Yar, you be here: The Patriot > Customer Reviews

The Patriot Customer Reviews (112 - 114 of 119 Reviews)

The Revolution According to Mel
Few films are made about the Revolution since WW II, the financiers on Wall Street must not be comfortable with the concept. The film begins by showing a meeting to discuss Independence, and the need for war. One man talks of "taxation without representation", but the Declaration of Independence lists all the grievances. (Do you remember them?) There is no mention of the 1765 Stamp Act and the ruinous taxation that followed. There is little said of the business of this planter. Isn't tobacco the equivalent of coca leafs or opium poppies? The film gives an example of the fighting of that time. The Carolinas suffered the most in the Revolution, even more than New Jersey, where many of the battles were fought (the land bridge connecting Philadelphia to New York). The after battle scene shows pistols and muskets used to kill wounded prisoners; they would have used gun butts, bayonets, or swords as in other massacres. The film is accurate in showing boys experienced with firearms, and the use of knives and tomahawks in close combat.

Colonel Mel leads his militia into guerrilla attacks on British supply wagons. The militia was usually used to attack foraging troops. These losses tied down the British regulars and prevented their advance. No mention of the Loyalist militia here. The film shows the British setting a trap to ambush the ambushers! (How could this failure of intelligence occur? Just for dramatic effect?) The "Ghost" plays a trick on the General to get 18 prisoners released. Another failure of intelligence? Historians will object to some of the events created for dramatic effects. But popular entertainment isn't academic history. The celebration at the seashore seems designed for an intermission.

The scene where the townspeople are locked in a church and then burned alive has been criticized as an invention. But it symbolizes the cruelty and horrors of war in the Carolinas. Afterwards Mel's men catch up to some of the troops. Could that experienced Colonel be surprised by not posting guards? The evil Colonel escapes by a ruse; would an experienced soldier be fooled?

The final battle seems to be based on the battle of Cowpens, when the retreating militia led the charging British into the prepared trap and won the battle. There is a final confrontation between Mel and the evil Colonel. Cornwallis is forced to retreat to Yorktown, where the French fleet traps them and forces a surrender. The War of Independence was won! But you owe it to yourself to read a history book to learn more. Mike Wright's "What They Didn't Teach You About the American Revolution" is a good place to start.

What Were The Film Makers Thinking?
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.

A mixed bag
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.

Previous Page

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Next Page