looked like a TV movie

I recently saw "MacArthur" again, this time in HDTV. I had always thought it was a made-for-TV movie because of its cheap production values, and was surprised to learn, on Wikipedia, it was a theatrical movie . The battle scenes looked low rent and phony, with soldiers dressed in just-washed uniforms, bereft of any combat gear except their rifles; unconvincing enemy machinegun fire and mortar explosions, and terrible action choreography which was obviously filmed in Malibu. The interior shots all looked like movie studios.

Most of the shots were medium or close-up, lacking long shots that established a sense of place, a sense of location, especially in the foreign and battle scenes.

I thought the script was okay, showing MacArthur as a great soldier with flaws, as was Patton and most other influential men. "Patton" looks like an expensive movie, given the film technology of the time, but "MacArthur" had that TV look, which is unfortunate, as location scenery, attention to battle scenes, and long camera shots could have added realism which would have made "MacArthur" a far better movie, doing justice to the stature and historical importance of Douglas MacArthur.