Rating: 
Summary: 18th Century Braveheart
Review: Here he is, Mel Gibson taking on another role somewhat like Braveheart only he does not direct. Instead of fighting for his wife he's fighting for his children. And once again he's fighting the British. By the films he's chosen to do you would think he hates the British. Mel Gibson plays the role great and so does Englishman who gibson hates throughout the movie. You'll hate him too but what an acting job. Some grusome scenes in the movie and watching the battle scenes you'll think the people are crazy. After a few shots they charge at one another. A great epic lengnth movie which you'll want to see again and again.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie!
Review: I was told that if i like BraveHeart, i would like this movie as well. While i didn't find it as good as BraveHeart, i did love this movie! I believe it shows well how people fought during this time period: the lining up of troops and firing guns at one another, without any thoughts of avoiding or defending yourself. It was quite a grueseome way to fight a battle. Mel did steal a couple of the ideas out of BraveHeart (such as him charging a mounted warrior and how he takes him down), but hey.... they were good ideas! :> Great movie! I definitely recommend it! :>
Rating: 
Summary: An exciting historical fantasy
Review: ...I somehow respected him for his choice of models. Since *Stargate*, Emmerich has been successfully directing big-budget Hollywood blockbusters like *Independence Day* or *Godzilla*, all of them heroic, benevolent and pro-American- three qualities I look for in movies, even if the America I admire has not survived the twentieth century.*The Patriot* gives the Revolutionary War the Emmerich treatment: it's a big, exciting, melodramatic, feel-good movie with wonderful production values and splendid widescreen cinematography. Most of all, it is not a movie that spits on the American flag, but respectfully patches it and trimphantly waves it - a thorouhgly enjoyable experience for someone like me, who live in France, a country where anti-Americanism is a sine qua non among academics and teenage rebels. Of course, the movie can be criticized for its historical inaccuracies: from the more technical (explosive projectiles had not yet been invented) to the more blatant (America was invaded by British troops, not Nazis). In fact, the filmmakers deviated so much from their historical sources that they preferred to give their characters fancy names that are often variations on the original ones (imagine a Civil War epic featuring George Strongarm Custard and Brickwall Johnson). The good guy, Mel Gibson's Benjamin Martin, is said to be a composite of Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox"; Thomas Sumter (who actually had his house burned by Tarleton); Andrew Pickens and Daniel Morgan (who gave the order to shoot twice and then retreat at the real battle of Cowpens.) The bad guy, William Tavington, is a more anachronistic and imaginative mixture of Banastre Tarleton and the S.S. officer who gave the order to burn the whole population of Oradour, France in the town church in 1944. As for the final battle, which is not named, it is supposed to be a combination of Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse. The greatest critic of the movie's historical reliability is not an historian, however, but film director Spike Lee. Among other things, he has berated the movie because it allegedly "dodged around, skirted about or completely ignored slavery" (apparently, either he did not realize that the film could not logically do all three, or he was not able to make up his mind as to what it actually did.) Actually, the movie does mention slavery, as one of the characters is one of the several thousand blacks who were set free by the enlistment process (see for instance Murray Rothbard's *Conceived in Liberty*, volume IV, Chapter 78). Just because Martin's black workers are not slaves does not mean the movie ignores slavery. After all, not all blacks were slaves in Colonial America: there is even one documented case of a black man who owned white slaves. A Newsweek reviewer also wrote: "If the South Carolina of 1778 looked like this *House and Garden* version - gentrified, spick and span, wealthy - you'd wonder why anyone would feel the need to fight a revolution." This confirms my opinion that today's journalists derive their historical notions mostly from Karl Marx and other communist propaganda, and only have a vague idea of who Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison were. I personally do not care if the film is not historically truthful. Noone expects historical accuracy from a Hollywood movie these days, and there are many resources on the Internet that will help you sort the fact from the fiction, not to mention excellent books. What I hope is that *The Patriot* will both give a glimpse of greatness to its viewers and stimulate their interest in the War of Independence. There are indeed signs of the latter, as I read a South Carolina historical guide report that thanks to the movie, "People say to me on a daily basis, 'I had no idea the American Revolution was fought in the South.'" If you are in the mood for more rousing Revolutionary adventures, I highly recommend Kenneth Roberts' historical fiction, which is just as exciting as *The Patriot*, in addition to being utterly reliable -sometimes even more so than historical non-fiction. *Arundel* deals with Benedict Arnold's epic March to Quebec in 1775; *Rabble in Arms* chronicles the campaign of the Army of the North in 1775-7; *Oliver Wiswell* brilliantly presents the War from the Loyalist point of view, taking you to Boston, New York, Virginia and Carolina; and finally *The Battle of Cowpens* is a short booklet which presents one of the two battles that inspired the climactic scene of *The Patriot*. (I am also told that Thomas Fleming, the author of *Liberty!*, has written excellent novels on the Revolutionary War; and that John Buchanan has a good book on the Revolutionary War in the South entitled *The Road to Guilford Courthouse*)
Rating:
Summary: My Favorite Movie Right Now!
Review: The patriot is a great movie hands down. Mel Gibson is perfect for the part. This character reminds me alot of William Wallace {Gibson} from Bravheart. The revolutionary war is also put in a great persective. The red coats look and just feel more like the bad guys in this movie.
