Good character study, though a somewhat childish view of World War II

Rating: 7/10 (6 October 2017)

Coming from the height of the Vietnam War, this very optimistic- spirited light-feeling war movie comes to feel somewhat out of place. At the time it came out, it might have been seen as a welcome retread to the gung-ho jingoistic war movies of the 50's and 60's with squeaky-clean heroism from the G.I.'s and sneering incompetence from the Germans. Also, the depictions of the battles in this movie, while often spectacular, feel pretty inaccurate and simplified for anyone who bothered to read a little more than the 9th-grade general-ed history books. It's almost as though the film just isn't interested so much in the war. The war is just a backdrop for the showcase of this complicated man.
It's of another time, an era from before when history got complicated and we started really re-evaluating things... who the heroes of the war were and what really makes a man a 'hero'. How interesting is it to show people who never waver in confidence in the face of battle and never seem to fail? How responsible was Patton for the collapse of the 3rd Reich compared to the vast scale of the warfare waged by the Russians on the Eastern Front, not to mention the many who served above and below him? Was he just a cog in the machine or a truly extraordinary individual? This movie tells us the latter, but doesn't really tell us why or how beyond just all the other officers around him behaving like comparative imbeciles.
That said, the film is wonderfully acted. George C. Scott was the perfect choice for the role and as long as the film focuses on him and his complicated relationship with the media, his fellow generals and allies, it works well. It just feels awfully dumbed-down to me in its depiction of the actual battles. PATTON may be a step up from THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE in terms of how well it technically pulls everything off, but just about on-par with it in terms of giving history credit where credit is due.