Rating: 
Summary: Your typical Hollywood flick.
Review: This movie is a dud. It was a total Hollywood piece of junk.I strongly recommend avoiding this movie if you are a fan of great period movies such as Gettysburg & Barry Lyndon (for starters). The Patriot is more in lines with movies such as Titanic, Pirates of the Carribean, a Knights Tale and Pearl Harbor.... I wish Gibson would have directed it. He may have given it the same treatment that Braveheart & The Passion recieved.....For shame Mel! The American Revolution deserves better then this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie
Review: For a movie taken place in this time period I have to say it's one of the best. It creates a real family drama. It runs in together as well. I think it is missing a few scenes that could explain a little bit more about situations, but overally the display of warfare is very well portrayed.
Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic
Review: Minutes into this movie, with its idiotic collapsing rocking-chair routine, you know what the rest of it is going to be like. At times it seemed to flatter to deceive (you feel sorry for the hard-working, conscientious costume designers), but in fact was only reducing you into tolerating it at its own cornier than corny basement mental level. An excellent reason for viewing it is to discover that so many one-star reviewers hold exactly the same opinion, which they express with piercing truthfulness --- except for the one who thinks Braveheart was historically accurate (come on! woad and tartan in 1300?). If you want true battle-field accuracy and historical faithfulness, as well as a really awesome spectacle and outstanding casting, try Waterloo, with Steiger and Plummer. I have to give this wretched film one star in order to review it at all (why is this?): I give it another star because the villain (who was otherwise totally unreal) is definitely one of the most charismatically evil and unredeemably nasty characters I can remember seeing on any screen. He had no good qualities of any kind, and the actor portrayed him up to the hilt and beyond. Otherwise, zilch. I thought the little kiddies were quite cute.
Rating:
Summary: Doesn't Get Any Better!
Review: In my most humble opinion (AHEM!!) I think this is a movie where it really doesn't get too much better. I give it 5 stars for showing Benjamin Martin's commitment to his family, and how the rebellious Gabriel picked up and finally understood when he had a wife of his own. The action, awesome! For those who complain that it was too gory, you can watch Alice in Wonderland. War is not supposed to be a pretty thing. This shows people who were dedicated and willing to fight for what they believed in! Mel Gibson was at his best! Good stuff!
Rating: 
Summary: A mixed bag
Review: First off I will have to admit, I liked this movie. But it was a mixed bag of good and bad. It did come out as a lot of people pointed out, like braveheart, but not nearly as good. here are some of the good. The action sequences and cinematography are amazing. This director really knew how to set up the battle sequences so that they are both picturesque, and frightening at the same time. This was rated as one of the middle period Napoleonic wars, and the fighting style is much different than what we are used to. You dressed in bright uniforms and marched to your death. Cavalry charges were still used to a great degree of effectiveness, and they used them with deadly efficiency. The cannons were primarily large bullets that they would angle specifically so that they would bounce or skip and hit as many soldiers as they could, similar to a bowling ball. There were some funny moments with Mel Gibson and his children. A few twists and turns were in the plot, where it was following a cliche movie device up until the very end, where they turn it around at the conclusion. Some of the dialogue is interesting and the character motivations were not all standard. Mel Gibsons characters initial refusal to enter the war, his speech to the continental congress, etc.... Like Braveheart it had many historical ideas that were true in a sense, but didn't happen in the same way. There was a military leader in the british army that practiced a slash and burn operation similar to sherman in the civil war. As well as other decisions by the British that angered many colonials causing them to join the war when the originally stayed neutral. Cornwallis was a noted field commander and a favorite of the king. Now for the bad. Some of the cliches were almost laughably bad. The antagonists, though well acted and interesting, were over the top in some key areas. Cornwallis was not flawless in his exploits, and he was a patriot but actually opposed harsh treatment of Americans before the war, including the infamous "stamp tax". Though some leaders in the millitary did a slash and burn campaign, I don't recall any mention of people being burned alive. The method they had for victory in the end was a bit simplistic. The main selling point was it was the defeat of a giant in the war for independence. Though the British army in question was a giant in that time, it seemed like too cliche and easy of a ruse, relying on the arrogance of a oppsing general. The ambush sequence where Mel Gibson and his sons killed a large number of soldiers was a bit far fetched. Though troops at that time were terrible at defending against ambush, they weren't necessarily stupid, and could have mounted a better defense. The murder of his son in the earlier part of the movie was over the top in its attempt to show how wicked the leader of the Dragoons was. When he ordered the wounded killed, that would have been sufficient, him shooting a boy even out of necessity was a step short of him wearing a black top hat and twisting his mustache. All in all I give this 3 stars as a standalone movie. It will entertain most and just about everybody will find something they like in it. But the lack of consistency, overuse of cliches, and mixed quality writing will bother most people. As an action film alone, it gets four stars, but for an overall film, 3.
