The Patriot Reviews

• Now with the cherry on top!!!!

  
  By A36CRRNKFUP1HU on 2006-05-13
  My review for the original version of "The Patriot" can be found under its respective title. This review is merely for those who may already own the movie and are wondering if it's worth buying a second time around for an additional 10 minutes of footage. For those who have never bought this title, then I can say emphatically to choose this version. For those who already own it . . . well . . . I suppose you'll need to read on and decide.
  
  First of all (thank goodness), the extra 10 minutes of footage are not merely tacked on as "Deleted Scenes" at the end of the movie. In fact, it would be nearly impossible to do so since some of the extra footage is not found in separate scenes, but rather additional footage of already established scenes. In these situations, the extra footage may be as long as an additional minute or as little as a few seconds. How do I know? Well, for one, I'm a high school history teacher and show it every year during our unit on the Revolutionary War. Given that I teach five classes a day of the same subject, I'd say I've gotten quite familiar with the movie.
  
  Now, one particular extension of a scene is quite riveting in that Benjamin Martin's youngest children get their first taste of the horrors of war prior to the death of Thomas. This comes just before the evening when Gabriel stumbles home after being wounded in a nearby battle. Something (the viewer is unaware) catches the attention of the Martin children and they stride over to a nearby creek/river to investigate. What they discover are the bodies of several soldiers floating downstream. Martin then comes over and ushers the children back into the house.
  
  Another noteworthy scene extension is found in the "ambush" scene following the death of Thomas--you know, the famous "aim small, miss small" scene. Well, in the original edited version of the film we soon observe the infamous Tavington interviewing a dying witness of the event in a battlefield tent hospital. It is in this scene that the witness compares who we know as Benjamin Martin to a ghost. The problem is, as far as we knew, there were no survivors. We had to accept at face value that perhaps one must have escaped. In this version of the film we now know the facts! You see, after Martin does his bloody hack job on a would-be escapee, the camera pans in on one particular Redcoat as he lays wounded in a nearby swamp. We then get a peek at what he sees through his one dying eye: an eerie glimpse of Martin flitting through the dim light of the heavily-wooded forest. Then the camera focuses again on the bloodied face of this dying witness. It is not long thereafter that we discover that this poor chap actually survives (he's the one in the hospital tent).
  
  One particular scene left off the original is the burial of Thomas. Although the scene is short, it nevertheless reiterates that Benjamin Martin has a tender, loving side (remember, a few scenes before he was hacking and slashing away at every Redcoat in sight).
  
  Of particular note are the additional scenes involving Cornwallis and Tavington. Here, the viewer witnesses Cornwallis scolding Tavington in the presence of other officers --- the viewer should be delighted to see the arrogant and villainous Tavington being humiliated in front of others. In the scene, Cornwallis sarcastically remarks that Tavington has earned himself the nickname "The Butcher." This scene is important in that it helps establish and underscore the motive Tavington has for eliminating "The Ghost," Benjamin Martin. Further dialogue between the two is found later in the movie as well.
  
  In short, the additional footage is not just added fluff. Indeed, the additional footage adds substance to every scene where it was originally found. Now, if the original version is a perennial favorite of yours, then by all means go out and get it. If, on the other hand, you may only watch it once in a blue moon then you could probably live without it.
  
  

• Makes me ashamed to be an American :(

  
  By on 2002-06-07
  Even though this horrible, historically inaccurate fantasy/ slapstick comedy detracts from what actually happened during the American revolution, it is my hope that our British counterparts won't let sleazy hollywood dictate how they should feel about us Americans as a whole. A majority of us "yanks" are actually a decent, intelligent lot who can think for ourselves. We are not the racist, David Duke, nationalist flag-waving goons as portrayed in movies like "The Patriot". Unfortunately, there are those in this country who share the similar ignorant views of Mr. Scott that America is the sole savior of the world, out "to help other nations". It's this kind of dangerous thinking that had us barely running out of Vietnam alive with tails between our legs in the first place. It was more than enough to unite a 4th world nation of mostly rice farmers to defeat what was supposed to be "the greatest and most powerful nation in the world". That's how much they love us. The phrase "Gao thom con chuon chuon" just
  doesn't have the same ring to it when spoken in english, either. Having said all that, I would like to convey my sympathies along with many other Americans to our British friends here. Movies like The Patriot, Saving Private Ryan, U-571, Pearl Harbor and Black Hawk Down are not only an insult to Britons, but also to American intelligence. You know it's crap when Mel Gibson runs amok and single-handedly killing every enemy he sees in sight. It's so sickening that it makes me feel ashamed to be an American.
  
  

• Paralegalweasel

  
  By on 2002-06-17
  This is the dopiest war movie I have ever seen. It is full of drivel and pap. If you are a Mel Gibson fan, stick with Braveheart and forget this [stinker]. Any American history buff should also avoid this movie. It is a waste of time
  
  

• Historically Flawed

  
  By A2NACIQH1P8J01 on 2005-07-28
  This movie was fun to watch but at the same time irritating from all of the flawed history. What this film does is to incorporate all of the bad teaching many received on the Revolutionary War and then invent some of its own.
  
