An American film for Americans - what a surprise 7 Oscars!

Rating: 6/10 (26 August 2013)

Although I think George C Scott is a great actor, I do not understand why this film won 7 Oscars when several superb historic war films also produced in 1970 received little acclaim.
This is yet another of the almost limitless American films post WW2 which glorifies one of their famous generals. True it shows his vanity and cruelty as well, but as a military historian myself I really wonder why such average war scenes rated so highly? For example Patton's triumph after Kasserine is portrayed in almost laughable battles-scenes. We have modern M60 tanks (ironically the "Patton") with black crosses on the side pretending to be German tanks and German infantry marching in Napoleonic dense columns towards the US Army. Its incredibly bad even by the standard of the time (and Gen Bradley was the military adviser?).
I do like the acting in the film. I think George C Scott is great and well deserves the accolades. But I do wonder why the outstanding films "Waterloo" and "Cromwell" shown also in 1970 did not receive wide acclaim, despite being in my opinion some of the best films ever put on film. Waterloo is probably the most impressive cinematic representation of a historic battle ever made - never again will a film be made like this. I can't help but think it does help if your film is about an American war hero, with famous American actors for Americans (like almost every successful film that has been made in the English speaking world since 1945). Interesting that a Bridge to Far which has faultless battle scenes and outstanding moving acting did not receive anything like 7 Oscars! I wonder why?