Rating:
Summary: You wait years for a film about the revolution and get THIS?
Review: There are so few movies, good or otherwise, that focus on American Revolution, that any film on the subject deserves attention. Unless it is this one. An absolutely inane mess, with so many errors, dramatic missteps, cliches, and outright lies that listing them would take two feet of page space, THE PATRIOT is the early-American equivalent of Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR, and that isn't a compliment. Essentially a rip-off of Gibson's own BRAVEHEART, here's another of Hollywood's endless parade of tired, by-the-numbers "revenge" stories. And yet, who could've expected any better from the ding-dongs who made INDEPENENCE DAY, the single most mindless big-budget film in Hollywood history (and the competition for that title is truly stiff)? Two stars for some excellent, expensive 18th-century production design, and half-decent (but no more than half) battle scenes. Do your brain a favor and go watch John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK instead or, for that matter, 1776, but this pseudo-epic really isn't worth the time.
Rating:
Summary: Mel Gibson Scores
Review: I remember trying to convince my cousin Sam to see this movie. I had already seen it, and I thought it was great. He kept saying "I've seen Brave Heart, and let's face it: what's so different about this movie?". I tried to tell him about the differences between the Mel Gibson characters, but he wouldn't budge. We ended up seeing X-Men, which wasn't anything of a movie. So I hope he reads this review, and he might change his mind. Well, let's start off by saying it's partly true. Now I mean partly, because some of the scenes in the movie are unimaginable. I was listening to a call in talk show, and there was an argument about the scene where the British burn down a church with people inside. If it was true or not, it left a mark on me. Mel Gibson plays a very powerful role. His oldest kid has just left to fight in the revolutionary war. Gibson decides to join in order to protect his family. He fought in a previous war, and his experience shows on the battlefield. He has a clever mind, and it leaves you hanging to see what he'll do next. Another character, Heath Ledger, plays the oldest son who joins the war. His character's view on things makes it hard to figure who's right: Gibson or Ledger. So there you have it. See the movie. Don't be afraid to cry, Half the theater was when I went. And be warned: This movie will make you think.
Rating:
Summary: This is not History, It's a joke.....
Review: Devlin and Emmerich's careers as movie makers started to fizzle with this movie, and it's easy to see why, with Gibson's wooden performance and way over-kill production values, this movie was no better then Braveheart or Gladiator, Big productions with no heart.
At least the John Williams's music is nice to listen too.
Rating:
Summary: What Were The Film Makers Thinking?