  I gave it three stars just for the costumes and settings which were fun to see. Also from the perspective that aside from being so flawed it was fun to watch.
  
  Historical flaws: It was the British not the Colonists that offered slaves their freedom for fighting. Remember George Washington was a man of his times and was a slave owner. I still believe he was a great man and an even greater general. He alone devised the strategy to defeat a much more powerful force through attrition, economics, and political stalemates.
  
  The British did not fight cruelly like this movie portrays. Except for remote instances where the offenders were duly punished the British fought with honor often times allowing colonists to retreat amidst certain annhilation. If anyone fought "dishonorably" it was on the U.S. side but war is hell isn't it?
  
  The French did not join for La Libertad! The French have never done anything that doesn't directly benefit the French. They joined because of ongoing struggles and unresolved issues with the British and to help protect their sugar interests in the West Indies. They also only helped at the extreme end when it was an almost certainty that they would not have to unfurl their honored and distinguished white flag.
  
  If anyone wants to read about the realities of this war I would recommend Shaara's Glorious Cause and Rise to Rebellion. Also the Founding Brothers is a good read. These are just a few to start out with but there are many more good books that reveal what factually happened without falling into the trap of becoming liberal revisionist history.
  
  

• Jumping from the Swamps to Freedom.

  
  By A1Y87E22UVYCE6 on 2005-01-14
  Director Roland Emmerich is used to direct big budget movies. He usually delivers good pieces of work as "Independence Day" (1996) and "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004).
  "The Patriot" (2000) is arguably his best film up to today.
  
  The story centers on a peaceful American that abhors war due to his past experiences. In an incident, one of his teenage sons is murdered by a British officer. This event drives him mad and he launches "all-out" guerrilla warfare, rallying his neighbors into active resistance.
  
  Mel Gibson is fleshing again a patriotic hero enraged by injustice as in "Braveheart" (1995). He has the knack for doing it; viewers will empathize with his character. His performance is high quality.
  The supporting cast is very good, all his sons & daughters especially Heath Ledger and Skye McCole are great. Joely Richardson as Charlotte Shelton his sister-in-law and later fiancé; Tcheky Karyo as Jean Villeneuve the French officer; Jason Issacs as Col. William Tavington the "bad guy" of the film; Adam Baldwin as Capt. Wilkins and last but not least Tom Wilkinson as Gen. Cornwallis flesh their characters very believable.
  Reconstruction of the period is very accurate. Battles are filmed with sure hand, very good visual effects and outstanding coordination of mass movements.
  It is a great movie for history buffs and general public.
  Reviewed by Max Yofre.
  
  
• One of the Worst Films of All Time
  By A15XXOVX6ZNNRO on 2005-01-15
  This popped up on my Amazon wish list for some reason and I just had to respond. In my mind, this joins Joe Versus the Volcano, Titanic, Pearl Harbor, and The Avengers movie as one of the five worst films I have ever seen. This is not for want of some good acting: Mel Gibson is actually one of my favorite actors and Heath Ledger does a surprisingly good job with the film.
  
  No, the main problem with this film is that it is too Hollywood. We can't offend African Americans so we've got a South Carolina plantation owner who has African free men, not slaves, working his field. Our hero has to be the most sympathetic character, so we make him a widower secretly pining for his dead wife's sister. The plot is contrived and obvious: there won't be a single development that you don't see coming from miles away.
  
  Perhaps most controversial and appalling in this film is the portrayal of the British. The crimes committed in this film by British forces have absolutely no basis in historical fact. Indeed, one of the things that is totally ignored in this film is the fact that the rebellion was particularly potent in the southern United States because the British government was starting to move to limit the slave trade. I'm not normally someone who cares that much about the 'message' in movies, but when you're changing historical facts for convience's sake you've done everyone a disservice. The irony is that a film about the ambiguities of war would do so much to make a fundamentally ambigous conflict like the Revolutionary War so black-and-white.
  
  
• NOW ......WAS IT REALLY NEEDED???
  By A5VI800QMKE8 on 2006-02-20
  With just 11 minutes of unseen footage, the film makers found an excuse to cash in with an "extended edition" of the film. I'm absolutely losing count of the number of films being re-released as extended editions.
  
  At least in this case, i see no reason to upgrade.
  
