Rating: 
Summary: Ridiculous portrayal of American Independence
Review: Speaking as an American who is the daughter of immigrants, I would like to say that this is a great movie if the United States wants to ban anyone from entering the country. Come, come, can we depict our Independence movement worse than this? I think it is not possible. I'll tell you why. For one thing, Mel Gibson needs to come off his historical film stint. Lethal Weapon is okay because it's Lethal Weapon. After Braveheart, this like watching a particularly disturbed William Wallace again ride horses except wielding an axe or a gun rather than a sword...but, STILL chopping up Brits! The coincidences are rather irksome. They themselves made the movie more laughable than the serious and 'emotional' ambitions of the producer and director. I don't mean to say that Gibson cannot act. Just that this came too soon after Braveheart. I am a true lover of history. The anachronisms in this are worse than those in Braveheart. The puppet British soldiers...the new renamed 'Ghost,'....need I go on? Then I must move on to Heath Ledger. He cannot act. Next criticism: plot was boring. Was this about a patriot or a miserable widower and his equally dull son's dull romance? I don't wish to say that there should have been more fighting (God knows the war tactics of this era were equally as boring as this movie), but the movie centered too much on what should have been subplots, on what truly were unimportant details. And the insults to the English was unforgivable. I am Indian and I found them not in the least grounded. They were, like everything else in the movie, cliched. for example, the Frenchman--does the audience really need to see Mel roll his eyes and pan 'French,' everytime the man uttered a word? Mel did it a few too many times. So on that note, I'd like to finish this little but justified diatribe, and would like to conclude with the fact that there can be no worse portrayal of our country's freedom.
Rating: 
Summary: Braveheart in America
Review: Although a fair film on its own, if you've seen "Braveheart" I recommend staying away from this one, its basically the same without the bite of seeing something original...
Rating: 
Summary: Mel Killing Englishmen 400 years after Braveheart
Review: I do not think that comparisons between Braveheart, Mel Gibson's last piece of historical fiction, and this movie are inappropriate, as some reviewers here have suggested. In both, we see a reluctant warrior transformed by some act of random brutality into a vengeful wraith bent on destroying those that changed his life. In the process, the man becomes a standard bearer for freedom from tyranny, English tyranny in both cases. The similarities between the two movies end there though. The Patriot, in an attempt to fit in all the ingredients perceived to be required in making a 'Blockbuster,' loses it's way and turns the American revolution into a silly spectacle of cliches and generalizations. The Patriot is, essentially, a war story, and it would have been nice if Roland Emmerich had kept that narrow focus in mind. If the film had been modeled after other great war movies, like Saving Private Ryan, it may have been more palatable. Instead, we are assailed by the 'everyone in the movie needs to fall in love' cliche that is so pervasive in Hollywood filmmaking. Even Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) a supposedly devoted widower and father, has to get his time in with, of all people, the sister of his dead wife (sorry.. last spoiler I promise). In addition, we have an enlightened 'treat slaves as equals' mentality that we should make us sympathize even more with our noble protagonist. In a time of widespread institutionalized racism and outright slavery, southern plantation owner Benjamin Martin PAYS his slave labor! In 1776! A nod to political correctness? Perhaps the audience will not like the star character so much if he espouses the typical views of 17th century. While this may have been a smart decision insofar as not offending theatergoers, it seems visibly calculated to enhance wide appeal of the film, rather than to portray things as they were or might have been. To say that the movie was not entertaining at all would be too harsh. There were moments of amusing, amazing, and disturbing cinema. The battle scenes were impressive, if not Braveheart or Gladiator caliber. Colonel Tavington, the Nazi-esque commander of elite British Dragoons, was played brilliantly by Jason Isaacs. But once again, we see a problem with cliches here. Apparently, Tavington is the ONLY officer in the ENTIRE continental British army that believes the ends justify the means in total war. He is repeatedly berated by his superior, the honorable General Cornwallis, (Tom Wilkinson) for his casual brutality and disregard for the rules of gentlemanly warfare. So we have ONE guy (Tavington) that is responsible for all the acts of random English brutality and mayhem in the entire southern portion of the revolutionary war. If that one guy were the King George III, or as in Braveheart, Edward Longshanks, it would be understandable. But instead, it is simply a mid-ranking officer commanding an elite army unit. Even in Braveheart we see that the attitude of oppressors toward the oppressed is innate in all of the oppressors, not forced upon unwilling subordinates my their less noble commanders. This movie could have been much better than it was if it was more focused thematically. If it had chosen war as it's focus, as in Saving Private Ryan, or romance as it's focus, it would've been fine. Had it been able to combine the two, but emphasize one theme, as in Braveheart, it would've been fine. As it stands, the movie is trying to please everyone, and ended up disappointing at least this moviegoer.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but Not Great.
