The Crossing (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

George Washington crosses river Delaware to battle Hessian soldiers in Trenton

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 8 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

Well Done; A Must-See For American History Buffs

[sddavis63 · 8/10 · 29 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

One of The Best Made-for-TV Movies

[calfan · 8/10 · 17 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.

Terrific! Now I finally understand that famous painting...

[nz man · 2 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.

Did Washington really make those remarks?

[hisredrighthand · 6/10 · 9 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.

Historically accurate, educational, entertaining

[Buddah1066 · 10/10 · 2 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.

Entertaining, But Don't Get Your History Here

[Better_Sith_Than_Sorry · 7/10 · 26 December 2021]

Plot In a Nutshell: George Washington, commander of the failing Continental Army, plans a daring surprise attack across the Delaware River on Christmas night 1776.

Why I rated it a '7': As I mentioned, it was entertaining enough. Jeff Daniels does a fairly convincing GW. It was filmed in Canada as modern-day Trenton no longer resembles the 18th century town. You get a sense of the perilous nature of the mission and the desperate situation faced by the Continental Army. I think the filmmakers could have expanded a little more on the string of defeats Washington suffered from July-December, amping up the desperation, but that's OK. You definitely get the understanding that they were a ragged, demoralized group by the end of the year.

The history here, though, is a little off. Several scenarios were portrayed that just never happened, and others omitted that did happen. The film was based on a novel by Howard Fast and maybe that's why? Idk I never read it. But the concern here is that people will watch the film and, because it involved a historical event, will think everything they see is accurate. Another reviewer here commented that this film is "excellent history." Well, not so fast.

Maybe the strangest part of the film was the fact that it did not mention Washington's entire plan. There were supposed to be three separate crossings, not one. There were two other groups of soldiers, one crossing north of Washington's contingent, another south, and all three were to converge on Trenton. As it turns out, the other two groups never made it across, but this film doesn't even mention them. Weird.

The film does show a confrontation between Washington and General Horatio Gates, which never happened. And it has Alexander Hamilton as Washington's aide-de-camp, also wrong. Hamilton was an artillery officer at the time. I don't know why he's shown here as an aide. James Monroe was there, but the film never shows him. OK. Washington had Thomas Paine's "American Crisis" read to the troops before the battle - again, not shown. And the battle began during a blizzard, also not shown.

But overall, I still enjoyed it. "The Crossing" does a good enough job of telling the story of the events leading up to the first Battle of Trenton in general, even if it veers off onto some weird inaccurate paths along the way.

7/10. Would I watch again (Y/N)?: Yes. For the entertainment value, not the history.

Intelligent and Engrossing

[comquest · 9/10 · 11 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.

Let Us Cross the River.....

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 12 November 2014]

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.

A must see for true patriots

[rfrauli · 10/10 · 25 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.

Language out of character

[baxvendor · 6/10 · 23 February 2010]

While I was struck by how powerful of a moment in history this was, I'd have to downgrade my rating due to a couple of things. The graphic nature of some of the violence was perhaps more than necessary; however, what disturbed me most was the out-of-character tolerance of profanity among the men and worse than that, his own use of profanity.

On August 3rd, 1776, General George Washington was so distressed by the use of swearing and cursing among his men that he issued the following order to all of his troops: "The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it."

A great injustice has been done by portraying George Washington's character in a manner that is far less than he really was. I have not idealized him either, but know that some aspects of how he has been characterized are not accurate. How much more rich it would have been to have included such a quote in this movie, but do the producers see that this wouldn't be entertaining enough or maybe they shaped his character more so according to what they thought he must have been like? Why not seek to dig deeper to bring challenge for those today to consider the character of a man that is rarely seen in Washington today? What a lost opportunity to have made this movie of an unsurpassed quality.

Read for yourselves about the real George Washington and be careful not to succumb to Hollywood's depiction.

