Rating: 
Summary: The politically-correct crowd don't like this movie...
Review: Dangerous! Ridiculed as neo-fascist by self-proclaimed critics. This movie theme is deep and personifies the spirit of the American Revolution. The statists and authoritarians of today don't like films like this anymore than they do the words of Thomas Jefferson or Patrick Henry. Why? Because they all suggest the idea of inalienable natural rights and resisting tyrannical oppression by force to protect these right.
Rating: 
Summary: History-less history
Review: Once again, Mel Gibson of Braveheart fame starts in a "historical" movie with no (or EXTREMELY little) history actually in it. The only thing this movie gets right that Braveheart did wrong was to make the main characters "loosely based" on real people rather than name them for real people who didn't necessarily resemble their on-screen avatars.I don't understand why more movies like Glory or Gettysburg can't be made - they're historical AND captivating. This movie settles for being ahistorical and mildly interesting. It was an OK way to spend 3 hours, but I don't want to sit through it a second time. The bad guy's completely unbelievable, and for that matter, so's Gibson's character. Hey, even though he tortured people to death in the past, you know he's a good guy because he's still haunted by their screams. Awww. But at least that's better than Isaacs' character, who does horrible things without any sense that he might be haunted by the screams (which would have helped me buy his character, at least, and would have made him as human as Gibson). As adversaries, Gibson/Isaacs were mismatched. In Gladiator, scenery-chewing over-the-top bad guy was matched with scenery-chewing over-the-top good guy. In this case, we get scenery-chewing WAY over-the-top bad guy, and a reluctant, stained anti-hero. Buy Gettysburg instead of this movie. Get a completely fascinating movie AND a historically accurate one, all at the same time.
Rating: 
Summary: WILLIAM WALLACE WEARING ANOTHER CLOTHES
Review: Mel Gibson is becoming a tru expert in starring brainless, ultra-violent and totally predictable movies disguised as "epics". In "The Patriot", he almost repeats himself as BraveHeart's William Wallace. Only one difference: it is worst. While characters keep being butchered and slaughtered at the sound of beautiful songs as soundtrack, and the characters display all that old stilyzed dialogues, we totally forget that Death by swords, axes and other tricks probably is very painful... All the acting is stereotyphed, th guy who plays Gibson's oldest son is a bad actor (and we know right from the beginning that he's going to die), sadism is widely spread all over the place. AS in "Brave Heart", the British are portrayed as the ultimate Evil Lords, even when it's clear that Gibson's character can be as bad as they can. In short: this is a low-quality copy of "brave Heart".
Rating:
Summary: Not quite historically innacurate.
Review: This movie is not that historicaly innacurate. The scene where the villagers are burned in the church did happen, but 170 years later when Nazis herded all the villagers of a French town into a church and burned it to the ground. Emmerich has confused the history of his countrymen with ours. Besides this, the whole movie is hackeneyed and cliched. For example, there's a scene where the villagers of a town aren't sure about whether to join Mel Gibson's militia or not, so they hold a meeting at their town hall. They're arguing when Gibsons son comes in and gives a rousing American speech. A young lady in the audience who has a bit of a crush on him voices her approval. There's a silence and then one villager stands up then another then another. It's ludicrous. The fact that anybody could like this movie is unbelievable. But then there's the rousing scene at the end when the Americans are retreating. Mel Gibson won't have any of that, and in the first example of patriotism he shows in the entire film, picks up an American flag and waves the Army to victory! Emmerich's gift for unoriginality shines through at these and other moments. Comparing the Pariot and Glory is like comparing Meatballs 4 and Citizen Kane. Glory is a good example of what a movie that makes you proud to be an American should be, the Patriot is a good example of why German directors whould stick to German movies. This is perhaps one of the worst serious movies ever made.
Rating:
Summary: A father, A family
Review: First of all, just because Emmerich directed it does not mean that it will be a kicker. Mel Gibson is a stunning actor who may joke around off set, but when he is on he puts his heart in it. Braveheart was an awsome movie and thus, made me want to see this one. Gibson always puts emotion into his movies, but I think Heath Ledger stole the screen. He put in an excellent performance as Gabriel Martin and fit the part perfect, not to mention the fact that he's a hottie. Ahhhhhhhheeeeemmmmmmm!!! I dont think the movie could have been better with any other actors. At times, I'll admit it was predictable, but it was still well worth the money to see in theatres. The movie proved to me that in War you'll always have someone willing to go overboard. And in this case, Colonel Tavington, a man with no heart who had been at the front lines too long. Benjamin Martin (Gibson) is trying to keep his family together when his son Gabriel (Ledger) joins the Continental army. Of course, what would a modern day movie be like without a little bit of romance. Tavington ends up killing becasue he feels like it and because he thinks every man should die, especially the ones who cross him. The movie touched my heart because I could put myself in the shoes of Ben trying to keep the war from his family, and Gabriel believing in a cause and fighting for it. I didn't think the burning the church was right, but then again niether was the man who did it and I'm sure that during the War there were men who would kill innocent women and children merely because they believed the wives should die same as the rebel husbands. It may not have been competely true, but anyone who gets their history from hollywood special effects needs to learn to read books. Anyone who says it's too gory is wrong, it was bloody at parts, but not as bad as some I've seen. Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger put in an emotional performance. It's well worth the money and the time to see. So what are you still sitting there reading this for, go see it.
