Rating: 
Summary: Required viewing for all Americans
Review: All children growing up in American should watch this movie - but perhaps not until they're at least 16 or so, it IS an "R" film.The riveting true story of how some American patriots fought on their own ground in South Carolina to battle the invading armies of the British Superpower. The reality of fighting in their own homes and churches is made very real, and some of the sacrifices of our founding fathers are finally shown in a great movie. Excellent plot development, excellent character development. Incidentally, when this film first came out, some critics complained that it was simply a retelling of "Braveheart", as if that would be a bad thing. In fact, it is not another "Braveheart" - if anything, "Gladiator" was much more a rehashing of "Braveheart". What this film has in common with Braveheart is Mel Gibson in a war movie as a widowed man. But that's where the similarties end - he was widowed long before the war came up as an issue, and now has many children to raise - which influences his decisions he has to make regarding his participation in the war. His oldest signs up for the Continental Army, and his younger children are eager to enlist, too. Mel Gibson must defend his home, lead his community, and raise his children at the same time. Interesting note: I read that the "R" rating didn't come from the violence, but from the scene of a young child shooting a gun at a British redcoat - only because it was a child shooting a gun. Gimme a break. For all of the overwhelming number of WWII films out there, it's about time someone made a great movie about the US Revolution.
Rating:
Summary: *Not* Just "Braveheart USA"
Review: This is, beyond a doubt, one of the most moving historical fiction films I've seen in the last 10 years. Many reviewers have dismissed "The Patriot" as "Braveheart USA"; my response to this is that they weren't paying attention. Yes, Mel Gibson plays a "rebelling" common man in both films. Beyond that, the comparisons disappear. I must also give appropriate kudos to Heath Ledger, the young Australian actor who portrays Gabriel (Gibson's eldest son). Ledger is actually the romantic interest in this film. A good deal of the plotline revolves around the conflicts between Gibson and Ledger. This is not a film for the faint-of-heart. Battle scenes are extremely realistic, and there are some real atrocities committed by soldiers. With that caveat in mind, though ... remember that these are the sorts of things that actually happened during the Revolutionary War, and watch the film with an open mind.
Rating: 
Summary: An Accurate Historical Story
Review: Yes, I know, some minor details such as the costumes were inaccurate but overall it showed the colonists deep inner hatred very weel and showed their devotion as militia men nicely. It was a little unrealistic when the militia men fought in the battle though since that would never have happened.
Rating: 
Summary: Absolutely horific
Review: This was a film worthy to be on on a saturday night at 11pm! . The plot relies on history which obviously the director decided to ignor and they managed to insult almost every English person in the world , depicting them as cold blooded killers . The main character (Mel G) managed to defeat the British army on several occasions seemingly with little effort . The final fight , showed the poor American Colonial militia out numbered by the british but yet they managed to hack there way through 3 battalions of Red Coats ! , an astonishing victory for the people who had been losing the war untill (Mel) joined in . Unless you are a patriotic American you wil not find this film any good , if your British like me then you will probably find it either laughable or insulting .
Rating: 
Summary: Lose the revenge plot, and you might have a good film!!!
Review: Great costumes, great sets, great score, acceptable acting....but man, the revenge plot wastes it all.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, *some* movie for the RevWar
Review: As a RevWar "buff", I am very grateful this movie was made, no matter what anyone says. It's about time the RevWar got some attention in film (or anywhere else, for that matter). I guess this makes about 4 feature films that have *ever* been made in the history of movies (and I am a movie fan - oldies, not so much today) completely devoted to the fighting itself. I saw the movie 3 times in 11 days - and I am not at all a contemporary movie fan. That's more than I usually visit a theater in a whole year. There are indeed problems w/the film, I could go on and on; but they are mostly details, some of which aren't so important. I'll review by opposing the lambasting critiques it got when it came out last year. 1st, the historical "snobs" (I can't come up w/a better term for it, I got so tired of the nit-picking). Yes, there are many details wrong, or omitted. Wrong flags, too many clean pretty-boy tents and uniforms for what should be down-trodden rebels, red coats on green-coated Loyalist dragoons, no actual mention of any battle that occurs here (don't look at the DVD cover - you'll see they never mention a battle/place name for any of the action in the movie except an occasional printed intro), not allowing real-life Continental (not militia) officer Morgan credit for "shoot twice, then scoot", etc, etc, etc. But the basics aren't too bad, considering it is a fictional account. At least they had fewer of those wigs than really existed, and the action was somewhat realistic. And like it or not, Tarleton (Tavington) *was* really hated and feared, church-burning or not. The feel of the movie is less fake than any RevWar or such-period movie I've seen (of course, there haven't been many, but still, it felt very real, despite all I can criticize). 2nd, the political snobs. I won't even get into this; let's just say self-flagellating Americans hate this movie because it represents the birth of a nation they seem to despise, and they despise most the people who gave it birth. They hate that it seems so clear-cut that "Americans" (rebels) could be the "good guys". The British can be mad if they want, but, oh well, what is to be expected? As John Adams said "this is revolution, we have to offend *some*body!" Of course, everyone ignores the fact that no one in this movie is shown to be a monster except Tavington; Cornwallis and the colonel and other of the British officers are shown for what they were: basically civilized gentlemen in a bad situation. They are reasonably sympathetic characters. 3rd, the violence snobs. As if to desparately keep people from seeing the film, cries went out about how "violent" this movie is. Nonsense. This is 1 of the tamest movies which naturally involves violence in ages. There is no glorying in gore, no zeroing in on some disgusting detail and holding there for 10 seconds+. The most gruesome for me frankly, was Mel going to town on the poor British guy - yet even that was more old-style movie, merely showing blood spattering on Mel rather than even once showing the hapless victim at all. As for the much-bemoaned head-lopping, that is fleeting, as is the identical leg-lopping from another skipping cannon ball. They are shown for 1 second, hardly counting as gory, but enough to impact you on how bad this was. On this last part, I find it interesting how this movie was panned for being "too violent", yet "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't. Well, guess who wrote it? Yup, same guy. Yet Rodat's "SPR" was *much* more gruesome than his "Patriot". There was deliberate focus on the horror of wounds. (Ever forget that guts-spilling episode w/blood coming out all over the guy's torso and out his mouth as the others tried to help him after an ambush? We had to watch his wounds for upwards of 3 minutes. It was horrible.) Yet that Spielberg WWII movie was hailed as "merely showing the true horror of war; it's good for everyone", whereas apparently a RevWar movie w/minimal gore is not allowed to do that. Outside these facets, I'd also mention outside the violence (minimal, of course, considering) that there is absolutely nothing patently offensive about the movie, a miracle in this day and age. There is no sex or any such situations, not even any foul mouths. Amazing. It's OK to watch it on a date; no embarrassing and humiliating situations! And no fear about children walking in on it - only the stressful situations and fleeting violence make it unsuitable for younger kids to watch the whole thing. I can wish for a better, more accurate, more comprehensive movie on my favorite war, but this was a keeper. It did very well by me. I was so afraid I'd be cringing, but I wasn't. In fact, it's a great emotional story, too.... A very good movie, 1 of my all-times.