Simply superb

[mc3852 · 10/10 · 29 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.

movie review

[colephelps-09592 · 6/10 · 9 October 2018]

Even though the guy that plays George Washington is a goof, He plays his role good. This movie seemed to be very historically correct. For being a history movie there were very few dull moments and i enjoyed most scenes. I liked the characters and the bonds or differences they had that ultimately brought in the story all together. Although the crossing may be considered or more serious movie, the jokes and comments by the cast are a big reason why this movie wasn't boring. The other main reason was the fight seen at the end. I think that seeing scenes in movies like that kind of get us all a little more patriotic and hyped about what are country did. Even though it is now a little bit of an outdated movie i liked it for the most part and to top things off they had historical facts at the end which let you know what happend to the characters and when they died which i think is a cool little bonus you get to see in some movies

Its ok

[cadenixo · 5/10 · 18 September 2018]

I watched this film in my history class. We have seen many historical films. The plot of the movie goes through the story of Washigton and shows the stuggle to cross the delaware. And what they had to go through. It also shows the american revolution. The story goes through what foudning fathers did and how Washigton was a general. I noticeid the film did a good job showing the technoloigy they had at that time. Many handcarts and horses were used for transportation which was accurate for this time. The special effects were pretty good but not quite what we have today. When they were fighting some scenes with blood looked a little unreal but it was they best they could do. I dont have any questions as to why it would be inaccurate it all seemed good to me. The movie made sence and got its point across. The acting was good which made it seem real. The only connection is some of the actors. Ive seen jeff daniels in many movies and espacially dumb and dumber. I liked the acting in this movie daniels did a good job being his character. I liked the fighting scene it brought action to the movie and everybody likes action. I also liked how they still went on after losing men and being somewhat of underdogs. I didnt like some of the scenes I feel like they were dragged on. I thought the movie was ok it had its ups and downs. It was defently intresting to see how they lived and what they had to go through. I would like to see more movies with the same people and I have seen movies with some of them. The film was able to teach about founding fathers and americas struggles.

An excellent film that held my attention from the beginning.

[nz man · 31 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.

History through film review

[kennarb-23010 · 7/10 · 19 September 2018]

I am watching this movie for my history though film class. This movie is supposed to help us learn what the war was like. The filmmaker is trying to tell us how important the war was. They were also trying to tell us how Washington handled the war. They were trying to tell us how everything went done and how organized they were during the war. They people didn't live in houses with a lot of electronics. This movie was in color not black and white. You could tell it wasn't that old by the clothes they were wearing. They also didn't have enough equipment for everyone who was fighting in the war. I was wondering how the horses would get shot at and not fall over and die. People would be shot at or stabbed and they wouldn't die. These guys dressed similar to the people that were in the other movie I watched. They also all rode on horses, there were no cars. I liked how they talked in different languages. I also liked how they would find a solution when something wasn't what they needed it to be. I also liked how they made things work. I didn't like when they would all ride up on horses and no one would say anything to the other person. I liked this movie more than the other movies we have watched. I think this movie had a good theme to it and it seemed more realistic. You couldn't tell that they were acting this out they made it seem real. I would like to see other movies filmed by this director. I think the different angles made the movie more entertaining. I liked how they made a positive out of the negative things.

The amazingly talented Jeff Daniels

[WENN*9366 · 9/10 · 18 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.

The Crossing

[garynorm-79022 · 6/10 · 20 September 2018]

We have to write reviews for a class. This is about when George Washington has to cross the Deleware river. Then they attack the German soldiers and win. The technology isn't that old just because it wasn't made that long ago. The acting was a little off with some characters. And the people that were selected for some parts was off. The historical accuracy was pretty good. They told the story of this time pretty well. There were no connections to other movies that I noticed. I liked the fight scenes they were pretty good. Jeff Daniels portrayed George Washington magnificently. I didn't like how some scenes were slow and it got a little boring. I wouldn't mind watching a mo or with the same actors or the same director.

Good historical movie

[rdjunack · 10/10 · 23 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.

History

[jessiejones-59844 · 6/10 · 18 September 2018]

For my history through film class watching this movie aids in gaining new perspective of the movie. Washington is placed between loosing the war and fighting a true battle of nature. Battling against the cold and wet winter figuring a way to cross the Deleware and fighting for the liberty withheld from the colonist. I feel this movie does have some historical accuracy.

