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.