Rating: 
Summary: A MUST SEE FILM!
Review: Well, I saw this movie today and fell in love with it. I liked it. I got over the bloody parts (if you don't like the sight of blood you're missin' out on a great film) but hey, it's about a war right? It had great actors in it. Mel Gibson did a great job! I also thought Gabriel AND Thomas were both cute...... ANYWAY! It's a great movie and I don't see why some American people hate it so much! Only British should REALLY hate it! If you're thinking about seeing an action, edge-of-your-seat, thriller kind of movie, see this. Or if you're just wanting to see a good movie, see it! I agree with the people that say it did't earn 5 stars, IT EARNED 7! It totally rocked! Go see it!
Rating: 
Summary: A complete trivialization of American history...
Review: "If I'm going to die, at least I'm going to die well dressed? " I hardly doubt that was ever said by ANYONE during the American revolution. Because of the success of Titanic, Braveheart, and most recently Gladiator, we can look forward to alot more epics (or in this case, epic wastes of time). I think, considering the subject matter, that this was a very arrogant production which is not very historically accurate. Roland Emmerich is not even American! Emmerich is a very un-talented, un-orignal and over-rated director (The next Joel Schumacher? ). I had no idea he directed this film, when I saw his name in the opening credits I nearly cried in my seat! How un-original was he in this film? Well, he ripped off the battle scenes from Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (many of the shots were composed EXACTLY like Kubrick's film), used the battle-gore and also ripped off the battle-scene photography from Braveheart, and made the characters of American history shallow and utterly cliche; most of the time they do nothing but mutter one liners. Mel Gibson is a fine actor, but he goes way overboard in this film. He unsuccessfully tries to recreate his glorious emotional performance from Braveheart. He ends up looking very phony and overacts most of his lines. I normally do not write such scathing reviews, but as an American I am offended by Mr. Emmerich's trivialization of American history, for the purpose of making more money. But, what else can you expect from the person who directed such duds Godzilla and Independence Day? Avoid this movie...for a great (and historically accurate) American war story try either "Gettysburg" or "Glory".
Rating: 
Summary: Schmaltzy, jingoistic and entirely predictable.
Review: If you enjoyed Emmerlich & Devlin's Independence Day, then you'll love this. It's even more flag-waving overly sentimental tosh, with a surprisingly lacklustre performance from Mel Gibson, particularly at the beginning. When he is explaining that family responsibilities prevent him from joining the fight against England, he should be showing resolve, tinged with a little shame. Instead he looks like a boy caught stealing apples. The plot is totally predictable - watch for the "everyone's really happy so you know something really bad is going to happen" scene, the "good guy thinks the bad guy's dead, but he really isn't" scene, etc. Oh, and don't miss the drummer boy with the bloody head bandage! The makers also seem to have invented the rapid-fire musket for this movie, with the chief bad guy even finding time to reload during a slow-motion fight scene! Watch out for the boom microphone too, which gets more screen time than some of the actors. The film's only redeeming quality is its graphic portrayal of the horror and idiocy of warfare - although the director can't help going over the top here occasionally, with unintentionally humorous results.
Rating:
Summary: heath ledger puts on an outstanding performance
Review: Although going into the movie it seemed that Mel Gibson was simply reprising his previous "Braveheart" role in a different time and setting, i was blown away by the flabergasting performance that Heath Ledger had. He stole the whole movie!
Rating:
Summary: Best movie of the year
Review: Truly a good movie. I don't know what movie some of these other [reviewers] were watching, but this is a great movie. The Patriot does for the Revolutionary War what Glory did for the Civil War.
Rating:
Summary: Much better than I thought.
Review: I'm giving this a 5-star just because other people are panning this movie. It's actually probably a 4-starer. It was much better than I thought it was going to be.
Rating: 
Summary: Does this remind you of another war?
Review: Many think that this one was historically inaccurate, and I agree with them. I found particularly irritating and probably inaccurate the church scene. I wish they (Hollywood) would make one that was accurate, just for the hell of it. On another level, it struck me, while thinking about the Americans in the movie, that their situation reminded me of paricipants in another war fought about 124 years later in southeast Asia- only in that one the Americans assumed the role of the British - the place was the Philippines. the outcome was different, but the players were essentially the same. And PLEASE spare me the comment about historical accuracy not being important. Why isn't it? Why? .