Maintains Historical Accuracy But Entertaining at the Same Time

[camrammer · 9/10 · 18 September 2018]

The Crossing is easily one of the best films I've seen detailing the American Revolution, perhaps one of the best films detailing history in general. Jeff Daniel's portrayal of General Washington seems to be more accurate than any other interpretation I've ever seen. This film is very educational, while also providing a great, entertaining experience. The realistic yet fantastic telling of this story has left me interested in both the American Revolutionary war, as well as U.S. history itself. I would recommend this to anyone interested in the history of the United States. With a mix of great fight sequences, interesting communion pieces, and more helps to conjure a beautiful story that I can watch again and again.

The first victory of the Continental Army or a Budget movie about American history

[lyubitelfilmov · 6/10 · 8 December 2022]

Historical drama. The film adaptation of the novel of the same name by American screenwriter Howard Fast, which in turn is based on real historical events of the War of Independence of the United States. And there is no need to worry about the book source, because Howard Fast himself acted as a screenwriter here. I stumbled upon this picture quite by accident, and decided to take a look, and the timing is not too big (only an hour and a half). I looked - and the impressions are generally not bad, although the creators clearly could have done better. And here is my brief opinion for you - The first victory of the Continental Army. There were both advantages and disadvantages in the picture. Therefore, we will not delay, and let's move on to their analysis.

So, the advantages: 1. Scenario - as you might guess from the title, the picture tells us about the times of the American War of Independence, namely the winter of 1776, when the defeated and numerically inferior Continental Army under the command of General George Washington was able to accomplish the impossible - cross the Delaware River and destroy a detachment of Hessian mercenaries of the British army in the city of Trenton, which was the first victory of the Continental Army in this war. The picture just tells about these events. About the difficulties, the state of the army, the arguments and doubts of both Washington and his generals. Ordinary soldiers are also shown, their worries, doubts, hopes. Other historical figures are not forgotten, for example, General Gates, or General Hamilton, General Sullivan (the initiator of the Iroquois genocide in the future). The picture dwells on these events in some detail, so for lovers of history and this military conflict it should be interesting.

2. Costumes and decorations - the US War of Independence is a fairly well-studied historical period, so sewing costumes and uniforms of the parties to the conflict is not a big problem. Personally, I didn't notice any historical mistakes. Rebels look like rebels, Hessians look like Hessians, Englishmen look like Englishmen. And the scenery was the area itself, where these historical events took place, which pleases, and greatly reduces the budget (no need to spend money on decorations).

3. Battle scenes - for a picture shot for American TV, there are pretty decent battles here, and the crossing itself almost completely converges with the historical one, except for some details. And although all this was filmed on a lousy camera, it looks pretty lively. Even the blood was brought, so my respects.

So, disadvantages: 1. Budget - it is visible to the naked eye: the camera, the effects, the actors have only forked out Jeff Daniels. And I thought that only in Russia the filmmakers don't care about their own history, and they are engaged in anything but the release of a good historical movie. And there are such guys in America, because there are no more pictures about the crossing of the Delaware and the Battle of Trenton, and not at all, and today it will definitely not be filmed (Negroes, sadomites, gamorists and other abominations everywhere). But this is their story, but here it is necessary to invite eminent masters, large studios and pour in a lot of money, adequate screenwriters, and shoot an excellent historical movie with famous actors, and as a result we have a television picture with a small budget, because there is simply no alternative. The potential is once again missed.

2. Lies in the credits - this concerns the finale, and not all historical figures, but they lie well, and some do not even finish, for example, about General Sullivan, who staged a real genocide of the Iroquois tribes, which was the beginning of the most massive war crime in the history of mankind, against which even the crimes of the fascists fade, because the victims In North America, there were much more and numbered in the tens of millions. And in the picture, this Sullivan is a funny chubby guy, over whom Washington is joking. And the creators also forgot to mention Thomas Paine's open letter - which on the eve of the crossing greatly raised the spirits of the soldiers of the Continental Army. And the creators lied about the Hessian mercenaries. Americans are such Americans, honesty is not about them!

