Rating: 
Summary: Powerful
Review: An excellent movie. Large scale, enertaining, sweeping and engrossing. Not a historical discourse on the American Revolution, but instead an account of one man's very personal reason for taking up arms once again after swearing never to do so again. A wonderfully politically incorrect film with a strong message about freedom and individual responsibility free of heavy handed "insight" and "perspective". Hillary Clinton has told people they shouldn't see this movie because it sends a bad message. With that resounding reccommedation still ringing in my ears I went yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. An old fashioned historical epic with no apologies. I didn't think Hollywood knew how to make this type of movie anymore. My hat is off to Mel Gibson and Roland Emmerich.Bravo!
Rating: 
Summary: Good idea, bad editing
Review: Well, this movie was certainly entertaining, but I would have chopped off at least a half hour of cheesy scenes. To be honest, Mel Gibson's acting held this movie together; it seemed like when he wasn't on the screen, the movie lost it's wheels and collapsed like a militiaman on the front line.Weaknesses: The characters are VERY underdeveloped. The story contains little historical fact (which wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that it's set during the Revolutionary War). I also didn't like the way the storyline used the deaths of Mel Gibson's sons to give the suspense level a shot in the arm. Strengths: The battle scenes are unbelievable. It might be worth the money just to see them. There are also a few very funny jokes intertwined into the plot which help the movie along. Bottom Line: If you're absolutely determined to see a movie this summer, and you've already seen the Gladiator, see The Patriot.
Rating:
Summary: A Revolution Done Right
Review: Unlike the turgid, derivative disasters that were INDEPENDENCE DAY and GODZILLA, director Roland Emmerich's THE PATRIOT is prestige filmmaking from the first frame, both a riveting wartime extravaganza and an involving familial drama that will garner deserved attention in the awards season. Without displaying any evidence that he was capable of doing so, Emmerich has transcended his exploitation-film roots and turned screenwriter Robert Rodat's -- who also wrote the flawed, but solid screenplay for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN -- screenplay into a top-notch production. Mel Gibson, in the title role, leads a superb cast that is more than equal to the task of animating American history. Though it runs nearly three hours (ample room for mistakes aplenty), THE PATRIOT possesses none of the cornball tendencies of the director's other work. The film sweeps up the viewer and carries them effortlessly from the quiet, homespun beginning on the plantation of Gibson's character to the bloody killing field of Saratoga. Along the way there is violence -- and lots of, so leave the kids out of this adventure -- love, hate and tragedy. Emmerich's in-house special effects group brings sprawling battles to vivid life, resurrects landscapes that have long since vanished and, in one too short sequence, even takes the film to the waves in a pitched sea assault. So well-drawn are the even the smaller actors on this broad canvas that emotional investment runs high, far beyond what one would expect, given Emmerich's body of work thus far. Rather than pummel the audience with scene after scene of detached carnage, THE PATRIOT creates a very real sense of dread, waste and pain as the American Revolution plays out on the screen. Every bullet hurts, every cannonball is a thing of terror and every character, down to the cameo level, actually matters, live or die. In a summer-film landscape scattered with corpses (M:I-2, SHAFT, etc.), THE PATRIOT is truly something different. Telling its story with fire and style, the film has something more important than slam-bang thrills on its mind and delivers on every level with action, history and a surprising amount of heart.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't live up to standards
Review: The Patriot, the new Revolutionary War film from Mel Gibson, delivers on many levels. First, the story is good enough. We can feel somewhat for the charcters being that they mordernized the story so that we nowdays can identify with them. The movie certainly doesnt lack good acting either. Mel Gibson is good as the loving father, but many may skip the movie thinking of it as a Braveheart 2, which fared badly in theaters. (75 million gross) And australian actor Heath Ledger is great as young Mel's patriotic son, Gabriel. Now to the bad. First and formost. The director. Roland Emerich, responsible for the horrid Independce Day and Godzilla is taking the helm. When you have a past record like that, its amazing that he was signed. Obviously, the producers wanted to attack the movie in a more action oreinted manner. Second, the plot and historical inaccuries could probably fill a encyclopedia. Note one scene, where cannonballs are being shot off by the british. Odd how every cannonball blows up on the ground, EXCEPT the ones that are near the soliders, which roll and decapitate those near them. Hmmmmm. And the film focuses WAY to much on the action and fighting. A good war film, will develop the charcters, and THEN pick them off, so that the emotion you have is more intense, not the other way around. Had they not opted to kill off a main charcter every 15 minutes and developed their attitudes and personalities more, this would be a better film. And as for Mel being shy of war. We never quite understand WHY hes fighting again! Sure, some stuff happened to him, but even through the war hes try to instill in others not to take your rage out in violence, yet thats the only reason hes fighting. If you want a blown out of proportion war movie, with much unessecary violence and length, youve got your best picture of the year here. But if you want good directing and plot, look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Simply Amazing!
