Product Details

• Format: Color, NTSC
• Rated: NR (Not Rated)
• Number of tapes: 1
• Studio: A & E Home Video
• VHS Release Date: February 4, 2000
• Average Customer Review: 2.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000006QEB
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #434,061 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Biography sheds some light on neglected hero, November 22, 2000

By 

"admiralbenedict" (Tucson, AZ, USA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Biography - Benedict Arnold [VHS] (VHS Tape)

This video shows Benedict Arnold was not the monster history has tried to portray him as, detailing his early life as a Connecticut merchant; his daring exploits at Ticonderoga, Valcour Bay, and Saratoga that made him, aside from Washington, America's most brilliant patriot general; and tries to shed some light on the still-murky causes for his treason. Decent recreated history, although the battle reenactments in A&E's "American Revolution" are more stirring. Also has a sprinkling of historical inaccuracies, but still informative.

0 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars A shamefully apologist treatment of this despicable traitor, June 29, 2004

By 

Daniel Jolley "darkgenius" (Shelby, North Carolina USA) - See all my reviews
(HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (TOP 100 REVIEWER)    (VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Biography - Benedict Arnold [VHS] (VHS Tape)

The A&E Biography series is remarkably stellar in quality, but I am compelled to take serious issue with this biography of Benedict Arnold. I'm actually rather angry about the whole presentation, as I cannot believe how positive a spin the commentators attempted to put on the life of America's most despised traitor. The very facts put forth here completely belie the stunningly radiant portrait these guys try to paint of this man.

Did Benedict Arnold help the revolutionary cause in its early years? Yes, there is no doubt of it. According to this video, though, the Revolution would have failed were it not for Benedict Arnold. They would have us believe his very presence on the battlefield won the day for the colonists at Saratoga. A defeat at Saratoga would certainly have been a terrible blow to the cause, but it is an affront to the memory of those colonial soldiers who fought and died in that battle to imply that Arnold deserves the credit for their victory. The documentary makes much of the fact that another general took credit for the victory, but the main reason this other general accepted the sword of the surrendering general is that Arnold was in the hospital with a serious musket wound in his thigh. This thigh wound, and I agree it was a grievous wound received in battle, seems to hold some kind of mystical sway over the commentators here. Just because Arnold was wounded fighting for the Revolution does not make him a war hero who should be honored despite those pesky little mistakes he made later on. Just as General Washington decreed his name be written out of the historical records of the war, I say that any glory this man achieved is obliterated by his act of treason.

Let's look more closely at this man; all of the important facts are right there in this video (although the commentators seem to ignore them). He was actually a deserter on the day before he became an official solder - in the French and Indian War. His initial fame and supposed heroism comes from the seizure of Fort Ticonderoga, a "campaign" that was won without a single shot. What did he do next? He led 1000 men on an arduous trek to Canada, losing many men in the process, only to fail miserably when he sought to take Quebec. His naval "victory" on Lake Champlain came at the expense of almost all his ships and men. When, following this, he failed to get a commission from the Continental Congress, he went back home - sulking all the way - with the intention of resigning. The war followed him home, though, and his return to fighting led to the commission he thought he deserved, but he decided once again to resign - why? Because he did not think several of his superiors should have a higher rank than he did. Only General Washington's appeal to him convinced him to take up arms again, and thus he fought at Saratoga (and was arrested immediately thereafter for having disobeyed orders).

Why did he, supposedly Washington's favorite general, turn traitor? Oh, it wasn't really his fault, these commentators would have you believe. No, his new, young, Loyalist wife somehow convinced him to do it; he was just a poor little old victim of a British spy plot; the 20,000 sterling reward he sought had nothing to do with it, of course. Personally, I find the apologist treatment of Benedict Arnold in this documentary to be nothing short of appalling. Arnold didn't just act on the spur of the moment; he provided intelligence to the enemy for over a year, and - had he not been caught and the fort at West Point taken by the British - the back of the Continental Army might have been broken.

I'm sorry, but despite A&E Biography's best efforts, I am not going to feel sorry for Arnold or attempt to commiserate with him or understand why he did what he did. He willfully betrayed the country he had bravely fought for, and he did it for purely personal, selfish reasons. The only sad thing about Benedict Arnold's fate is the fact that he escaped (running away like the coward he was) to London (where, boo hoo, he didn't get the respect and trust he thought he deserved) and avoided the ignominious fate due him at the gallows here in America.