  
• This is a masterpiece of fiction...
  By A1OMEH970G0Q7Q on 2000-09-25
  Okay, I don't know why all the negative criticism about this movie. First, let me tell folks that this is a movie you should look at without expecting it to totally change your life or your outlook on it. It is not a history lesson; it is based loosely on some facts, but basically it is fiction with the backdrop of the American Revolution, and how great that was, and so is this movie. Mel Gibson was excellent. There were other people in the movie who also played their roles superbly. It is a brutally real story of war in people's own backyards and towns, and focuses on one man's struggle to protect his family from the horrors of the war around them. Whoever says this movie blows has expected way too much from a movie like this, and expects a movie to just dramatically alter their feelings. Don't listen to the criticism; see the movie for yourselves, and then decide based on the storyline itself, not its historical inaccuracies. And all props go out to director Roland Emmerich!
  
  
• What's your purpose? Accuracy=rent; Entertainment=purchase
  By A154JPLNG7CLL7 on 2000-10-15
  Unfortunately, I was let down by this film. I would recommend renting it to see once, if you're looking for some type of historical & accurate experience. If you want entertainment from war, well, enjoy the vicarious brutal thrills over and over by purchasing it. Other than the negative aspects of the plot and script, I pretty much have forgotten it in the months since I saw it in the theater.

  I have a Bachelor's Degree in History and I was eagerly anticipating this film. I know that film studios want to make profits, screenwriters want to write a good yarn, actors wish to act well, and moviegoers want to be entertained, then afterwards, leave the theater informed from a feel-good version of American history. What lofty goals to set and fulfill for one film.

  I left the theater after seeing this film with more questions about the plot and script than was expected. A good film should answer the question it raises...unless that was the point of the writer. This was not the type of film to be deep like that. I would like to know....Who was "The Patriot" in this film? Was it Heath Ledger's character who actually fought for what he believed in? Or is it supposed to be Mel Gibson's character, who avoided conflict until the desire for revenge took control? There was never really any tranformation or desire to fight for the creation of a new country on Gibson's character's part. Family was the issue, it appeared, not character growth and development. That trait seems a reflection of today's American societal values. I felt that I was watching a man sent back into Colonial times with the knowledge and experiences of today's man. It was not a person who dealt with the complex issues of the times.

  Remember, our founding fathers were rebelling against their king! If they had lost, they would have been executed as traitors or rebels. By raising arms, they were not heroes in the eyes of many Colonists. Only about 1/3 of the population fought for the split from England. 1/3 supported (in their eyes) the rightful governance of the king. The last 1/3 remained neutral ...difficult at times, but if an individual was on the frontier, this could have been easier to do.

  The one major point that the film neglected to point out and would have explained to the audience the reason for the ruthlessness of the British which existed in the region.... Charleston and the surrounding area had surrendered to the British just before the time period of the film. Thousands of American Colonial men gave their "Parole" (honorable promise that they would never involve themselves in the conflict against the British) and were therefore released. This was a common practice with both armies and even existed during our Civil War. When the men joined in the militias and fought again, the British rightfully felt they were betrayed. (Remember the spirit of the times) These men had broken their word and that made them outlaws to be hunted down, not honorable soldiers, in the eyes of the Brits.

  I truly dislike how the British were portrayed in the film. Burning the church full of innocent people was done for sheer shock value. Yes, the British burned homes and buildings out. Yes, the Americans burned out Tory supporters, too. There were soldiers on both sides who were brutal. But mass murder at the equal of World War II atrocities were just not done! This is a ploy to show how evil our opponents supposedly were and how good us Americans were. The whole scene did not even need to be there. The British officer did this to find out the hideout of Mel's band, and did not even follow through. This soured the rest of the film for me, unfortunately. I have been attempting to research if something on this scale had basis in fact and so far, I have found nothing. If anyone else has documented an incident similar to the church burning, please post it. I would love to believe that script writers and studios would not stoop to this level to entertain the masses and then call it artistic license. But then again, I would not be surprised.

  I would advise an interested person to see this film, but to realize the goals of the parties involved in its making. I just hope that this brings more popularity into filming Revolutionary era films. I would love to see a period film accomplished with a coherent plot and excellent dialogue. Make the characters fit the time period in desires, experiences, and goals.

  I am an American and proud of my country, but I would not scream "See this movie because you should be proud of your heritage." What you should do is read and research your history. Films are good to see in their context. Visual displays can help to realize what things looked like. But too much is required of a film to be exactly like things happened. It has to be worked on to make coherence, a good plot line, and handle certain time constraints. Books and primary sources do not have that problem. Good luck and enjoy "The Patriot" for what it is...a film...then do some research and fill in the unanswered gaps.
  
  

• BraveHeart in the American Independence war
  By A228NBNLYJ8V3J on 2000-08-17
  I've noticed peope dislike bad criticism.I try to avoid it most of the time.In this case I find it necessary to warn potential buyers from wasting their money.

  To begin with,I'm a true fan of Mel Gibson ,I like most of his recent works. Not this work.I've seen this movie on the wide screen ,and I tell you - don't see it. It's a waste of time and money.

  When I had first seen the poster and heard about the plot ,it blew my mind. I thought to myself "Five years have pasted since the last spectacular epic (BraveHeart)-it's time for another great historical performance of the man !"