Rating: 
Summary: Patriot? More like Pa's riot.
Review: Let us get this straight. A patriot fights for his country. The lead charachter in this movie refuses to fight for his country. Instead he fights because his children keep getting killed. This makes him a clansman, not a patriot (Hmm...wasn't Gibson in a different movie about clans?). This was just another Big Dumb Hollywood Movie (BDHM). It seems that the movie's producers cynically thought that since it worked once in Braveheart it would work in The Patriot. The kept the same bad guys (the English). They even kept the same motivation, except it is his kids that are killed instead of his wife. And you would never guess, but he finds the bad guy and kills him. Wow, never saw it coming. This movie was a disappointment, the only good part was seeing Rene Auberjonois as a man of the cloth again (His first time was in M*A*S*H).
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best Movies I've Ever Seen!
Review: After my parents let me, I saw the Patriot at my best friends house during a sleepover. We both loved it. There was awesome action, much tradgedy and suspense. I think there are only 2 reasons that this movie is rated R. One is a scene where a british corporal shoots Mel Gibson's 12 year old son Thomas, and the other is a scene where a ton of soldiers get chopped up with tomahawks. I also wouldn't reccomend this movie to Heath Ledger fans, as he is stabbed by the same guy who kills Mel Gibson's son. This is really a great movie though. Worth the money.
Rating:
Summary: The American Revolution in all its glory - and gory
Review: This film wonderfully depicts the heartbreaking toll that war takes. No family is untouched. Mel Gibson has made a wonderful transition from heart throb to character actor. This film is full of wonderful actors. The story is believable and moving and the battle sequences are realistic. I dare you not to hug your kids frequently after watching this film. There are a few laugh out loud moments as well. Watching this one will make you very proud to be an American.
Rating:
Summary: The Patriot a perfect Fourth of July rouser
Review: What is it about American wars that brings the best out of otherwise trivial filmmakers? Ten years ago, the glorious Glory came from "thirtysomething" creator Edward Zwick. Now, Godzilla's Roland Emmerich, about the last director from whom we could expect full-bodied characters, brings us The Patriot--in every sense of the word, the most beautiful movie of its year. Part of the credit should probably go to screenwriter Robert Rodat who, as Saving Private Ryan proved, surely knows which patriotic buttons to push. Whoever should be credited, there's not a false move in this rousing three-hour tribute to American spirit. When they say "They don't make 'em like that anymore," point to this one as an example of how it can still be done. And who knew Mel Gibson still had any actorism left in him? As Benjamin Martin, a reluctant war veteran who is finally moved to fight in the Revolutionary War when a redcoat kills one of his sons, Gibson sheds his familiar love-me mannerisms like an old winter coat. He never relies on cutesy tics, and not once does he strike a false note. His character elicits laughter, tears, and bloodshed, and for the first time in years, Gibson emotes an honest-to-gosh person on the screen. The movie's basic point--stated outright by Martin early on in the story--is that the Revolutionary War was won by wily militiamen who served as a direct counterpoint to the straight-on British manner of battle. But that's about the only thing in the movie which is stated so blatantly. The dialogue, rather than being laden with jingoism, is appropriately sparse, letting the movie's considerable action tell the story. And as such, this movie is a perfect argument against gratuitous movie violence (despite its R rating)--it shows the devastating effects of war (Martin loses a great deal of his family, one by one) and yet doesn't linger on its horrific effects. Gibson's magnificent underplaying and Rodat's spare screenplay seem to have invigorated the rest of the cast as well. Everyone from Jason Isaacs (the British colonel with a bug up himself about Martin) to Tom Wilkinson (terrific as British warlord Gen. Cornwallis) to Trevor Morgan (the actory smart-aleck in The Sixth Sense) as one of Martin's sons, seem just as juiced up as Gibson is. I haven't told a great deal about the plot, have I? (I haven't even touched upon Caleb Deschanel's beautiful cinematography, or John Williams' best movie score since E.T.) And this is as it should be. Please just trust that you should devote nearly three hours to one of the most perfectly realized movie visions you're likely to see for a long, long time. The Patriot is rated R, mostly for very graphic violence, though in context, a PG-13 would be far more appropriate. Its only dramatic effect is to get kids talking about the story, an opportunity that I'd imagine most history teachers and parents would welcome.
|