Review: Anything that Mel Gibson is in is bound to be an entertaining movie. It's pretty much a fact for me. This movie is so much more than just being entertaining. This movie captures your mind and heart and brings you along for the ride of a man who will do anything to protect his family. At first opposed to war, he realizes that the only way his family can be safe is for him to fight against the British, who kill his son in front of him. Mel gives one of his finest performances. He has the compassion of a loving father, and the aggression and intensity of a man in battle. This movie, which is during the course of the Revolutionary War, is filled with the patriotism of soldiers fighting for this country as well as sorrow for the losses that all wars are responsible for. You will cheer, you will cry, and you will be completely swept up in this epic that shows the true nature of war and all the horrors associated with it. This movie is for older audiences (there is too much blood and violence for younger viewers). Please see it! It is remarkable, and I personally believe it is better than Braveheart!
Rating:
Summary: The Patriot
Review: This is by far the best picture I have seen this year. Although I agree with the characterization of the film as an "American Braveheart," I see nothing wrong with that. Braveheart was a very moving film, as evidenced by its Oscars. Yes, there are some holes in the film, but it already runs 3 hours and one can't expect to get answers for every question. In fact, I think the questions it leaves you with are questions worth pondering. Why doesn't Benjamin Martin's youngest daughter speak? Did her mother die in childbirth (as I tend to believe) and Benjamin neglect her as an infant, only to later realize the error of his ways, but too late? As to the revenge issue, it *is* very strong in the film. Had it not been for revenge, Benjamin would have never started fighting with Gabriel. Had it not been for revenge, Gabriel would not have been killed avenging his young wife's death. This is particularly ironic, considering the fact that Gabriel encouraged his father to "stay the course" and not be motivated by revenge. But the revenge was born out of love for their families, and their need to protect them, whatever the price. The smattering of humor throughout the movie was, I believe, an intentional emotional break for the audience. War is bloody, and one can only see so much of it. I thought the "dog scenes" were a welcome break from the intensity of the battle scenes and I, for one, appreciated them as much as any other scene. This is not a documentary and it should not be expected to be completely accurate (after all, it *is* Hollywood). But the performances of Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger were fantastic, and hopefully Chris Cooper will receive recognition for his role as well.
Rating:
Summary: BIG, BUT....
Review: Roland Emmerich, director of Independence Day (it worked) and Godzilla (it did not), has a distinctly jagged track record when it comes to big, rousing, commercial entertainment. Staying in the same general guidelines as his biggest success to date (Independence Day), he profits immeasurably with the presence of superstar Mel Gibson, who evokes sympathy even in the role of a psychopathic, Kurtz-like butcher. This movie is intent on making us feel, and does so with bluntness, like a hammer slammed down on your thigh. Still, the evocative locations, family-friendly set-up, and affecting and well-played children add up to a big, rousing commercial entertainment that has nothing whatsoever to do with patriotism. A bloody revenge story, this movie dilutes the revolutionary war into a much better realized remake of Jaws 4: The Revenge (This Time It's Personal). The villian at the helm of Cornwallis' SS-style British army is so utterly evil that he might as well have had horns; Gibson, who plays a man with a deep, dark secret of wartime butchery, has obviously figured out a way to justify his blood-lust; the movie builds to a furious crescendo of mano-a-mano combat that has us cheering, drooling for blood-letting. Despite the locations, and costuming, which tell us clearly that this movie is set in the pre-Revolution days of 1776, this movie could have easily been in The Gladiator's Coliseum, or in the streets of gangland, circa today. It stirs emotion, but mostly of the revenge kind, provoking our sense of outrage at a family's destruction at the hands of the enemy. The supporting players, including the Family Von Trapp, are quite good, and nobody does this kind of big-time movie with more zeal than Gibson. Heath Ledger is one to watch; his patriotic good son is both wistful and attractive. The musical score, by the reliable John Williams, goes a long way in creating a sense of time and place, and often punctuates the unfolding drama with wit and lilting, colonial-sounding flutes and drum corp riffs.