  Soon enough I realized how far and at the same time "close" to the truth I was. As I was watching the film I could notice, although seeing it for the first time, how many motives of BraveHeart were copied to the movie ,changing only names and dates.

  For example ,(I'm not going to ruin the film to those who would see it anyway!)Gibson in this era of the pre american independence day war doesn't wanna fight! what a surprise! Exactly like in BraveHeart-not for long...Someone of his dearest must die in order to completely change his mind and heart.

  The story continues as he succeeds to gather the crumbling militia forces,causing heavy loses to the enemy and so on,as was the script in BraveHeart.Even the love story is lame ,childish and dissatisfying,very far from the original "Model" of this film. Not to mention the battles ,in which blood is seen everywhere ,wounded and deceased scattered ,maybe like in the original battles , but you can't help the feeling that something is wrong or missing.

  It actually made me angy to witness the shameless mimicry that surroundes the entire movie.I'd come to see someting new and intelligent ,to discover this dissapointing consequence.

  I would'nt want to burden you any further with descriptions or analysis,just to say again - spare your time. There are a lot of better films to see. If you haven't seen BraveHeart by now,it's high time,because it is so much better than this one - it's the original.

  (P.S,I've given the second star to honor Mel Gibson for his effort despite the lousy script).
  
  

• Not sure
  By A4JP4T1F95D0A on 2006-04-09
  I have been trying to find out where the 11 minutes of extra footage comes in. It could be just one additional scene, or a few seconds added here or there. Either way, this really didn't seem like the movie that was crying out for a extended addition. We have already had the original release, then the superbit, and now this one. I guess next it may be the superbit extended version, then the HD/Blue Ray version. I hate when the studios double and triple dip. I would rent this one first to see if the extra 11 minutes are worth another purchase.
  
  
• Propaganda
  By A2GYIDJ1COED2K on 2000-09-01
  Even before its world premiere, The Patriot had become the center of not one, but two, controversies. Because the movie depicts children shooting rifles, it came under fire by certain anti-gun groups. And, because the main character is a fictionalized representation of Francis Marion, who has been confirmed as a hardcore racist by historians, questions had been raised about the film's choice of a protagonist. Perhaps these two issues were needed to spark interest in this film because, based on content alone, there's not much to get excited about. This is a derivative and relentlessly mediocre piece of propaganda

  This film was also advertised as the Revolutionary War equivalent of Gibson's great Scottish epic "Braveheart", but it's nowhere near as good and does a much more methodical job of demonising the British while glamorising a revolt. The narrative essentially consists of Gibson seeking revenge against those evil Redcoats for the murder of his son - and that's it. Of course there is the over-the-top politically correct civics lesson on race that has nothing in common with real history. Indeed, the most unrealist aspect of this film is the dainty treatment of slavery. In late colonial times, South Carolina's whites were outnumbered three-to-one by Indians -- of whom The Patriot has none -- and black slaves, of whom we meet perhaps four; the colony's militia, reports historian Howard Zinn, was too occupied controlling slaves to ambush many redcoats.

  Martin has black servants and field hands, but they're all free - yeah, right! -- and Gabriel assures a black militiaman who's been promised his freedom after a year's service that slavery is a sin of the Old World. (Perhaps young Gabe was unaware that the Continental Congress had recently excised a denunciation of the slave trade from slaveholder Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.)

  Then there's the cured white racist militiaman who just before the climactic battle tells the black soldier how honored he is to serve with him -- and then emphatically repeats himself, just to impress us with the filmmakers' sincerity.

  Along with the over-the-top vilification of the English (their anti-partisan activity is not unlike the Nazis), Roland Emmerich needs to stick to Big Lizards and UFO's and leave American history alone.
  
  

• Review from an American History major- it stinks
  By A2G8IR6ENZSQHF on 2005-01-31
  I was recently forced to watch "The Patriot" for an assignment, as I was to analyze its historical accuracy. Needless to say, the film is so wildly inaccurate that it's probably more entertaining if you view it without having much knowledge of American History. However, "The Patriot" is relentlessly mediocre by any standards, at least in my opinion.
  
  "The Patriot" is filled with historical howlers. Why did the British lose the American Revolution? Because they pissed off Mel Gibson! Why did the Americans rebel against the British? Because they were purely noble, while the British were heartless Nazis and aristocratic fops. There is never any mention of the economic reasons for the colonies going to war against Britain. According to "The Patriot", race relations in 18th century South Carolina were quite good; sure, there were a few bigots, but they had all been won over by the end of the war, and the slaves themselves were happy to serve their kind masters. This fantasy world, of course, leaves no explanation for South Carolina's secession and the Civil War less than a century later, or even the Civil Rights movement of the 20th century. All the women in "The Patriot" are outspoken and willful, and treated as absolute equals by the men- this leaves no explanation for the feminisit movement over the next two centuries.
  