Rating:
Summary: very 'entertaining' stuff
Review: You should see this one if you are not driven to quease by the directors enthusiasm for cliche. Its the most recent in a spate of films that present 'patriots' with reassuringly false history. I thought propaganda like this was the preserve of military dictatorships and countries with names that sound like the active ingredients in boil cream. If you are British you can expect the usual baby eating pomm and a furthurment to the tired English stereotype that has begun to border on rascism. If historical accuracy is not important why doesn't someone make a film where America wins Vietnam? or even more cage rattling, Britain? on the other hand, most of us use books for the facts and screens for entertainment, so if the hollywood formula works for you, you'll love it.
Rating: 
Summary: Mel's Mad; it's slashing time!
Review: The English are nasty brutes. But hey, we sure do make real good villains. Coming directly after M:I-2's lukewarm bad chap, which made the mistake of casting a Scottish guy in a English man's job, Jason Isaac's is the best thing on the screen. Strutting around, clipped delicious dialogue sprouting from his ever-so-pronounced English lilt, he is both quiescently English and yet so evil at the same time. Fantastic!
Forget all the media tripe about the film not being 'historically accurate. Forget Spike Lee's pathetic claims that it short-changes the slave issue. Sony through $100 million plus at this flicker - do you think they would, for one minute, risk entertainment value for historical fact? Hell no.
Mel's best when he has some kind of personal revenge motif. Here he has a bunch. He's lost he wife and is quite mellow when we first meet him; pro-Brit, one may say. Isaac's comes in, kills a couple of Mel Jr.'s and that's that. The ol' Tomahawk comes out of the box. It's slashing time!
The directing / producing team, Dean Devlin and Roland Emmerich, have redeemed themselves with this effort. Though to be fair, they could have done a car commercial that would have improved on Godzilla.
As a war film it pales when in comparison to such recent fair as Terrence Malik's Thin Red Line. As a big budget summer flick it is just fine.
Rating:
Summary: Silly
Review: I felt psychic when I saw this movie. It's so full of cliched situations that I knew exactly how every scene and sub-plot would finish as soon as it was introduced...and just as in ID4, sub-plots were added by the barrow-full, to no real advantage. It was slightly fun at the beginning, seeing the violent scenes of Mel Gibson and the militia killing the British soldiers through surprise attacks. However the movie was 2:40, and I felt there wasn't enough substance to justify the long running time. For a movie that purports to be historical, it was bizarre how race issues were altered. South Carolinan mansions were run by happy slaves, well-compensated for their labors, and watch for the token black guy who isn't given any lines except for explaining how the Revolution means freedom, and his desire to re-build the main character's house after the war is concluded. I can understand (if not approve) that the movie would want to gloss over slavery, but why lie about it?
Rating:
Summary: Graet war movie
Review: Of the few war movies on the revolutionary war this is one of the best. It's a little slow to start, but once it does it's riviting. Could only have been made better by having been a real biography, but then I'm sure it wouldn't have been as exciting. I rate it right up there with Brave Heart.
Rating:
Summary: Mel Gibson scores another hit!
Review: A real masterpiece from the director of STARGATE and ID4, Roland Emmerich. I must point out first that I live in the UK and have read in the press about the 'anti-English' bias of this movie. I must also point out that these critics have obviously not been watching the movie properly - it showed that one British redcoat commander stepped out of line way too much and not obeying his commanders, notably in the climactic scenes! And the battlefield scenes are what really make THE PATRIOT a winner. Mel Gibson plays Benjamin Martin, a man concerned with protecting his family when the 1776 American-English ware takes place. When you hear the distant cannon fire closing in, you can feel his fear and apprehension. Gibson does one hell of a great acting job, better than his foul-mouthed wisecracking in the LETHAL WEAPON series - proving he can fit different roles. The similarity to his performance in BRAVEHEART was obvious here. HEath Ledge plays his son Gabriel, whose ambition it is to join the fight against the English against the wishes of his father. When the fighting reaches his home, he vows revenge when one of his sons is shot by the English, And so kicks off some bloody and realistic combat scenes! While the Americans await the arrival of the French, Benjamin Martin heads a militia to keep the enemy at bay. This movie also explores how the structure of family can be affected by war as well. Even if this had been set in the present day with a different scenario, the morals are still the same. People die, innocent people get caught up in it. When a traitor tells who is helping the militia, their wives and families are burned. What would anyone do? Also, watch out for STAR TREK DEEP SPACE NINE's Odo - Rene Auberjonois, in a role as a town priest questioning the morality of their fighting tactics. Altogether, this is one hell of an epic movie, and even if you don't know a lot about the early years of US independence and before, it's a good history lesson with its background. My wife lived in the US for 5 years before she met me, and can see why you're a patriotic nation! A hard to fault movie that definitely deserves many Oscars for its technical achievements - FX, photography, costumes and production design. Don't miss it!
|
