Rating: 
Summary: "Patriot" a must see
Review: This is an historical, epic and character filled movie in the tradition of John Ford's "The Searchers." Mel Gibson is very good as the reluctant, past warrior, hero drawn into the American Revolution. The direction, costumes and, in particular, the photography are exceptional. The personal story fits seamlessly with the impressive and realistic battle scenes. Do not pay attention to Spike Lee's complaints, politcally correct nitpicking, and unfounded claims of historical inaccuracies. None apply to this fine film, which never pretends to be a true story; just a gripping realistic presentation of one family's triumphs and tradgedies during the American Revolution. Except for some gore in the battle scenes there is no reason not to take the whole family to see this movie. You may learn something.
Rating: 
Summary: Slow, predictable, lacking solid plot
Review: I really didn't go into the Patriot expecting much (so that usually means I'm more impressed), but, I also came out not getting much. Throughout the course of the movie I often was able to predict what was going to happen (although this was through the use of cliched writing and not through foreshadowing). Instead of focusing around the hardship of war and trying to hold back General Cornwallis' (sp?) troops, they concentrated mostly on civillian harm while trying to get the emotions of the crowd stirred into a strong desire of revenge. This results in a weak drama that so obviously tried to be so much more than it is. Yeah, I wanted the bad guy (whatever his name is) to die too but that's just so the movie would be over.
Rating:
Summary: Hillary hates this movie!
Review: Well what more can be said. Talk about a terrific reccomendation. The first lady has stated in public that this film sends a "bad" message to Americans and encourages citizens to take up arms against their goverment ( England? ). It's a very entertaining movie in the best tradition of popular entertainment. It's what Hollywood does best and what's wrong with that? Yes this movie is at times free with historical accuracy, but it is a movie not a documentary. For almost three hours I was glued to my seat watching this movie and I never once felt like it was dragging. I strongly reccommend this film.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but not history
Review: Brig. Gen. Francis Marion, the historical person that Mel Gibson's character is loosely based on was a true war hero and patriot. The ones who are denigrating his legacy (or think this movie is portraying real history) are those who are too stupid or lazy to do their own research. Actually, Mel Gibson's Benjamin Martin is a composite of 3 historical characters: one of course was Francis Marion the "Swamp Fox"; another was an illiterate backwoods general, Daniel Morgan, who encouraged the militia at the Battle of Cowpens (final battle enacted in the movie) to stand their ground against the British; and the third was a cavalry officer, William Washington, who pursued Tarleton after Cowpens and fought him in hand-to-hand combat, which they both barely survived. Gen. Marion used tactics that the Brits termed "ungentlemanly" for warfare, but he got the job done, just as the Viet Cong did 200 years later against our own GI's. Marion knew, because of his lack of manpower, equipment, and experienced soldiers, he couldn't take on the superior British forces using outmoded and quaint European-style warfare (in fact, this idiotic style of warfare continued up until WWI). The movie depicts this very well. So Gen. Marion wisely used the only tactics left to him - hit-and-run, which he learned from fighting the Cherokees during the French and Indian Wars. The movie's villainous Lt. Col. Tavington, who is also loosely based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, is not too far from the truth. It was during the retreat of Waxhaws that Tarleton came to symbolize British cruelty in the Revolutionary War. Tarleton was seen as a "butcher" when American forces under Col. Abraham Buford laid down their arms in an attempt to surrender yet the British continued their assault. From then on, his reputation grew and "Tarleton's quarter", in effect, came to mean "no quarter". In the tradition of the day, after the surrender at Yorktown, American officers hosted the defeated Cornwallis and other British officers at their respective tables. But no American invited Tarleton nor would any eat with him. Tarleton asked if the omission was accidental, and he was told that, indeed it was not, because of his past atrocities. Tarleton lived a long life, condoning his use of total war - burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means. He also would never admit to any fault at Cowpens, saying he was "outnumbered" and received inadequate assistance from Cornwallis. He wondered, "how some unforeseen event" could "throw terror into the most disciplined soldiers". I didn't go into this movie for a history lesson but to be entertained, and I was. The movie wasn't perfect - it was cloying and obvious at times, but I give it high marks for effort and for bringing to the screen an important part of American history that has received disparate treatment in movies, and I think Devlin & Emmerich can now be forgiven for Godzilla.