  For all the above reasons and more, I was very irritated when I analyzed this film for historical accuracy. However, it's really not a very good movie anyways. I suppose Mel Gibson has some charm, though I was not affected by it (let's just say that after last year, I dislike him with a Passion). Heath Ledger is less effective, as he's downright boring and in the center of a painful romantic subplot. Then there's Jason Isaacs, who plays the British villain with such over-the-top menace that I often found him ridiculous. This guy burns down houses and murders women and children just for the fun of it- he seems pulled straight out of a Saturday morning cartoon.
  
  Overall, the film's pace often flags, and its climax leaves much to be desired. This is a very going-through-the-motions movie, and it's pretty easy to predict the end of every scene. Only one event in the entire movie surprised me (that being the conclusion of the negotioations between the protagonist Benjamin Martin and General Cornwallis). Director Roland Emmerich is obviously out of his league here- he's known for directing entertaining disaster flicks, not historical epics. I'm afraid a couple good battle scenes do not make a 150-minute film.
  
  I can't really recommend "The Patriot" to anyone other than Mel Gibson fans and those who believe that the American Revolution was divine and holy, with no flaws or moral amibguity (those kind of people are probably Mel Gibson fans anyways). This is an inaccurate, overblown, and borderline boring film.
  
  
  
• Blood libel
  By A20B0XOK0JKCD9 on 2005-03-09
  The high ranking this film receives illustrates what a potent force Hollywood can be and gives the lie to claims that people don't accept these kinds of films as factual. Sure, many viewers enjoyed it simply for what it claimed to be - an action movie set in the past - but reading the reviews many also accept it as more or less truthful.
  
  How a German director could have the cheek to portray the British as proto-Nazis is beyond me. The church-burning scene was nothing short of a blood-libel on the British people and clearly implies that this sort of thing has always happened, and even been perpetrated by the only people to have stood against Hitler for the whole length of WW2.
  
  For the record, such war crimes were more common on the rebel side and the closest equivalent came when irregulars slaughtered a village of native Americans loyal to the British. But hey, who cares about the "Indians", eh?
  
  Why does this matter? Because at a time of real danger to its way of life, the main historical source for most Americans about their origins is a film that is not only widely simplistic and biased but wilfully distorts the truth to fit its own frankly weird agenda.
  
  Fun maybe, but the reality is being played out across the world today where the same principles of "good n' evil" have been Bin Laden's best recruiting sergeant and are about to usher in a religious regime in Iraq you couldn't tell apart from Iran. You want WMDs? You'll have 'em.
  
  Cheers Mel!
  
  
  
• Garbage
  By A8Q7TQR7X9BM3 on 2000-10-18
  A classic case of Americans revising history. This movie is historically inaccurate, filled with lies and misrepresentations of what really happened. The Americans were responsible for their own fair share of attrocities in the war, perhaps more so than anything the English did. Furthermore the main character was not the shining light he is portrayed to be, but rather a vicious, brutal slave owner who was notorious for the extreme abuse he inflicted on his slaves. Yes such a vicious, ruthless individual is ideal in a war, but then let's see him portrayed as such, let's see the things he really did, rather than this weak, whitewashed nonsense. Or are Americans too weak-minded to deal with a 'hero' who has his (very) dark side?

  The lies aside, this is just a typical action movie, nothing more, but that's to be expected from the makers of ID4. If you're looking for a good action movie I suggest you look elsewhere.
  
  

• Perhaps Heath' best movie
  By A1TMAVN4CEM8U8 on 2008-04-22
  The Patriot DVD
  
  Mel Gibson is a pacifist who live in South Carolina circa 1776. His pacifism was caused by the violence he saw during the French and Indian War that he fought in. Heath Ledger plays his almost grown son.
  
  Highly recommended for fans of the American Revolutionary war, Mel Gibson and Heath Ledger.
  
  Gunner April, 2008
  
  
  
• Propaganda - Plain and Simple
  By A2M3OLX1ITN4MP on 2005-08-04
  This film is absolutely ludicrous. It is a shocking and unabashed revision of American history, an indefensible white-wash of the revolutionary period, and an unequivocal insult to the British (not to mention all independent thinking Americans).
  
  For the love of God, people, think about what you're watching!
  
  
• A Spark of Patriotism but Overblown
  By AJXC1TQPATSW4 on 2000-12-18
  After a month's begging I permited my sons to rent the video and spend an evening watching it. I was impressed with one point that is lacking in most modern movies - the concept of "patriotism". We expected the gore and violence (being a movie about war), and thought they gave a good depiction of the suffering our forefathers endured to give birth to this nation. So many of our young people have no idea of what true freedom is, let alone how we got it in this nation.

  Now for the down side: 1. The Church Scenes

  As a student of history, especially religious history, I find the doctrine taught in the church in the movie to be foreign to the Southern Protestantism that was prevelant in South Carolina during the War for Independence. Gabriel was told upon entering the church that the congregation was "praying for the souls" of the three men hanging outside. The Protestants of that time wouldn't dream of such a thing. It was for the most part a very weak Protestantism, but not to the point of adopting the practice of praying for the dead.

