The Patriot (2000) Reviews

• Engrossing Revolutionary War tale, though not historical

  roghache2006-04-13

  Being Canadian, I probably know fewer details of the Revolutionary War than the average U.S. viewer, but note that many seem absolutely outraged at the historical untruths of this movie. When I watched it, I personally found it quite captivating but always have enough sense not to get my history from Hollywood. Since my viewing, I've looked up some info and note various inaccuracies such as misplaced characters, exaggeration of British atrocities, inaccurate torching of a church with townsfolk inside being burned alive, and depiction of American owned slaves being freed to serve in the Continental Army. (Apparently, it was the British who promised to free them if they joined their forces, but later reneged.) My apologies if my facts aren't straight. It's the FICTIONAL story of a widowed South Carolina farmer, Benjamin Martin, who is disgusted by his past supposedly heroic deeds during the French Indian Wars. He has resolved to avoid participation when the Colonies revolt against Britain and stay home to protect his seven children. However, he witnesses atrocities against his two older sons, Gabriel and Thomas, by the cruel British Colonel Tavington. Gabriel, the oldest, has joined the battle against the Redcoats early on, been captured, and sentenced by Tavington to hang. Thomas, the second son, attempts to free Gabriel as he is being taken away, only to be killed by Tavington right in front of his father. This forces the reluctant Benjamin into the fray, organizing a local militia group of farmers and ex Indian fighters who will tie up the British until the French arrive. Mel Gibson gives a moving portrayal of the father who is driven into a battle he sought to avoid in order to protect his family from the British. For me, his personal and family story is the essence of the tale. Just as one would expect, Benjamin Martin comes across as very sympathetic and heroic. Apparently this character is sort of a composite of possibly three different real men of that era. The film has wonderful period costumes, though also (like Gibson's earlier Braveheart) more than enough violence for my taste. However, it did bring to life for me the Revolutionary War, unfortunately in a purely fictional rather than historical way. Though I enjoyed this picture, it seems to have taken a lot of liberties with the truth. The movie should therefore be considered strictly as entertainment, not a history lesson.

  More

• Good but ........

  Zal-52000-07-10

  The Patriot is technically a good movie. Nicely made with good characters, good acting, a strong storyline and fabulous cinematography. But, to say this movie distorts history would be an understatement. And that is extremely sad in a movie that sells itself as an accurate portrayal of events during the revolution. The Patriot, unfortunately, crosses the line and try's to portray as 'actual fact' a film which is predominantly fictional. Hence, the 'real life' equivalent of Benjamin Martin actually used to scalp Native Americans in his spare time (a fact neatly overlooked by the director). This 'rose tinted' view of history is at its worst during the church-burning scene where a British Army officer ordered the murder of many innocent civilians by locking them in a church and setting it alight. This event never took place and yet, thanks to The Patriot, a whole generation of Americans will believe that the British Army actually committed this horrendous act in South Carolina -- when in fact history shows that it was not the British Army that burned a church full of people in 1776 but the Nazis that did during WW2. As a Brit, I don't so much mind Hollywood always portraying us as the 'bad guys' -- after all it is American money making these films -- I'm more concerned that some Americans actually believe what they watch. This is especially true in movies like The Patriot which 'pretend' to be real. It's a shame that in such a technically competent movie, which pays such attention to minutiae detail like the costumes, that something as significant as the accuracy of the screenplay could have been so grotesquely overlooked.