Rating: 
Summary: The Patriot - An Excellent Movie
Review: I truly believe this is one of the greatest movies I have seen in a very long time. There's something for everyone - action, drama, romance, humor. Also Heath Ledger (who plays Gabriel Martin, Mel Gibson's son) is extremely hot in this movie and that's always a plus. This is an all around awesome movie and I strongly reccomend seeing it.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie
Review: A lot of critics bash this movie as having little historical attitude. Please don't expect this movie to be something it's not. It's NOT a history lesson; it's an entertaining and thrilling movie. The battle scenes are some of the most SPECTACULAR and stunning I've ever seen; I personally think they're better than the ones in "Saving Private Ryan" (although I'm sure someone is going to rebuke me on that)I was glued to the screen the whole 3 hours or so. And for the parents, the violence is brutal, but not excessive. Saving Private Ryan is MUCH worse. Overall, I enjoyed this movie immensly, and I'm sure any war film fans will as well. This movie did inspire me to learn more about the Revolutionary War on my own, particularly the Southern Campaign with Cornwalis that the movie depicted.
Rating: 
Summary: Utter trash
Review: Emmerich and Gibson plummet the depths of good taste with yet another complete Turkey, not only that but they transplant their lies on American history, is NOTHING sacred! Strange how a 'German' Director decides to have a British officer herd women and children into a church before burning it down. Of course this never happened. In fact the only documented account of this in any war was, yes you guessed it, the German army committing this crime on the church in the French village of Oradour. Apparently the films historical expert had literally pleaded with Emmerich to omit the scene but the old '[...]' decided to put it in the film.
Rating:
Summary: great movie
Review: I think this movie is definatly one of the best of the summer. The photography is amazing, and although not entirely historically acurate, I believe the script is also ingenious as well. Not to mention the acting. Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger do an amazing job of playing the role of father and son convincingly. And the crazy English guy- towards the end of the movie, everytime I saw him I said under my breath "DIE!" He was a bit TOO convincing. For me, this is definatly the best movie I have seen all summer.
Rating:
Summary: And this year's Best Picture Goes to...
Review: The Patriot is the best film so far this year and judging by the previews will remain that. I understand some people are mad that it is not 100% historically accurate, but let's face it the American Revolution hasn't been a very popular subject in film so I'll take what I can get. You do learn the essential thing about the Revolution in this film-we risked great odds, sacrificed loved ones, lost many men to fight for our freedom. Mel Gibson is perfect in the role of Benjamin Martin, in fact all of the cast is great. They are not well known blockbuster actors, but they each fit the part well. The story may not be too complex but at three hours not one second is boring. The battle scenes are great and you walk away with a feeling of patriotism. The movie will probably fall into the same situation Casino did, not getting the recognition it deserved because of Braveheart (like Casino with Goodfellas). I think it is the duty of every American to see this, it's much more entertaining than a history lesson.
Rating: 
Summary: 3.5 Stars -- The Best Yet, But Still Flawed
Review: I'm debating whether to select 3 stars, or 4. Maybe I should have given MI:2 two stars. It's quite difficult to weigh these ratings comfortably. First, I'd like to say how satisfied I was when The Patriot had soldiers getting their feet and lower legs blown off by rolling cannonballs. That must sound demented to you, but it was one of the most common battle injuries at the time, as well later during the Napoleonic Wars. I've never seen any other period film portray it. The Patriot's battle scenes overall were exquisitely done. The Naval battle at the end was gorgeous to behold. Some people think the American Revolutionary War was only on a small, scattered scale, but several of the battles were indeed immense. Unfortunately, the plot development of the film has some very predictable turns in it that smell of Hollywood. The steady cam fight scene at the end was particularly generic. The bad guy also lacked a bit of depth. While the overall portrayed balance of dishonorable acts on either side was accurate, it was far too simplified and focused on particular situations and persons. The actual events were spread out over many individuals and instances. The church scene was *totally* uncalled for, and I'm aware of no such actual occurrence. The British were not quite such warmongering tyrants as they're made out to be in that scene. Also, hanging prisoners was not considered dishonorable in this period prior to the Geneva Convention. I'm surprised there was no portrayal of Freemasonry. Often when soldiers were captured they'd by released as soon as they gave a sign of their membership to brotherhood. Finally, where do they get off saying Cornwallis ever authorized the killings of non-soldiers? As such, I felt a little uneasy at these historical inaccuracies. It's a shame considering the air of nobility and reverence, which showed up often throughout the film. This could have been a great one.
|