  2. The depiction of the British

  The Brits could at times be a nasty bunch, but the depiction of Tarlton (the obvious historic figure who was the bad guy in the movie) was way overblown. Sure, he was nasty, but not the Freddy Kruger he was portrayed as in the film. In fact, one of the main reasons we won the war was due to the fact that so many Brits, even in Parliament, openly supported the American cause. Cornwallis's attitude in the movie is probably closer to the truth than most - that the colonists were "our brethren" and that normal relations would have to be reestablished after the war.

  All in all, it was a good time, but the History Channel is more interesting to those who want the down to earth truth.
  
  

• The Propagandist
  By A3SG59KJLAQOPG on 2001-05-25
  ..."Braveheart" take two could be an alternative title. But really, "The Propagandist" would be most apt, since this laughable "history" is some of the most virulent Anglophobic claptrap I have ever seen. All the blatant inaccuracy of Revere's famous Boston Massacre engraving seems to be the approach, i.e., forget the facts, just hate the Brits!

  I couldn't decide if the cartoon characters shown as the Brits were more one-dimensionally stupid or one-dimensionally bloodthirsty. Oops! Maybe I've missed some unexpected character development in a Gibson flick - the Brits really were two-dimensional: stupid AND bloodthirsty.

  And gee, what a "good massuh" Gibson's character was to his slaves - they all loved him. Kind of makes you want to be a slave and wonder what all that abolitionist nonsense was about!

  Can anyone even begin to believe how [incorrect] the facts are in this mess of a film? Turning regular British soldiers into incessant civilian-murdering thugs may have been what one would expect of a period propagandist like Paul Revere, but surely we ought to expect a bit more truth and enlightened approach these days. And the watering down of the hateful institution of slavery, practiced by these "patriots", just sidesteps an historical dilemma we Amercians ought to be coming to grips with some day.

  I am also very tired of the untruthful cliches in supposed historical films, and I thought the American public would be too at this point. What is really disappointing to me is that some of my countrymen are so sheepishly jingoistic that they'll get caught up in this "hooray for the red white and blue" mentality and like this film, despite what...it really is.

  For example, if these film makers had made a brand new Western showing the old cliches - the peaceful, civilized, settlers getting massacred by the savage, bloodthirsty Indians - the film would have been hooted out of the theatre. But somehow, because it is so "patriotic" to support the American revolution, and fashionable to think badly of the Brits, we accept the same level of outrageously untruthful cliches in this film.

  I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who would prefer some small level of truth in their historical films. It is such a fairy tale, they should have thrown in the troll under the bridge.
  
  

• The patriot's review
  By A2I7DSAIT9GWRV on 2001-12-19
  This film Patriot unfairly portrays the Americans as universally noble, fair, kind, heroic, gallant, patriotic warriors who are even nice to their slaves and bravely endeavouring to shake off the yoke of British imperialism. On the other hand, the Brits are depicted as being little more than pompous, civilian-slaughtering Nazis who shoot little children and burn innocent people/ the British are always cowards and on top of that either naive (Cornwallis) or evil (Tavington)
  King George III's favourable treatment of the native Americans was one of the major grievances of the ambitiously expansionist colonial merchants. Another major grievance was the Quebec Act, which allowed the French Canadians to preserve their institutions and language, (while Francophones in USA territory were forcibly assimilated).

  A black man who fights with South Carolina for the cause of freedom. Does it make sense to anyone that a black man would ever fight with a slave state?

  It was ridiculous and unconvincingly that Mel Gibson somehow single handedly kills 20 men,mostly hand-to-hand combat with the help of his sons.

  If you like this movie, then you like U-571 in which the Americans take credit for a British operation.

  There is more

  1) The British were trying to abolish the practice of slavery in the American colonies, and in fact were actively fighting wars against the slave traders in Africa.
  2) The British had signed treaties with the Indians agreeing to stop taking anymore of their land.
  3) The British wanted to stop the practice of bearing arms.

  After the Americans had won the war they continued trading in slaves until almost 100 years later, they drove all the Indians off their lands, and they wrote a clause into the declaration permitting the carrying of arms. Kind of makes you wonder which side really was fighting for freedom don't it?
  
  

• Insulting Inaccurate Holywood trash
  By A2TUONQ9UPTJCP on 2000-09-12
  Even though I was a Brit I went to see this film with an open mind. I was hoping to see a good epic that would rival Braveheart, Gladiator and Last of the Mohicans. Instead I I found a film with its charachters so one dimensional you would think they were made from card and a plot so predictable even an idiot could guess what would happen next. The Historical inaccuricies were glaring and down right insulting. Banastre Tarleton on who Issacs charachter was based was portryed as a sadistic Nazi (Instead of the distinguished Soldier and hero he was) who shot wounded who burned people in Church's. Sorry that was the Germans in France in 44 Wrong war and Century. The battle scenes were pretty spectacular although unless you are an American you will be ill at all the flag waving that goes on. The dialouge was full of cliches E.G A hithertwo rascist at the end suddenly declaring he was proud to fight alongside a blackman.