Review: Mel Gibson once again aptly discharges the role of the reluctant hero who ultimately feels compelled to risk life and limb for his nation. A family is provided to move the plot along. The sons' commitment to the revolution places the Gibson character in an inescapable predicament. A loyal wife and adorable little girls tug at our heart strings. The viewer after the first five minutes should easily guess how the plot will unfold. Tom Wilkerson as the British General Corwallis plays the part of a man who will abide by his strict military moral code even if it will hurt England's chance for victory. On the other hand, his underling performed by Jason Isaacs is the pure personification of evil. The latter relishes torturing and murdering those who oppose King George 's government. Isaacs is at his best when ordering the so called traitors burned alive in the church. The director Roland Emmerich knows how to film scenes guaranteed to glue viewers to their seats even though this movie is longer than it should have been. The editor could have cut at least ten minutes of footage without harming the finished product. One of the most most hysterically inane aspects of "The Patriot" is how it dishonestly portrays the plight of black people during this era. We are suppose to be persuading into believing that the colonists were convinced egalitarians who respected the rights and autonomy of Afro-Americans. Alas, nothing could be further from the truth. There is arguably more good than bad resulting from our fight for independence, but the Revolutionary War was not fought to give freedom to all human beings, only establishment white men. Slave owning was one the "rights" the colonist demanded from the British. Members of the black race would have been far better off if the British had won the war. Great Britain was one the few noble countries strongly opposed to slavery. The battle scenes are well done. Although the scene where the head is shot off from the body is admittedly gory, this is what warfare is really all about. It is far more preferable to boldly confront the awfulness of battle. A Pollyanna like perspective may inadvertently encourage a reckless attitude. Pacifism is not a legitimate option for a great nation, but neither is loving war for its own sake tolerable. "The Patriot" is one the strangest major films ever produced. I haven't a clue why those responsible for putting together this project chose to slander the people of Great Britain. The standard excuse that a certain degree of embellishment is warranted in order to enhance the story line simply makes no sense. A more truthful adherence to actual historical documents would have likely increased ticket sales. Many folks almost certainly stayed away from the box office due to the controversial falsehoods. It is in no way an accurate depiction of the early history of America's beginnings. All students and serious people have to think twice before seeing this movie. More than a few grains of salt are mandatory. Also, Mel Gibson has got to redirect his career. He has done this sort of film so often that he should be bored to tears. The Australian born actor has often only been required to change clothing and fine tune the words uttered originally in "Braveheart." I'm sure the work pays well, but there's got to be a limit.
Rating:
Summary: A Smithsonian Shame
Review: If you know nothing of history, this film is great. Here's what we learn about the Rev War from this film:
That ALL Brits soldiers wear nothing but Red coats, all Colonial soldiers wear blue, the Colonists spoke with nondescript "American" accents, that the French didn't arrive until after the battle at Cowpens (at the end, basically), Cowpens is a big dry field with niffty Mediaeval ruins, all armies fight in line formation, that "militia" means incompetent or rustic farmers with pitchforks, in battle you NEVER ever kill the Officers, that the high-ranking Officers didn't fight with the menial soldiers - they stood safely off to the side and watched, that blacks weren't slaves in the south (except to the rich), 18th C. Colonial women wore French style sacback dresses, married women ran around without matron caps, widows didn't wear black, and that unmarried men and women could tongue each other on the street or on the beach without their parents or anyone else protesting. Sounds good, right? Good GRIEF! Did Rodat and Emmerich REALLY think the American audience was SO stupid that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a British and a Colonial soldier? That we wouldn't be able to guess that when the "good" (read: Boring!) characters were getting shot at by a handsome bloke on a beautiful horse that HE must be the baddie? Boo to the Smithsonian society for even helping this terrible Hollywood History. They should not be proud. They should hang their heads in shame for the inaccuracies they committed against period costumes. "Accurate down to the Buttons", my arse.
Here's a sum up of all the faux-pax committed in this film, so you can feel smug and intellectually snobby whilst watching it: *Widows wore black - Charlotte Selton does not. ever. I didn't know she was MARRIED the first time I saw this film!
*Colonial women did NOT wear Sackback gowns. (Hell, Brits didn't for the longest time, either! that would be a Continental fashion. Everybody say: "Continental"...)
*Militia means: Fully. Trained. Mobile. Army. Lesser in prestige. Not skill. Militia does NOT mean: incompetent rustics with brands and torches. This is in contrast to: Regular Army. (At least they got that right)
*British Uniform Colours: Blue. Green (Tavington: GREEN Dragns). Red. WHITE spray-on pants. Black boots. Nice hats. Mostly Tricornes.
*Blacks did NOT make Gullah camps on beaches. They would have been in the Mtns.
*Blacks were NOT freed men. No matter how nice their masters.
*Mens' wigs were NICE. Not shoddy. Most all men wore wigs. As did the ladies.
*Young ladies did not talk sauce to their elders or betters (Anne)
*You do not refer to people by first name, unless it's your immediate family, or very intimate friends.
*You did not need to always call your father "father". Papa and Pa worked then, too.
*Bedrooms were UPstairs. This film is NOT great, unfortunately. For all the above listed reasons and so much more (namely that the main characters were boring, 2D fluff about whom we didn't care, even when they died?).
So, kids, remember: to avoid looking like a loser, pay attention in history classes! That way, if you ever become a filmmaker, you can avoid the major pitfalls of this movie!
Oh well. At least that Colonel Tavington was dashingly wicked, yeah?
| 