Review: The single thing about this movie that has gotten the most press, it seems, it the politically incorrect scene in which Gibson's character gives his sons muskets and has them assist him in the ambush and killing of British soldiers who have just murdered one of his sons and arrested another. Given the evilness of the British soldiers, this is the only reasonable thing to do...but in this age of post-Columbine hysteria, what can we expect? There are other problems with this movie, real problems, not ideological ones. For one thing, this movie is an epic, or wants to be, but the characters don't really contain the sort of moral ambiguity that real people embody, and that makes a movie *about* people--whatever the historical setting--truly compelling. In "The Patriot," we get some token wavering of resolve from the miltia soldiers, but the British are portrayed as cartoonishly evil. It doesn't bother me that the film may not be historically accurate (witness all the happy slaves, or, worse, Gibson's "free men"!)--after all, this is entertainment; it doesn't pretend to be a documentary. The director & screenwriter take too many easy outs, though. The British are just *too* evil. Which isn't to say the movie doesn't have its moments; it does. When Gibson confronts Corwallis face-to-face, and outwits him...this is a nice scene, but generally the British are portrayed as being as stupid as they are evil. Certainly, narrative tension requires an antagonist and a protagonist, but outside of supernatural horror stories, the good-evil thing can be overdone. It may sound as though I didn't enjoy the movie. I did. If you go into it with too discriminating an expectation, though, you are likely to be disappointed. If you want little more than a good-guys-andbad-guys movie, done on a grand scale, you'll probably love this. The movie has *great* battle scenes, and beautiful photography, and is worth seeing.
Rating: 
Summary: So good it will never win an Oscar
Review: "The Patriot" makes a war two centuries ago seem as relevant as the most recent wars that have been long memorialized by film. Giving us characters that we care about, soldier and civilian alike, the movie develops a relationship between the audience and the characters. It then proceeds to tear asunder the lives of the characters, forcing the audience to bear a fraction of the pain and sacrifice our forefathers endured for the benefit of posterity. The spirit of this movie soars, as does the technical achievement. Roland Emmerich's direction is conventional but steady; as we saw in "Independence Day," this man knows how to tell a story. The acting is equally solid, and John Williams' score equals his fine work in "Ryan". My only complaint would be the occasional seepage of modern attitudes and biases of the characters. The most glaring example is when a teenage girl berates the men of her town for not joining the cause against the British -- just a bit more feminism than one might expect in 1776. This film is also admirable for giving honest treatment to the role of the church in the war and for acknowledging the central place in culture that faith had in those times. Unfortunately, though, there appear to be a minority of viewers who despise this film -- and are quite vocal about it. In my experience, those most critical are those who wear their cynicism on their sleeve, those for whom no movie can be too sterile. Don't listen to them.
Rating:
Summary: Mel Gibson has done it again!