  Inshort This is a film that could have been a brilliant epic but instead became an unoriginal Holywood pop corn flick that tries its best to insult the British.
  
  

• Cliche, cliche, cliche
  By on 2000-12-26
  Five minutes into the first time I watched this film I already knew the plot, the story, all the characters, and the ending. It's cliche piled on top of cliche, on top of other cliches that are seen in every action movie since the dawn of time. The only original thing about this movie is the setting. It's beautifully filmed, and Mel Gibson does a great job as the lead character, but perhaps they should have attempted to avoid the same cliches that show up in every movie. Suffice to say, I was very unimpressed by this film, and completely underwhelmed by everything about it. It's not even good enough to be called a rip-off.
  
  
• The Dictionary Definition of Ignorance
  By AMTNB1STQ13QN on 2003-06-19
  First, let me say that this movie is about as accurate and respectful to British, Canadian and American history as Monty Python and the Holy Grail is to the history of the Grail. The scary...no, TERRIFYING difference is that this movie is meant to be taken seriously as everything that is good, true and real about what America is. The writers and directors of this movie chewed up and swallowed the most important event of your history, the very violent birth of your Nation, and defecated out a revenge-driven, Tomahawk-wielding, human flesh-butchering, "Patriot." And what a lucky coincidence that, in the midst of a gigantic slave-whipping machine, we find one cute little farm, with an incredibly good looking "Hero of the Black Slaves". Here he is, living in harmony with the four or five slaves out of God knows how many that he freed, automatically overlooking, if not justifying the mistreatment of all American slaves for the remainder of the movie. Oh, and General Washingtom decrees that all slaves who risk their lives for the country that enslaved them and stare a row of muskets in the face will be just as free as the rest of us! God bless America!
  
  Please don't get me wrong. I am not anti-American. It just angers, baffles and scares me that any patriotic American could actually take in such a sickeningly twisted view of history without feeling outraged, betrayed and violated by Hollywood as many of the the Canadians and Britons who watched it obviously are. Benjamin Martin is their best definition of what a patriotic American is?

  So many reviewers have written "This is just entertainment! Who cares if it's historically accurate? It doesn't need to be completely faithful to its historical background to be entertaining, does it?"

  Let me reword these statements to suit The Patriot:
  "My country's history and heritage are just entertainment! Who cares if the wrongful depiction of Britons as merciless, ultra-violent scumbags and the erasing of slavery and other blackmarks from my Country's history are used to boost my country's already swelling (American) reputation as the Perfect Nation and Savior of the World, as well as increasing the (outside world) view of America as arrogant, ignorant and founded and built on principles of violence? A movie about the very creation of the country I take such fierce pride in doesn't need to be historically accurate and truthful to show America at its best, does it?

  I will close by saying that anyone in America or the world who take pride in this movie need to think these questions over.
  
  

• Great Blu-Ray Title
  By AE4G85QH81AVP on 2007-09-25
  As the dreaded format war continues (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD) I find myself on the Blu-Ray side of the fence because of my purchase of the PS3. I'll be honest, without having purchased the PS3 I would not have adopted either format and would have been content with standard DVD movies.
  
  But now that I have a Blu-Ray player and a 1080p HDTV, I have been hooked and want more. I have been careful in my selection of Blu-Ray Titles, picking up only movies I have yet to watch or great movies that I want to see in HD.
  
  The Patriot did not disappoint. The colors of the movie jump out of the screen and when you can see the fibers flying off of the British soldiers uniforms into the wind as they wait for battle, you know you are watching a great HiDef movie.
  
  Most of the extended scenes do not add to the story and you will understand why they were cut out in the first place.
  
  I've been disappointed in some of the Blu-ray discs I've purchased in the past month, especially when my purchases are the second or third time I will have bought that movie. (VHS, DVD, DVD SE/CE/DC)
  
  But I must say that The Patriot is well worth seeing on Blu-Ray.
  
  
• Yet another patented Mel Gibson anti-British propaganda film
  By A1VD9LIJL4MQAY on 2000-08-18
  Oh dear! And I thought that Braveheart had plumbed the depths of Anglophobia.

  If you want to believe that the British are all unhinged maniacs bent on baby-eating and barbarism, by all means see this movie (you might want to see it as part of a Mel Gibson anti-British marathon along with Braveheart, Gallipoli, Pocahontas, and Chicken Run - yes, Chicken Run, where evil English farmers are shown running what amounts to a concentration camp for Chickens). On the other hand, if you want more for your entertainment than cardboard cut-out villains, thinly-veiled racism and xenophobia, historical inaccuracies galore, and rampant jingoism, you should look elsewhere. Even the horrible 'Revolution' (starring Al Pacino), with its awful dialogue, was better than this tripe. At least that movie didn't feel the need to demonize the 'enemy' in order to gain the audience's sympathy.

