A racist and jingoistic attempt at an historical epic. I don't recommend it!

Rating: 2/10 (18 July 2000)

This film has courted a lot of controversy in the UK about its anti-English content, so it was against my better judgement that I decided to go and see it. My immediate reaction is that the film is jingoistic, racist and xenophobic. I'm not just saying that because I happen to be English - I would criticize any film that is so blatantly racist against ANY nationality. However, as an Englishman, I find myself deeply insulted. In much the same manner as Braveheart, the English are portrayed as either foppish cowards, or psychopathic and sadistic killers. Are American audiences so gullible and shallow that they actually believe this?
The Colonel Tavington character is almost a comic-book caricature of evil. Apparently, his descendents are demanding an apology from the film-makers - and I can't blame them. The church-burning atrocity in the film certainly NEVER happened in the American independence war. It WAS actually committed by the Nazi SS in a French village during WWII - perhaps German director Roland Emmerich should learn something of his own history! The treatment of black slaves in the film is truly bizarre. They are seen smiling and happy as they work in the fields - even telling an English officer in one instance that they are not actually slaves at all! Another slave is fighting for the colonists in the belief that he will be freed once the cause is won. In fact, slavery was not abolished in the US for another 70 years (some 50 years after it was abolished in the British Empire!).
Its not so much the historical inaccuracy that bothers me (for instance, the recent Ridley Scott epic Gladiator contained numerous historical errors, but was nonetheless a superb film). It was more the jingoism and national stereotyping. One gets the impression that American audiences (whom I assume this film was aimed at) will not accept any film that doesn't contain American heroes fighting against foreign (preferably English) villains! Where the Brits are fighting on the same side as Americans, they are air-brushed out of history (e.g U-571, Saving Private Ryan). The scary thing is that far more people watch films like this - and actually BELIEVE them - than bother to read a history book. How would Americans react if Britain made a film showing American GI's committing horrendous atrocities against Vietnamese civilians, who are bravely trying to defend their small country against the might of American imperialism? There would be uproar in America no doubt!
On a more positive note, the cinematography of the film is rather good, and the battle scenes are handled excellently. There is certainly plenty of action throughout the film to keep things rolling. Mel Gibson handles himself well as usual in the lead role of Benjamin Martin - though the pained expression he often exhibits has been seen many times before (e.g. Braveheart, Ransom, Mad Max). Heath Ledger also does a good job as Benjamin's son. The love interest is provided somewhat woodenly by Joely Richardson - oddly playing the sister of Benjamin's dead wife.
On the whole, this film might have been passable were it not for the jingoism and racism. Like Emmerich's previous film Independence Day, this film can be safely dismissed as pro-American propaganda. I give it 2 out of 10.