring story line for sure. It deals oddly with "war is all about profit and nothing else". What is the point of this useless scene unless it was to make some obscure 1999 political point. Selling a "room at the inn" to a wondering young couple about to have a baby on that first Christmas may have been about profit for the innkeeper, but what did it become for the rest of us is the real question. This is a Christmas movie waiting to be discovered even if some of the facts are pushed together for drama & time, and the special effects team believed the DP when he said their exposed gear would be "fixed in the edit room". There are so many more right calls than not in this moving TV film that does this story proud.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good history lesson
edjavega28 January 2006
This TV movie is a good history lesson about a very desperate time for the former colonies trying to assert their independence post-July 4, 1776. Everyone - foreigners included like me - knows of the Delaware crossing chiefly through that famous painting. But how many know that Washington crossed the Delaware three times? That many of the soldiers fighting for the British army were German Hessian mercenaries? Or that Washington's troops were so close to being disbanded?

One thing I observed though. You really have to see this movie without having seen "Dumb and Dumber" recently beforehand. Jeff Daniels is super in the role, but watching him as Washington, I couldn't help but remember that this was the same guy whom I earlier saw had his tongue get stuck in ice at a ski ledge and had severe diarrhea problems in a previous slapstick comedy with Jim Carrey. A bit unseemly for someone playing the Father of the Nation!

All in all, this is certainly worth your time.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Please sit down in the boat general
lord woodburry21 May 2003
washington sullivan mercer mifflin col glover the marblehead fishermen and even granny gates come to life in this excellent production of howard fast's book,,, the revolution is a much underrepresented topic in the theatre yet it is capable of so many interesting yarns -- bravo!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A THUNDERING MASTERPIECE
CarBohm12 January 2000
What can I say but I was blown away. Ironic that it was filmed in Canada. The mood, the narration and especially the acting is superb. Jeff Daniels hits a home run as George Washington. After being disappointed by Gettysburgh, with the exception of Daniel's portrayal of Joshua Chamberlain, THE CROSSING delivered a visceral, realistic and compelling look at our history. Please watch this film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Only a small percentage of rat poison needs to be poison to kill
Rise29 December 2016
Although fairly well directed and performed, with an engaging story that makes you want to keep watching - The end result is a poisonous mischaracterization of the American revolution with a few major lies inserted in an otherwise sound whole.

1. They try to claim in one of the beginning scenes that Americans are fighting for "liberty and equality". No, that's the French revolution (Liberty, equality, fraternity). The American slogan would have been "life, liberty, and property" (Property was changed to the "pursuit of happiness" in the declaration of independence by Benjamin Franklin, who did not want the south to later use this phrase as an excuse to think the revolution was endorsing their right to keep slaves). The foundation of our country was the right to pursue your God given life and keep what God has given you. When you introduce the idea that we were fighting for equality that opens up the potential for major distortion of the revolution; because although "equality" sounds nice, the meaning of it in the context of the French revolution often means "equality of outcomes", or to put it another way: wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. The antithesis of American revolutionary values.

2. Elsewhere, the Hessians are depicted as mercenaries who fight for money (historical point of fact, the money all went to the ruler of the Hessian state. The soldiers were obligated to fight wherever they were commanded to and saw no personal share of the money) - which by itself would not be a big deal, if not for the fact that this is used by one of the characters to point out to Washington that the American soldiers are no better than the Hessians because they are really just fighting over the money related to taxation. Worse still, Washington is portrayed to reluctantly admit they are right. None of this is true. Although a commonly repeatedly lie that the revolutionary's primary cause was merely "taxation with representation", the truth is that it was only one minor issue amongst many more serious issues. Injustice in the judicial system, Britain abusing it's powers and taking away the representative rights of the colonies, were far more foundational problems. Taxation without representation was merely a symptom of deeper issues that involves Britain abusing the colonists, denying them various fundamental rights and due process, and moving to give them no say in their own governance. These are things the colonists had historically enjoyed, but which were coming under increasing attack as the Britain tried to assert more direct control over the colonies. Something people don't know is that taxation without representation was only the 17th problem listed in the Declaration of Independence, out of 27 issues, and was only a minor mention compared with the numerous mentions of other abuses.

3. George Washington is depicted as someone with flexible morality (portraying him as someone who is committing some kind of great offense against a business owner by using his boats, when historically he wrote a letter to the governor of the state requesting all boats be put on a particular side of the river, with no suggestion that people thought this was some undue burden on their livelyhood in the dead of winter when the river would be frozen solid in a few days anyway). Moreso it depicts Washington as someone who would freely curse and even insult his generals in front of the men to make fun of them. None of that is true. In fact, Washington would discipline soldiers who were caught cursing. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548 Washington is known historically to be a man of extraordinary good character, humility, and good will towards others. His saintly reputation of respect and admiration throughout our country's history is well deserved considering that his devote commitment to Christianity was the only thing that allowed him to hold power, govern justly, and then leave after eight years of his own choosing without having enriched himself in the process. France showed us, with Bonaparte, what happens when a man of lesser character gets that kind of power; crowning himself emperor and spending most of his reign drafting up the French population to fight wars. For the most part there are many positive aspects of Washington's character that comes out in Daniel's portrayal of him, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, like the film as a whole, this typifies what we see where there is a lot of good stuff going on with the film that is spoiled by the insertion of poisonous historical lies which would leave the viewer with a deeply flawed perspective of the American revolution.

These are not just minor historical foibles or creative license that can be overlooked. The first two issues especially undermine the core purpose and nature of the revolution. Given that, I must give it 1 star, despite it's entertainment value, because it has no redeeming value as historical storytelling. I would not recommend anyone watch this to learn more about what happened, without knowing about these key flaws beforehand. Nor would I use it as a teaching aid, as historical movies sometimes are, because of these fatal errors in the film. Like rat poison, the poison of historical lies may not take up much of the screen time compared with the totality of the film, but what little is there is lethal to enabling someone to come away from the film with a truthful understanding of our history. The nature of these lies would undermine's someone trust in the founding principles of our country if believed; if they thought it was nothing but a fight over taxes and our most revered founder were not even that committed to living by the principles he was suppose to be fighting for. I can see no other reason for these lies to be inserted other than for the purpose of undermining people's respect and appreciation for the country they have inherited.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews