Korda suggests it's full of technical innovations that show great promise for historical documentary, mostly by applying computer graphics rather than running that old stock b&w footage from WWII cameramen over and over -- but he regrets it is marred by, well, bad history, and simply is not very judicious about Patton's strengths and weaknesses. He concludes it is:
old stuff warmed up by a couple of bright kids with a computer, rather than a new way of looking at the man or the war.Why is it so hard to get good filmmakers and good historians working on the same film?