Rating:
Summary: A Cinematic Triumph
Review: The Patriot is the most successful movie of this season and I'm wondering why it wasn't nominated for anything in the golden globes while Gladiator was nominated. I've read lots of the reviews about Patriot here, and everybody say it's cliche. Well, I don't disagree with those because it's cliche. But the point is, 99% of all movies is cliche and the other 1% are not the best ones. When watching a movie, story is the least important factor for me. If I rate Patriot part by part, I'll give 5 stars to Emmerich in the first place. He's a talented director, although lots of people would disagree, he shooted ID-4 and Godzilla perfectly, the best way which can be made out of those foolish scripts. For the first time, he has a good script, Patriot and he used his talents more than ever and shot a really powerful action-drama. The editing is revolutionary for me. Especially in the scene where Gabriel and militia fights the redcoasts after the church is flamed. The editing in that small battle will be a pure entertainment for those who love good edits. The music by John Williams (The biggest movie score composer of all time) is as always, nothing to say much, it's perfect. Acting is also good, especially Gibson performs his role very well. The story behind all this is american independence war and the movie includes lots of dialogues about warfare. Especially the scene where Martin talkes to Lord Cornwallis about the war. The dialogues are well written in every scene, there's no un-natural ones which lead to the next important dialogues ( Gladiator is full of them ). So the movie is the best of the season and also the year. If you like action and big war-scenes, definitely watch this movie and if you want more than action, Patriot is also a good drama after all. For those who know what makes a movie good : )
Rating: 
Summary: Bland, inaccurate, unecessarily violent nonsense
Review: One must ask whether Mel Gibson has some pathological hatred of the Brits - the combined bodycount from Braveheart and Patriot is approaching levels of mass genocide Anyone expecting, as I was, a good old fashioned epic with action, heroism and romance as well as a good dose of history should stay away. This film does not contribute anything to understanding the US War of Independence other than showing us the many different and colourful ways people killed each other in the 18th Century. The hero and villains in The Patriot are like comic characters. The villain, (the obligatory posh Brits with sadistic tendancies) have no redeeming features, whilst our American heroes are folksy and wholesome farmers that are purer than white..... ...there is of course only one problem with this... slavery (soemthing of course that the evil Brits were pioneering opponents of). I rarely use the word racist however the depiction on pre Independence slavery is dangerously misleading and attempts to put a gloss of sugar over a rather more depressing reality. The single attempt to put a put of depth in the heroes background, through suggestions of a dark past is ripped straight from Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven) and is dealt with clumsily here. Please do not think that this is a "all the way USA" kind of film where we see a heoric Yank defy the odds to build a great nation. This is a vehicle for Mel Gibson (an Aussie who claims to dislike violence in movies) to look good...nothing more. Unfortunately Mel is getting on a bit and his famous bottom appears to have had some "post production" air brushes.
Rating:
Summary: The most outstanding expression of a family in trouble
Review: This movie is by far one of the most dramatic and inspiring movies of the year! The Revolutionary War which slowly seperates the family of eight was exceptionally displayed through the movie. The father-son bondage is shown throughout its many phases amazingly. The words touch your heart, and you can almost feel the characters' emotions as they march onto the battle field. You see the characters develop and grow right before your eyes. You see children mature and become adults within minutes because of the war. You almost feel as if you are standing next to them throughout the entire movie. When the character is scared, the viewer is frightened along with them. When they are sad, you are sad, too. The most touching part of the movie was at the beginning when Mel Gibson says, "This war will not be fought...on some distant battle field. It will be fought amongst us. Amongst our homes. Our children will learn of it." It was an exceptional movie that will be a favorite of mine for years to come.
Rating:
Summary: This is much like another movie I saw
Review: The patriot, I found, has almost an identical story-line to Braveheart. Not exactly original, but still entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie
Review: I think it is an OK movie. It has a pretty good dtorie line and alot of action. I you like movies about war then I say you would probaly like this movie. I say that Mel Gibson did pretty good in his role too
Rating: 
Summary: Well made but historical garbage
Review: This is a paradoxical film to review on the one hand it is well made, superbly shot and, taken purely as an adventure story in its own right, excellent. However, unlike other reviewers I think that historical accuracy is important. In an age when increasingly we gain our knowledge of the world through visual media people will think that this is an accurate description of what happened. The patriot is wildly inaccurate at times and also applies today's morals to 225 years ago. In the eighteenth centaury war was appalling and, to modern eyes, atrocities occurred on both sides fairly equally. This was true of the American War of Independence as much as any other, they were awful enough especially when depicted in such a one sided way as they are in this film. But we need to remember these were societies, American and British, that kept slaves, hung children for stealing a loaf of bread and denied women any rights whatsoever. There have been several films recently, which have altered the past to a greater, or lesser extent. When these films depict relatively ancient history such as the War of Independence it is irritating but no real harm is done. But when films alter recent events to enhance American glory at the expense of others they can be insulting to those who took part in them. For example two recent films offended many British audiences by minimising or denying their role in the Second World War. In saving Private Ryan you would think that only the Americans took part in the D-Day landings, forgetting the Canadians, British and Free French to name but a few. In the recent U-Boat film the Americans were single handed capturing the Enigma machine and Codebooks in an operation that was actually carried out by the British before the US entered the war. The past is exciting, interesting and if necessary appalling enough as it really was without having to be twisted in one-sided films like the Patriot. However, I have given the film three stars for the pure quality of the craftsmanship in making the film.
| 