Rating:
Summary: This is one of the best movies ever.
Review: I went to go see this movie today for my birthday, and quite frankly, I was blown away. Mel Gibson gives his usual mind-blowing performance, and the plot is wonderful. It was a very touching, romantic, and action packed movie. A must-see for any patriotic American.
Rating:
Summary: Good movie, but too cliché
Review: This was a good movie. But it was far too predictable - there is nothing in the movie to suprise you that you wouldn't have gussed from the 30 second trailers. It was also riddled with clichés, taken from all the good war films, not least of course Braveheart. The acting and filming were brilliant, with an epic score. But it never stirred any of my emotions(and I'm embarrassed to admit it doesn't take much to make me cry). This movie was really written for patriotic Americans in mind, there are many examples of this, including the way they portray the British as flat 2d villans(well one of them at least) just to make you hate them, and a really corny scene near the end where Mel walks through the battlefield as he waves an American flag through the sky, and then stabs it into a British soilder - I mean come on! If this movie was more loyal to its subject(the triumphs and horrors of the American revolution), it would have been better for it, but it went off on too many tangents, and degraded into a Good vs Evil battle between Mel and the British soilder who he swore to kill before the movie was up! The director also chucked in some light humour with a few jokes, and dog scenes(which I didn't find amusing, but it had the cinema up in laughs), which further more threw this movie off its more serious subject. So it's a good movie, which could have been much much better. That said, looking at the (American)reviews below - I think all patriotic Americans will absoloutely love this movie just because of the attempted subject matter.
Rating:
Summary: Visually stunning but cursed with poor storytelling
Review: I don't understand why a director like Roland Emmerich, who has such a gift with visual imagery, is so utterly incompetent at setting up and telling a narrative to go along with the imagery. The latest and best example of this is The Patriot, which should have everything going for it but falls flat. Before I tear this film apart, I'll happily mention that the cast is outstanding, and there are a few excellent moments in the film (though a few moments out of 3 hours do not make this film worth it). Also, the battles are portrayed with accuracy to Napoleonic Era warfare, which is a good thing (unless you're standing in the front rank). The film is about Benjamin Martin (Gibson), a man haunted by sins of past wars who refuses to enter a new war for independence. That is, until Colonel Tavington (played with a comic bookish evil by Jason Isaacs) shoots down one of his sons. After that we end up in a sad revenge melodrama that could just as easily have been set in any other period of history. That is exactly how predictable The Patriot is. A slave joins the militia and is met with jeers, but you know there will be a reconciliation at the end. You know Martin and Isaacs are destined to meet mano y mano from across a huge battlefield to settle their differences at the end, and sure enough it happens. With all the cliches being tossed at us in The Patriot, there was very little in the way of suspense, but when we're focusing our attentions on waving flags with patriotic fervor or cute crying children we forget about the film's problems. The main problem with the film is that it breaks down the moment you realize ten years of time pass during the course of the 3 hours, yet Martin's children don't age. Time flows non-descriptively throughout the film, until the end as Yorktown approaches. Couple this with the over-the-top portrayal of the British as serial killers (both Martin, from Fort Wilderness, and Tavington, who both must have attended the same academy) and we have a film that becomes sadly unbelievable. But there must have been a quality story about family and love, right? Wrong. We see nothing but glimpses of Martin's children after the war begins, and we see not one but two shallow love stories with absolutely no substance to them. Joely Fisher's talents are wasted here as half her camera time are cutaways that show her fawning over Gibson as he fawns for his family. For a love story to have impact you need to spend more than 5 minutes developing it. (And there was a moment at the end of the film involving the love story that really made no sense at all, considering the film's timeline, but I won't spoil it here.) The Patriot also lacked anything truly original. When Martin charges through the forest we see Daniel Day Lewis in Last of the Mohicans. When Martin rides up to join his army and is met with a chorus of cheers we see Gibson in Braveheart (the only thing missing was the blue war paint). The Patriot, as with all of Emmerich's films, are nothing but mindless eye candy. If you can switch your brain off for 3 hours, this film will be worth it for you. Unfortunately mine was working on the day I saw it.
|
