April Morning

This is a made-for-TV movie adaptation of Howard Fast's novel "April Morning," one of the few assigned novels I enjoyed reading in school - a story about Adam and Moses Cooper and their involvement in the battle that initiated the American war for independence.

From what I remembered in this film, the teleplay does follow the novel pretty well and it is a fascinating movie that I thought included some decent acting, interesting history overview of the American Revolution, some exciting action and suspenseful elements. Just the part where Adam Cooper (Chad Lowe) attempt to conquer his fear and fight alongside his fellow soldiers in battle is intriguing to watch.

The setting, make-up and costumes used in the film represented that period in time very well. Though a movie based on war, there is an absence of gore and graphic scenes, which makes it suitable for a larger audience including children. In addition, Director Delbert Mann took great care in making the movie interesting minus all the excessive gore and violence and, instead, relied on the substance, history, drama and character impact.

Overall, this is one of the few war movies I could remember that I've found suitable and enjoyable for the entire audience.

Grade B

On April 18, 1775, along a Massachusetts road, Solomon Chandler is secretly delivering shot and gunpowder to colonists who want to stand up to the British. He is captured and beaten by Redcoats.

The people of Lexington are divided on how exactly to handle the situation, but if the British are coming, they want to be ready. 15-year-old Adam, whose father does not respect him, wants to join the militia. Amazingly, Adam's father does not try to stop him. His mother fears Adam will be killed if the circumstances lead to gunfire.

Eventually, the people are warned that, in fact, "The British are coming!" (This exact quote is not in the movie.) The men have to be ready for anything. Those who know history have some idea what will happen next.

Tommy Lee Jones did a great job as Moses, though he was somewhat more low-key than Agent K or Samuel Gerard. The fact that he came across so differently than those more outspoken characters proves he has acting skill.

Rip Torn gave the standout performance here as Solomon. Most of the other actors playing Americans also did a good job. I couldn't help but feel the British were portrayed as buffoons, but this was nothing like "Hogan's Heroes".

I thought a little too much time was devoted to the relationship between Adam and Ruth. I did like Ruth, though.

What is important here is that this movie makes the American Revolution personal. Regardless of how much a man wants to be free, can he actually shoot and kill another human being? What if that other human being wants to kill him? Was all the killing really necessary, or could the situation have been handled better? The face-off in Lexington that April morning was an impressive thing to watch. Perhaps no one had to die that day, but we all know that would have been unlikely. I won't say exactly what did happen there, but before the movie was over, at least one major character lay dead on the field of battle.

I would recommend this movie for high school or even junior high school history classes. The violence was not that explicit, and it was necessary to the story.

I really thought this might be good but it was an overdone, sappy, made for TV soap opera about the Lexington-Concord battle. While some large facts were accurate, it was a pretty, fictionalized, maudlin piece of crap. Molasses moves faster.....in January. Awful.

After disposing of the fact that this film was significantly under budgeted, and, in spots, more than a bit overacted, what remains is a realistically cold and existential account of the first day of the American Revolution. While the principal characters have decided to take a stand against British domination, most are a bit vague in their feelings and haven't judged exactly how far they are willing to go. Yet, the events of the Day assume a life of their own and sweep everyone along.

I was most impressed by the way the film depicts the confusion of war and the mostly improvised pattern of resistance against the redcoats. Firing is heard all around, though no one is exactly sure from where or by whom. Men move through the woods with their guns, forming ad hoc groups to ambush the roadbound British columns---whose primary mission was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. The tactics are historically accurate. They fire, and retreat to concealed positions to reload. Most of these men are reluctant warriors, resigned to an unpleasant task, yet resolved to carry it through. A fine illustration of the ultimate Check and Balance of an armed citizenry; a concept enshrined in our Constitution yet too readily dismissed by many who claim to believe in democratic principles.

Another interesting and rather rare touch is the fact that the scriptwriters made a real effort to have the characters speak as people of the time would have. I have found that in many "historical" films the actors use words, sentence structure and alliterative devices from modern times. In some instances, well intentioned editors concerned with realism overcompensate to the point where the dialogue is overly formalized, archaic, and stilted. Not so here. The actors really sound like what one would read in contemporary, primary sources describing the event. This by itself gives the film considerable educational value.

A good "war is hell" movie still suitable for younger viewers due to its lack of gratuitous gore, and a memorable portrayal of ordinary people facing up to the bold task of confronting tyranny.

Based on the idea that war is hard on the families of those who fight in them. It was written from news articles of the Revolutionary War during the Veitnam War and showed that nothing changes when it's your family facing the fight for freedom no matter in what the time period.