A little bit about the main characters: 1. General George Washington, played by Jeff Daniels, is the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, who, finding himself on the verge of defeat, comes up with an audacious plan that changes the entire course of the war in favor of the American rebels. He is shown as a strong and determined commander who does not neglect the advice of his military leaders, although in reality he was often indecisive, but at critical moments he showed himself from the best side. I remember Jeff Daniels from Gettysburg and Gods and Generals, so I had no doubts about his acting abilities. And here he was good and convincing. Bravo!

2. General Hugh Mercer, played by Roger Rees, is a doctor and an officer of the Continental Army, and a friend of Washington, who gives the right advice and contributes to victory. He did not even forget about the laws of honor (which were observed then, unlike today). Roger was convincing.

I also remember Sullivan performed by Carl Pruner, General Gates and Colonel Roll (commander of the Hessian garrison of Trenton).

As a result, we have a good historical drama, with a good script, such music, good costumes and scenery, and good acting.

My rating is 6 out of 10. As for the recommendation - only to history lovers, the rest - at their own risk.

P. S. I found the historical series "Turn: Spies of Washington" here, we will take a look.

A fine example of accurate history brought to light

[mOVIemAN56 · 8/10 · 2 November 2005]

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

Well Made but Less Than Accurate

[MaxKorngold · 7/10 · 18 December 2022]

When I first saw The Crossing, over 20 years ago, I loved it -- but at that time, I did not know much about the details of the battle. Since then, I've read all the major books on the battle, and now the many inaccuracies in The Crossing jump out.

The trouble starts right at the beginning of the film. The opening scenes have Washington on the bank of the Delaware River, demanding that Colonel Glover hurry up and find him some boats to carry the army to the other side. It's as if Washington didn't even realize until that moment that he was marching toward a river he would have to cross. In reality, Washington was not that stupid or careless. No later than December 1, when his army was passing through New Brunswick, did Washington order his men to collect all the boats on the upper Delaware so that the Americans would be able to cross when they got there and then keep the British from following. Likewise, contrary to what the movie shows, the British did not chase the Americans right up to the river bank and shoot them as they scrambled into boats. The British actually pursued Washington's army across New Jersey at a somewhat leisurely pace.

Another major error is that the movie perpetuates the myth that Washington caught the Hessians completely off guard. In fact, the Hessians had regular patrols of the perimeter and pickets that formed the initial resistance to the attacking Americans. The pickets engaged in a shooting retreat toward Trenton itself, giving the garrison a little advance notice (thus performing as intended).

Another problem is that the film has the crossing, the march to Trenton, and the attack taking place in clear, dry weather. (In some shots, the setting looks more like October than December.) The situation was really much more challenging -- a fierce storm of rain and sleet started in the middle of the crossing and continued through the attack. These conditions slowed Washington's approach and harmed his men more than anything the Hessians did.

I realize that recreating the weather was probably beyond the filmmakers' budget. The same is true for another aspect that bothers me -- the forces depicted are simply too small. Washington attacked with over 2,000 men, while the Hessian force numbered about 1,500. But the film makes the battle seem like a skirmish between a hundred or two on each side. Similarly, the film's action really focuses on bayoneting and clubbing, whereas the Americans mainly won this time through shooting.

These aren't the only mistakes. As others have pointed out, while Alexander Hamilton was indeed present at the battle, he did not become Washington's aide until much later. Also, despite the dialogue, Washington had been in Trenton before, just a few weeks earlier, in fact. And it bothers me that the film has Nathanael Greene saying that the Americans were just fighting to avoid paying taxes. It's clear from contemporary writings that the leaders of the Revolution were fighting for self-government -- to control their own destiny without oversight from London.

Notwithstanding all my gripes, The Crossing is a well-made film. The score is moving, the production values are quite good considering the budget, and the acting is great. Jeff Daniels is physically very convincing as Washington. And while the depiction of the battle itself was disappointing, there are still some excellent scenes in the film. My favorite is the dinner at Friend Barclay's home, where Washington and his officers are hosted by a local Whig. The scene is beautifully done, even though it boils down into a face-to-face shouting match a rivalry that came to a head only in the future and was always conducted through proxies.

As movies about the Revolution go, The Crossing is a good bit better than average, but still not nearly as good as it could have been.

Only a small percentage of rat poison needs to be poison to kill

[rjl-72062 · 1/10 · 29 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.