Rating: 
Summary: Self-indulgent !
Review: I am in agreement with the vast majority of the UK in saying this movie provides about as much entertainment as a mild case of influenza. Predictable throughout, unimaginatively directed by the same guy who did the abominable 'Godzilla'. Mel - what were you thinking? Avoid this one unless you like slipping your brain into neutral - may cure insomnia!
Rating: 
Summary: A 4th of July Firecracker!!!!!
Review: The Patriot is excellent, a must see for all you warriors out there. It is a vivid recounting of the era of the Revolution. Mel Gibson is as good as always. The charge I heard-that this movie might just be "Braveheart in pants" is totally off. The costumes and the pageantry of the movie are excellent and the battle scenes very well done. The movie was idyllic somewhat, but no more than every film before it ever has been. All in all a very high level of realism. I greatly enjoyed this film. It was the best Revolutionary War film to come out since all the outpouring of media on that era during the time of the Bicentennial in 1976.
Rating:
Summary: Best Movie Ever!
Review: The Patriot, I believe, is the best movie ever made. It very well illustrates the American Revolution and what it was like to live in such a time. You may say that it is "Anti-British", but remember, Colonel Tavington(Jason Isaacs)was based on a real British Colonel named Tarleton. The movie is inspirational, emotional, and very dramatic which makes it such a great film. It's hard for me to sit here and describe it its so amazing! There was the most perfect acting in it and being historically accurate made it even better. If you haven't seen this movie yet, you really need to! 21 times sure isn't enough for me!*****
Rating: 
Summary: A Patriotic Bore
Review: I had high expectations for this movie, as I do with most Mel Gibson films, but instead of "Braveheart" or even "Lethal Weapon", I got something which was trying very hard to be a great epic, but instead turned out to be a colossal bore. I felt as though I had seen it all before unfortunately. Roland Emmerich was attempting very hard to recreate what he captured in the very patriotic "Independence Day" (yes, despite its' flaws, it was patriotic of a nature), but instead gave us something that was more akin to his monotonous "Godzilla". Mel is a disappointment as the father attempting to keep his family out of the harm's way of the American Revolution, much like James Stewart's Civil War father in "Shenandoah", but sometimes comes off as so unlikeable, it is hard to work up much sympathy or empathy for him. Only Heath Ledger (another talented Aussie following alongside Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman) is a pleasant surprise, and one can only hope he'll show up in something better. The villains were so cartoonish, it was pathetic. I wanted to shed tears at certain scenes, but instead found myself mumbling, "They did this in 'Gladiator' -- but it was much better. They did this in 'Titanic' -- but it was much better." Instead of being worked into a patriotic frenzy, I felt insulted; as a buff of both British and American history, and having heard this was based on a true American hero, I had hoped for more, and instead got a combination of 'Gladiator' and 'Braveheart', but with none of the heart which made those movies great or just good. Instead of feeling good at the end, I wondered if a scorecard would be more appropriate to add up the body count. If "The Patriot" hadn't ended when it did, there wouldn't have been anyone left! I will always be a fan of the historical movie and I've mentioned a couple of excellent ones. My suggestion: purchase or rent one of them; throw in "The Last of the Mohicans" or "Drums Along the Mohawk" for some pre-American Revolution flavor, and forget "The Patriot".
Rating: 
Summary: Statuesque and Beautiful... but too much unnessary gore
Review: First the good news; in terms of pure joy to the eye,this movie has gorgeous cinematography and special effects that pale before no other motion picture. Mel Gibson is outstanding at his leading-man-protagonist-best. The story flows quite nicely, and the script is neither overbearing nor ponderous. Now the bad; too much over-the-top blood and guts. Don't get me wrong, a cannonball taking off a man's head is fascinating, but multiple scenes of death are painful to watch in this film. Give me the PG-13 version, and skip the disembowlments.
Rating:
Summary: Must See* (see note at end of my review)
Review: This is an awesome portrayal of the American revolution. The movie takes you through the decision of whether or not to fight, the actual fighting, and the emotions involved. This is done through the eyes of "The Patriot" Benjamin Martin. I know that the fact that his slaves were free employees was a little (or a lot) unusual for his time. But history shows that there were always people that abhored slavery.This movie portrays the British Dragoons in a very accurate way, showing the way that they would murder unarmed prisoners and children. Note to Reviewer: Adam from Nottingham, United Kingdom: The Dragoons WERE vicious, murdering animals. This movie does not portray all british as such. In fact, it portrays Cornwallis in a rather positive light. All in all, if you have a hard time seeing the blood involved in fighting for freedom, don't watch this. But if you want to see the sacrifice and determination required to build a nation and defend a family, this is a must-see.
Rating: 
Summary: BRAVEHEART WITH BAYONETS
Review: Entertaining if not realistic, The Patriot is reminiscent of those old Errol Flynn movies like The Sea Hawk and Robin Hood where the flawless "dashing hero" runs circles around the more powerful malignant villian. It does however rewrite history to excess, so here are some things to keep in mind while watching it; the "evil" English calvary officer (based on a Major or Colonel named Tarelton (sp?) didn't die in battle, and he had no qualms about going home after the conflict, even though he did in fact massacre at least on one occasion colonial patriots who had surrendered, later called Tarleton's (sp?) Quarter. He did in fact become a Member of Parliament (the equivalent to an American congressman) for 22 years, and according to Barbara Tuchmann, the British lost the war largely due to their own apathy in pursuing the war to a conclusive end and from having to fight simultaneously with other European powers while also fighting the conflict here in America. It would be nice to think from a patrotic point of view that the British were thrown out by the colonial milita's, but while they did inflict substantial losses on British troops, they never could have been a real match for the Brits if they had really committed themselves to winning the conflict.
Rating:
Summary: great movie
Review: this is most definately the best movie i have ever seen. the special effects and cinematography were perfect. mel gibson at his acting best.
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie
Review: I liked the movie very much and thought the acting was very good by all involved. Of course, Mel Gibson is strikingly handsome and the hero of the film. It shows what people has to go through back in those times. I highly recommend this film for the whole family.
Rating:
Summary: As Historically inaccurate as Braveheart
Review: This film is not a little historically inaccurate or a little anti British. It is very inaccurate and very anti British. Firstly it glorifies the Americans and regards all the British as cold blooded killers and of course the lead role, played by Mel Gibson is a hero. In reality the character played by Gibson did not have 'free' black men working for him. He kept many slaves and regularly raped the women. Also he regularly went out with his other 'heroic' neighbours for a spot of casual Indian hunting. But of course, Hollywood glorifies the revolution and so the evil ones are the British. Although the battle scenes are very good (exept where the outnumbered Americans slaughter the superior British army) the acting throughout is far too corny and sentimental. This film should not be shown to Americas school children because they will come away with the idea that America won the war single handedly against murderous cut throats. This film is easily as anglophobic as Braveheart and just about as historically accurate. Hollywood should get their act together and portray history as it really happened i.e U571 (where the capture of the German enigma machine was falsely attributed to the American Navy where actually it was captured by the Royal Navy before America actually joined the war.) instead of playing to the ignorant section of American society which believes everything that Hollywood portrays to be true. But then again this is Mel Gibson at his best!!
|