  More

• Heroes and Villains

  JamesHitchcock2007-03-09

  "The Patriot", the story of an American farmer who fights in the War of Independence, is sometimes used, together with "Braveheart", as evidence of a supposed anti-British prejudice on the part of Mel Gibson. This is perhaps unfair to Gibson, who has gone on record as supporting the ties between Australia and the British monarchy (hardly the stance of a Brit-hating bigot). Although "Braveheart", which he produced and directed, was very much Gibson's own pet project, he was neither the producer, director or scriptwriter of "The Patriot". Indeed, he was not even first choice to play the lead. The producers originally wanted Harrison Ford who turned the part down, reportedly because he felt that the script turned the American Revolution into the story of one man's quest for revenge. Because of its anti-British stance, the film was badly received in Britain. One newspaper accused it of blackening the character of the British officer Banastre Tarleton who served as the inspiration for the villainous Colonel Tavington. One commentator went so far as to say that it was the sort of film that the Nazis might have made about the American Revolution had they won World War II. Unlike some of my fellow-countrymen, I was not too worried about this aspect of the film. The total death toll in the American War of Independence was remarkably low, not only by modern standards but even by the standards of other wars of this era, such as the Napoleonic War. Nevertheless, in every war ever fought there have been crimes on both sides, and the War of Independence was no exception. (The rebels could be as ruthless as the British, but none of their atrocities are shown in this film). Some of the deeds attributed to Tavington may be fictitious, such as the church-burning scene, but in real life Tarleton had a well-deserved reputation for brutality, and was not only loathed by the American colonists but also distrusted by his own side. In the film the British commander Lord Cornwallis is shown as outwardly gentlemanly and honourable, but prepared secretly to countenance Tavington's methods. In reality, Cornwallis wanted to have Tarleton court-martialled; Tarleton was only saved by his influential connections. I did, however, have some reservations about the way these events were portrayed. It was originally intended to make the film about Francis Marion, a real-life figure. Unfortunately Marion, although undoubtedly courageous and a skilled guerrilla leader, was also a slave-owner (as any landowner of substance in 1770s South Carolina would have been) and was therefore deemed unworthy to be the hero of a modern blockbuster (even though a TV series about him was made in the fifties). His exploits, therefore, are credited to a fictitious "Benjamin Martin". The slavery issue could have been avoided by moving the action to, say, New England, but instead the film gives us a wholly unrealistic picture of race relations in the period. The black workers on Martin's land are all free men, and black and white live together in harmony, with black soldiers willingly fighting alongside whites in the Continental Army. This sort of dishonest, idealised portrayal of slavery was at one time common in films like "Gone with the Wind", but I thought that it had died out with the growth of the Civil Rights movement. (Incidentally, a reason why so many Southerners supported the revolutionaries was that slavery had been declared illegal in Britain itself in 1771 and they feared that the British Parliament would eventually legislate to ban it in the colonies. Needless to say, there is no mention of this attitude in the film. In later life Tarleton became MP for Liverpool, and a vehement defender of slavery. In this, if in nothing else, he and Marion had something in common). My other reservation about the film's political stance is similar to Ford's. The film probably concentrated so heavily on British brutality because it is difficult to interest a modern audience, even an American audience, in the actual reasons why the war was fought. It is easy to make out an intellectual case for the principle of "no taxation without representation", which had been part of British constitutional thought since at least the Civil War in the 1640s. It is much less easy to justify the spilling of blood in defence of that principle, and Martin, scarred by his experiences in the French and Indian Wars, is originally shown as a pacifist, unwilling to fight or to support the Declaration of Independence which he believes will lead to war. His son Gabriel, however, joins the Continental Army, but is wrongly accused of being a spy and threatened with execution. Tavington, believing Martin to be a rebel sympathiser, burns down his home and murders another son, Thomas. Martin is forced to take up arms to defend his family and then forms a guerrilla band which he leads against the British. Despite the title of the film, however, Martin is not really motivated by patriotism; he seems less a patriot than a pacifist who has abandoned his principles in order to seek revenge. The film is attractively photographed, although I felt that it sometimes showed a sanitised, prettified version of eighteenth-century life. In some ways it reminded me of "The Last Samurai", another visually attractive epic flawed by a dishonest approach to history and by excessive length, although I would rate it slightly higher, largely because Gibson makes a more commanding and impressive epic hero than does Tom Cruise. From the viewpoint of anyone without patriotic preconceptions, it can be seen simply as an exciting (if overlong) adventure film- my wife, who is not British by birth, was cheering on Martin and booing Tavington. Nevertheless, its approach to history never gets beyond a simplified story of heroes and villains. 6/10

