Needs to be given due credit

Rating: Null/10 (8 January 2001)

Why are people so quick to judge historical inaccuracies in films? So the two lead males aren't American. So it's got a tone of nineteen hundreds mentality. So Mel Gibson can take on twenty men singlehandedly and live to talk about it. Why don't people focus on what makes this movie so good?! *BEFORE PROCEEDING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS THAT GIVE AWAY PLOT* There are many accurate aspects, the British aristocracy at its finest- (the portrayal of Cornwallace was dead on accurate), the cold calculation in the murder of innocent women and children(the church fire left me speechless and in tears), the fact that this man lost more than one child, and not necessarily in battle (also not uncommon in the Revolutionary War), the idea that many slaves were there by choice (also something that has been historically proven accurate in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars-while slavery itself is an awful and prejudicial idea, the mentality of the time was that many could not have lived better independently; many were also granted freedom for fighting in the Revolutionary War), and finally, that in the south (the area the movie talks about) some of the bloodiest battles were fought; not by "regulars" but by militiamen fighting more guerilla than elbow to elbow. As for violence, if you want a clean war movie go rent "the Longest Day." Movies like "Saving Private Ryan" prove that today's moviegoing audience is more moved and reached by grandscale acts of violence. Finally, to say a German shouldn't direct, or Australians can't represent Americans, is prejudiced and as un-American as can be. I thought it was a sweeping epic showing how horrible war can be and how strong the human heart and soul can be.