A magnificent anachronism, both the man and the film

Rating: 9/10 (20 May 2009)

This film is simply amazing. It is my favorite war film, and easily one of my favorite films of any genre.
I really can add nothing to what has already been said about Scott's phenomenal performance. However, I believe some of the criticisms expressed by other reviewers are not quite being fair to this film. I do not at all believe this film is an example of gung-ho American supremacy at the expense of the British contribution to the war, as some have alleged. I suspect the major reason for this allegation stems from the portrayal of Montgomery as being pompous and dismissive of American capability. Patton himself (in the film) answers this critique nicely, by stating that both he and Montgomery are primadonnas, the only difference is that Monty wouldn't admit it. Further, in one scene where his subordinates were joking about the poor capabilities of both the Americans and the British, Rommel reminded them that Monty had pushed his army clear across the desert.
But ultimately, remember this is a biopic and you are seeing the events of the war from Patton's perspective. Patton may have complained of the British not providing enough air cover, or of Monty trying to keep all the glory to himself, but that is countered by dialogue suggesting that Eisenhower knows Patton is not seeing the whole picture and is basically just Patton being Patton. In other words, what some see as Brit-bashing is really just a portrayal of Patton's historical assertions, rather than some sort of cinematic whitewashing with pro-American revisionism. It is really only natural that supremely confident, brilliant, but egotistical men like Monty and Patton would vie with one another in pursuit of a common cause, and let us be glad we had them both.