Review: This film has excitement, romance, comedy, and history all mixed in an exciting package that is "The Patriot." Sure, it sounds like a "Braveheart" for the American Revolution, but it isn't. Wallace (Gibson's character in "Braveheart") was a truly heroic character. Martin (Mel's character in this film) is tortured and haunted by a catastrophe he caused in the French and Indian war. The only thing that makes it resemble "Braveheart" is that it is about a man fighting in a great war. Unlike "Braveheart," "The Patriot" has more comedy, and isn't depressing throughout most of it. This is a classic piece of entertainment that I think is better than most of the films that have come out in 2000. I ask everybody that enjoyed "Braveheart" and "Gladiator" to see this film. It will make your Patriot blood boil!
Rating:
Summary: A Wonderful and Touching Story
Review: I found that The Patriot was a true portryal of the passion locked up in hate. The degree realism makes you feel like you're really in the Revolution.The love, passion, and tension among the characters is truly touching and so realistic. I would recomend it to anyone! Heath Ledger shows that he's not just a teeny bopper/chick flick actor(like 10 Things I Hate About You), but he can really act! I think that there must have been a lot left on the clipping room floor (pay really close attention to the aunt in the end) but overall the passionate story was true and captivating. I have seen it twice and will see it a million times before I get sick of it! I did find that I picked-up more from the story the second time through! I Love The Patriot!
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood at its BEST!
Review: I wish to start by saying that The Patriot is an excellent film, it should have pressed its FRICTION STORY. The action and battle scenes remind of the epics of Waterloo and WW2 movies. But the insult is to the British people, sorry English, (Scots are such nice innocent people) In a country which is now split the last thing wanted in the press was an insult, U-571 came close. The Patriot took it Issacs has been writing to National news papers to defend his character, claiming he was real and did burn women and childen in church (no that was the GERMANS) This movie hurts the British Isles, perhaps we should make a movie of the North American Indians. Now that would be genocide. No one pointed out that the director is German. Or that only 5 English battlions were in the USA, the British army contained mostly Scottish and Hessian (German) regiments. Issacs character was based on a kindly colonel who became a minister in government. Hollywood enjoys hitting the British, because if it was the french every McDonalds in France will be burnt to the ground (No joke they threaten before and WILL do) instead the quiet uncomplaining Brits get it, admitily the British Empire was the worlds largest and most recent Empire (Russia doesn't count) taking up a 1/3 of the world's land mass, we did do some terrible things in the 1850's-1900 to build it up, but not in 1776. Hollywood has an effect for a short period of time on opinion. And the USA is running out of Friend the EU already is trying to break the link inbetween the UK and USA. Hollywood must increase British nationalism, otherwise the United States of Europe will be formed under the most corrupt undemocratic system since Rome. Take note Hollywood, History should never be forgotten (Holocast, Somme and Waterloo) and NEVER should changed for some pitful number of dollars.
Rating:
Summary: One of Mels Best!
Review: Very few motion pictures have sent me back to the theater a second time....this is one that did just that! Actually eight times, and each time I liked it more. I was dissappointed in the reviews of the film, when it opened....some saying "As phoney as the 4th of July".......HOGWASH! This film shows the struggle of a man who has seen enough of war, and the horrors it reaps, yet is forced back into taking a stand, and fighting again for freedom. To the reviewers who say historically not acurate.....this film was based around real people....the Smithsonian Institute was a critical player in the accuracy of costumes, and events. War is Hell, and don't think for a minute the depictions in this film didn't happen. John Williams added a beautiful score, the battle scenes are great, but be prepared to bring plenty of Kleenex, for even the grown men were starting to weep. I compare Gibsons performance to his in "Braveheart". This is a movie that should be shown in every classroom. I have never been disappointed in Columbia/Tristar in the past for quality DVDs, and I'm sure that this release will meet all my expectations............I can hardly wait until Oct. 24th for the release of "The Patriot".
Rating:
Summary: The Patriot
Review: A great movie. Must see movie of the summer. Don't miss it or listen to anyone else. Mel gibson protrays a father who has the fear theat his sins will come back and haunt him. They do in this Revolutionary War movie. This is one of his best performances as well as his family in the movie and his fellow miltia. The question is who dies? The father or the son? Only you can know if you watch this great movie.......
|
