The Patriot | | Cast : | Mel Gibson | | Director : | Roland Emmerich | | Studio : | Columbia/Tristar Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Widescreen, Dolby | | Released Date : | June 28, 2000 | | DVD Released Date : | June 19, 2001 | | Language : | English (Subtitled), English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), English (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | August 03, 2005 | | Summary | Propaganda - Plain and Simple | Content
 | 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! |
| Rating | | | Date | July 28, 2005 | | Summary | Historically Flawed | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 25, 2005 | | Summary | HOLLYWOOD HISTORY | Content
| 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. |
| Rating | | | Date | July 24, 2005 | | Summary | One of the best movies avaliable currently on the Amercian Revolution | Content
| I have a deep desire to see more movies made based on the American Revolution. I have many of the more factual types of movies from THE HISTORY CHANNEL & PBS.
I would enjoy seeing more movies made around this era for my entertainment as well. The cast was excellent and the drama was intense. |
| Rating | | | Date | June 21, 2005 | | Summary | Insulting to Britain and to Americans' intelligence | Content
| Attempts have been made to vindicate the historical realism of this film. Those who have so attempted would profit by a more informed understanding of the American Revolution. This film is an insult as much to Britain as to America. In its attitude to the former it is simply racist. It blankets the British as war criminals and has not a single sympathetic British character. Even Cornwallis is shown as conniving in butchery. As to the Americans, the film seems to imply that American audiences can only feel patriotism when their country's past is white washed and fact cast to the wind.
The historical mutilations are numerous and have been well explored. British soldiers, it may be argued, did commit crimes. They did indeed. They raped and murdered throughout the continent as soldiers are extremely liable to do. It is also true that many lower ranked officers (not the commanders) connived in their crimes. However, while this must be admitted, it should also be admitted that the Americans were in no way blameless of war crimes. Their Revolution was built upon coercion of those who did not stand in favour of war with Britain. Such loyalists were tarred and feathered, imprisoned and hanged. During the war itself, the guerilla war in the South saw no mercy from partisans - loyalist and rebel - on either side. Leaders like Clarke, Sumter and Fox hanged as many men as Tarleton and Wemyss. Why remove the ambiguities of the period, which would provide the more intense and intelligent drama?
The South Carolina of the film is a fiction. The revolutionary leaders of the state, like Henry and John Laurens, were rich gentlemen who lived on the proceeds of slave labour on their rice plantations. These plantations dominated the lowlands of the state and blacks outnumbered whites in these areas overwhelmingly. The rice crops were raised on marsh lands and the mortality rate was enormous. This is forgotten. There are vitually no blacks. They have been written out of the revolution! In trying to be politically correct, the film is incredibly racist. It has ignored the struggle of over half the state's inhabitants. Why? Because they were black and slaves.
As far as they receive any mention at all, the hero has free blacks, his sister in law has free blacks and one black slave serves in the militia. No blacks were allowed into the South Carolina militia. They served the British army, however, in large numbers. Even though they were very badly treated they consistently preferred to fight for their freedom under the British flag, not the liberty-loving stars and stripes wielded by a slaveocracy.
Holywood's abuse of the British is libellous. America has given much to the world. Why cannot they acknowledge that Britain has done the same? Why cannot they admit that the Revolution was not a simple division of freedom and slavery, of good and evil. Americans may have fought in the name of freedom, and certainly George Washington and many others were noble souls and worthy of remembrance. But in the name of this freedom Americans also strengthened slavery in the South so that it outlasted that of the British Caribbean for another thirty years, and only after 600,000 men died over it. In the name of freedom Indians were abused, murdered and displaced. In the name of freedom those who exercised their right of conscience and decided not to seperate from the mother country were persecuted and driven from their homes.
The revolution is ambiguous and all the more interesting for it. This film could have done justice to it. Instead, it has only added to an abusive and smug myth-making.
|
|
Picture 01 (20)