  More

• Liked it - see below

  cleverfox2008-04-02

  Just watched this movie for about the 20th time (I have it on TiVo) and for the life of me I cannot find the disdain many who have written here have commented on. Last I heard, this was FICTION - NOT a documentary; Ken Burns did not produce not write nor direct nor narrate this piece - Roland Emmerich, a man known for action FICTION did. Yes the depiction of the Revolutionary War was NOT 100% accurate but was never intended to be; just a drama set against the background of a war and it was refreshing to see the war in the background, whereupon American blood is spilled on American soil, was the Revolutionary War and not another Civil War piece; indeed, the Civil War has been played so many times in films over the past quarter century it was just refreshing to see a different war.... Being somewhat of a military historian I will say that the depiction of soldiers going musket to musket in the open field was indeed accurate; many may find it interesting to know that according to the gentlemanly practices of King George's army, both sides would also recess for tea at noon every day and resume the fighting afterwards - guerrilla warfare was not popular during the day which is why Gibson's militia unit was so overtly successful early on. That being said, the comments about the accuracy with the muskets are fairly accurate but I will say that I only see straight barrel musket rifles - none of the bell shape tipped muskets; the longer you keep a projectile on a straight course the more accuracy at longer ranges despite the lack of rifling grooves in the barrels (I spent time on Rifle Teams for 5 years). The prime inaccuracy I noted was when Tavington shot the rider (running away on horseback) in the back with a musket pistol at probably 40 yards or more - so unlikely, it tarnished the whole scene. My favorite person - Billings; Leon Rippey's cynical, almost giggly snickering laugh completely stole the every scene where it was used and he is a long term favorite actor of mine; Jason Isaacs absolutely best screen villain of this movie (and perhaps in top 10 screen villains of all time). I guess it boils down to "different strokes for different folks" we all have our opinions on this and I've aired mine.

  More

• Try to see it as entertainment and not as a source of knowledge...

  philip_vanderveken2005-06-22

  I've always had a weak spot for historically inspired dramas. I like movies like for instance "Braveheart", "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven". I don't like them because they give me some good insight on what that time period was like. Most of them aren't very accurate and if I want to know more about the real history, I'll watch some documentaries or read a couple of books. No, I watch this movies to be entertained and that's also the most important thing I focus on when reviewing this kind of movies: Did I like what I saw or was it boring as hell? The story of the "The Patriot" is situated in South Carolina in 1776. Benjamin Martin, a hero from the French-Indian war who has recently buried his wife, is haunted by his notoriously brutal past. He decides not to take part in the American Revolution against the British, because he wants to protect his family and doesn't want to leave them behind fatherless. When one of his sons, who earlier on had enlisted against his will, returns home, it all starts to go terribly wrong. The son is arrested by the British Colonel Tavington and accused of being a spy. He will be executed, but before it comes to that point, one of Benjamin's other sons runs towards the soldiers and is instantly killed. This makes Martin decide to enlist anyway and he becomes the leader of a makeshift militia, which consists of peasants, slaves, a minister and other irregulars. They are successful in their fights, but will all soon be confronted with the personal consequences... As I already said in the introduction, I'm not looking for historical accuracy, because I know I'll not find it in movies like this one. Hollywood has a tradition of changing the actual facts, to make a movie look more appealing for the audience and I'm sure the same has happened more than once with this movie as well. No, what I want is entertainment and THAT, I did get. Some major battle scenes, some drama, the obvious patriotism, some decent acting,... it can all be found in this movie and I must say that I liked it (most of the time). The main problem that I had with this movie was the sometimes oh so obvious struggle for the American hearts. It's almost like if they forget that there are also people outside the USA who will watch their movies. All the Americans are good and all the English, French,... are bad and arrogant. Perhaps the American audience needs such stereotypes in order to be able to identify themselves with that fierce warrior on the big silver screen, but personally I can see past that fake patriotism. Nevertheless, this is an entertaining movie and I would say that it sure offers some good value for your money if you aren't looking for too much historical accuracy. The acting and most of the story (like for instance the part in which he loses his boy) are touching and more than OK. Overall I liked what I saw and that's why I give this movie a 7.5/10. It's no masterpiece, but it sure is better than average.

  More