The Crossing (2000)

Every American knows that George Washington crossed the icy Delaware River in the War of Independence, if only from Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze's famous 1851 painting. The made-for-cable-TV historical drama The Crossing, scripted by Howard Fast from his novel, corrects at least one piece of historical invention--Washington did not stand and pose for the occasion of Leutze's portrait--but, more importantly, it frames the event in the real-life drama that made it a decisive moment of American history. Jeff Daniels makes a fine General George Washington, the quiet, dignified, and increasingly desperate leader of the volunteer Continental Army. By December 1776, six months after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the tired and hungry army had retreated to the far banks of the Delaware River, a mere fraction of the original 20,000-strong force. Knowing that defeat means the end of the revolution, Washington takes the offensive in a dangerous surprise attack that turns the tide of the war. Like the sprawling Civil War epic Gettysburg, The Crossing takes one incident of the Revolutionary War and digs into the whys and wherefores that make it vital history. It lacks scope and spectacle--major battles appear more like modest skirmishes--and lapses into patriotic fervor at times, but it brims with rich historical detail and comes alive with the stories of officers, soldiers, and a very human George Washington. --Sean Axmaker Amazon.com

Not a Family Film

Why is it that people feel the need to use so much foul language when trying to express themselves? It isn't necessary and is quite offensive! I was looking forward to seeing this movie because of all the rave reviews but chose not to sit through it because of the poor choice of language. What a wasted opportunity for a realistic, accurate family oriented history lesson!! July 19, 2008

An Epic Battle Not So Epic

I recently saw the HBO miniseries "John Adams" and was compelled to watch this movie for a different perspective on a portion of the same period. Like most American schoolchildren, my familiarity with the crossing of the Delaware at Trenton was limited to the famous painting of that event which shows General Washington perched imperiously in the prow of a boat while being rowed through icy waters in the dead of night. The reality was decidedly less cinematic; unfortunately, so is this made-for-television treatment. Admittedly, I was spoiled by the superior production values of "John Adams" beside which this production pales. In its favor, it does present a grittier version of life in the Continental Army than we are accustomed to seeing and does much to humanize the deified personage of its Supreme Commander. But the production was hobbled by obvious budget constraints and prosaic camera work that make it look very like the TV project it was. This decisive battle that turned the Revolution in the colonialists' favor is portrayed as little more than a skirmish between Washington's ragtag band of volunteers and a bunch of unsuspecting drunks. Maybe in truth that's all it was, but the amateur look of this production does nothing to elevate the action into something a little more noble. It appears that the fate of the Revolution hinged on little more than a brawl. But it was a brawl the fledging nation desperately needed to win, and Washington is revealed as a crafty stratetician who was willing to risk all on a breathtaking gamble all others dimissed as insane. The isolation of Washington's command is portrayed with numerous references to the utter lack of support for Washington from the very body that had authorized him to carry out this war. Citizens of the Republic in the present day may take comfort (or not) in the knowledge that from its very earliest incarnation, the Congress honed its reputation as a bunch of blow-hard self-promoters who existed to endlessly debate but not to act. Also shown is the in-fighting among Washington's generals, some of whom resented his authority and in some cases, plotted actively to undermine it. As Washington, Jeff Daniels successfully gives the 'statue' flesh and bone. He has a wonderful physicality for the role and looks every part the vigorous and devotion-inspiring leader in his prime. More problematic is his delivery, which sounds too much of the contemporary Midwest (Daniels is a Michigan native) and not much at all like the 'gentleman from Virginia.' In general, I am not in favor of American actors larding up their dialogue with distracting accents, but though Daniels looks great, he does not sound convincing as a Tidewater aristocrat. In contrast to the mostly British supporting cast with their more elegant diction, Daniels is rough-hewn and out of his element. He also delivers his lines very s-l-o-w-ly; one hardly thinks Washington, in the heat of battle for his life and the Republic would have been so laconic. The teleplay by Howard Fast (based on his novel of the same name) displays a tin ear for authentically colonial-sounding dialogue, with many 20th century anarchronisms creeping in, and it presents the greatest obstacle for the actors. Some worthwhile moments of content, but stylistically this could have done better by its subject. July 17, 2008

Beautifully done in all respects

This movie was well done on every level. Good script, believable acting, excellent editing, great direction. I really liked the way Jeff Daniels portrayed Washington -- strong, understated and always believable. This movie works on every level and absolutely makes you feel like you're "there". When a historical drama is able to make you feel transported back through time, it has succeeded. July 2, 2008

Surprisingly well done

In all honesty, I expected this to be a so-so movie, however it turned out to be well done and very enjoyable. Jeff Daniels gives a wonderful performance as Washington and lifts the movie above the usual mediocrity of most made-for-TV-movies. All too often, actors are cast to play historic characters they just do not fit. In this case, not only does Daniels bear a passable resemblance to Washington, but he conveys the concern, insecurity, impatience, and determination the general admitted to feeling in his letters and correspondence.

I enjoy reading about history, particularly the colonial/Revolutionary War period, and am generally wary of historical movies due to their tendency to fudge on facts. While I do not claim to be a historian, I found The Crossing to be pretty accurate. I do wish they had brought in more soldiers since the battle scene appeared somewhat skimpy in that regard.

The sets and costumes fit comfortably with the time setting, as does the language and mannerisms. The picture is clear and clean, not distorted by fading colors or other problems. While it was made for TV, I did not find the breaks to be annoyingly obvious as with some. The DVD includes extras, including an interesting account of the movie being made, as well as interviews. One part shows how stunt men made the battle scenes appear real- something younger viewers might enjoy.

There is neither objectionable language in the movie, nor any sexual themes. The battle is not particularly bloody or violent, but would probably be PG if rated. It would make a nice addition to a homeschool history curriculum as well as the family video library. I will certainly be watching this movie again. April 26, 2008

Very Good

although a bit slow in some places, I thought the portrayal of Washington was excellent. March 21, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...