  Where 'The Patriot' fails to show much historical accuracy at all, and opts for the most politically correct version of the American Revolution (yes, you read it right - when the British are unfairly demonized in a movie about the American Revolution that's intended primarily for American audiences, that is political correctness), 'Revolution' did at least attempt to portray some of the more unpalatable political realities of the Revolutionary War in a more accurate and fair way.
  
  

• Terrible
  By A14OEEL39F2NMF on 2000-08-20
  This is a story about a revolutionary called "The Patriot", hmm...

  The photography is impressive and especially the first battlefield is breathtakingly pictured. Here the sheer stupidity of warfare is shown, as well as the reason for why regulars were considered more reliable the militia (better discipline). All the little details are in place, the red coats, the "sleeping bag" for the soon to be married as well as references to various historical persons. The action is usually well co-ordinated, in particular the scene were they describe by pictures rather then words why Gibsons character is a man people used to fear. However his berserk rage cools quickly and he once again becomes the calculating guerrilla officer.

  The actors fill their parts, Gibson is greying but still strong and honest, the son is handsome, and his love chaste and the rest (of the American part of the cast) have endearing features, even those that are somewhat unwashed.

  So far the film comes together well, the first quarter or so is entertaining, then it falls apart. It really does not matter if you have all the details correct when the big picture is completely out of focus. That the only person in South Caroline who seems to own a slave is described as a despicable exeption to the norm, as well as the prejudice filled soldier who in the end comes to terms with his black brother in arms, comes across as somewhat false. There would be another war before black rights within the US were begun to be addressed and a hundred years from that conflict there were forms of segregation in many American states that had been outlawed in Britain before the start of the war for independence. The French aid (not only of a fleet, but also of supplies and troops) is downplayed and the sole Frenchmen is there more for comic relief then to be a hero. In all this rewriting of history (only a few examples give here) the fact that the colonists are portrayed with many very modern views and are nothing like the people I studied when I read about the period is almost to small a detail to mention.

  This is a film about a war that were the start of a on the whole very positive thing, the United States, but the director seems afraid to say anything that might appear damaging to the "heroes" of the era. Instead they have created a fairytale story about a war fought on one side by heroes and on the other by scum and idiots. There are entertaining parts but on the whole it is only depressing. I could not help but think of ID4, especially the president's speech ("...today we celebrate our independence..."). The film is like that speech, only more the two hours long with only the occasional break for action. If you like "On Dangerous Ground" (Steven Seagal) because of its realism, "The Postman" (Kevin Costner) for its great story and think John Wayne the greatest actor ever to have lived this is a film for you. Otherwise hitting your head against a wall is more pleasant then living through this spectacle.
  
  

• Patriot is trash fest
  By on 2000-11-20
  One of the worst films of the year 2000, this film stinks it stinks because it has no depth or orginality and is purely an excercise in watching Mel Gibson look sensitively into the camera. Please avoid seeing this trash at all costs it has not place in your DVD.
  
  
• What Were The Film Makers Thinking?
  By A2KG8WLR1AKO12 on 2000-12-23
  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.
  
  

• HOLLYWOOD HISTORY
  By A1TZOH3NM04TY1 on 2005-07-25
  This film has nice battle sceens and landscapes, but insults any thinking persons intelligence, especially if your a history buff. There are many flaws with this story. Look at the ending and the whole Whites/Blacks unite nonsense. We're dealing with circa 1776 here. George Washington himself was a slave-owner. Intended to make us all feel 'united,' I suppose - as if. Liberal re-writing of history to fit modern political agendas... Pure propaganda.
  
  
• A FINE NEW CUT!
  By A3VQSFORKH8B7O on 2006-05-02
  As everyone can guess, most of the extra footage incorporated into "The Patriot" is not new, having been on the original DVD release as special features. However, there is some very fascinating new footage during the first half an hour that gives us more insight into the Martin family. But overall, the film is neither better nor worse. The new scenes don't add much to the actual film, but it doesn't take away FROM the film either.
  The extras on the DVD are the same as on both the Special Edition and the Superbit DVD editions, but the film is given picture and sound that's even more dynamic than on the original DVD's.
  Overall, I would recommend this DVD to those who don't own the movie yet. For the others, I recommend they find a place to rent it before making a final decision. But it's still a great new DVD edition of a fantastic film.
  Movie Grade: A+
  DVD Grade: B+
  Overall Grade: A-
  
  

• Black Hawk Down [Blu-ray]
• A Knight's Tale [Blu-ray]
• Hellboy (Director's Cut) [Blu-ray]
• Braveheart [Blu-ray]
• Pearl Harbor [Blu-ray]