Rating: 
Summary: Great if you turn off your brain for 3 hours
Review: A lot of folks will probably see this review as an unpopular dissent to a well-liked movie, but when I walked out of The Patriot I couldn't help but think I'd once again been cheated by Roland Emmerich's lousy directing, relying on cliches to propel what could have been a great story. Before I go further, I'll say that the acting, all around, was fabulous, so this has nothing to do with the talent for the film. The cinematography was excellent, so fault doesn't fall there, either. The depiction of the time period was painstakingly accurate, especially concerning Napoleonic Era warfare (I'd hate to be standing the front ranks -- eek). What bothers me is that Emmerich has such a gift for imagery that he makes us ignore his shortcomings, so as long as the brain synapses are focusing on waving flags and cute, crying children, we overlook the problems with the film. It's style over substance, which only gets you so far in the credibility category. The first major problem is that the entire film falls flat as soon as you remember history and realize that 10 years take place from start to finish (we begin in June 1776 and end 8 months after Cornwallis surrenders at Yorktown in 1785). His youngest child is 2 years old at the beginning of the film, and is 2 years old ten years later. Since this was the child that doesn't speak until half way through the film, we have to assume she was about 7 until uttering a single word. This is not the oversight of a screenwriter, but the oversight of a hack producer/director team (Dean Devlin and Emmerich, respectively). Historical innacuracies aside (and there were a few -- but there were several in Braveheart and that was a great film) we are treated to not one, but two fully lackluster love stories. We also get a glimpse to the "horror of war" (screenwriter Robert Rodat also wrote Saving Private Ryan, another great film) as we learn what happened to Benjamin Martin (Gibson) at Fort Wilderness. What we really learn is that the British Army must have recruited serial killers into their ranks and put them all in the same unit. The movie is horridly predictable, as well. Twenty minutes in Martin and Colonel Tavington (played with comic-bookish evil glee by Jason Isaacs) have a nasty encounter and right then you know the two are destined to meet mano y mano at the end (somehow finding each other across a huge battlefield) and sure enough it happens. A slave is recruited into the ranks of Martin's militia and is mocked by other members, but you know then a reconciliation is being set up for later (probably right before the huge climactic battle). Sure enough, that happens also, just like clockwork. I WANTED to like this movie. I love the time period (which is very accurately depicted, by the way). I enjoy Mel Gibson's films (Braveheart and Payback are among favorites), and he's excellent in this role. But the more and more I actually thought about this film, the more and more I felt I'd been cheated by the filmmakers.
Rating:
Summary: Braveheart 1776
Review: I recently saw this movie in the theatre, and it was pretty much what I expected it to be: Braveheart 1776. Not to say that it is a bad movie, but if you're looking for a movie with real substance, you should probably look elsewhere. It was a little too long, and the final battle scene was a little too kitsch for me, not to mention totally predictable. However, I must admit I was impressed by Heath Ledger, the young man who played Gabriel, Mel's eldest son. He seems to have a great deal of talent and I look forward to seeing him in more movies. And I always enjoy Chris Cooper, who seems to do a bang up job in any movie he's in (e.g. the military officer in American Beauty, etc.) Not a bad movie if you like the predictable formula of Mel in full revenge mode, fighting for the honor of his family, etc. And the Revolutionary War genre is different. But Braveheart is a better movie of the same premise.
Rating:
Summary: I liked it more the 1st time when it was called Braveheart.
Review: The Patriot is almost a carbon (plot-wise) of Braveheart. Gibson doesn't want to fight-then family tragedy strikes-then he fights for revenge and liberty. So, the fantasy aspect of this is tarnished by the Revolutionary War theme. With Braveheart it was far removed for Americans and much more believeable. The action has the same gore(sometimes more) than Braveheart and the villain here is the purest embodiment of evil. Overall this movie is okay, but it's like when you saw Casino-then thought "Did I just watch Goodfellas again?
|
