Revenge, more than Patriotism, seems to be at the core

Rating: 5/10 (27 July 2000)

This film was, as many have commented, beautifully executed in cinematography, score, lighting, and concept, and grandeur of scope. The scope of the scenes was incredible - master filmmaking at its best. I was never quite drawn in, though, by Mel Gibson's character. I didn't quite see the depth of emotion one might expect from the terribly traumatic events that eventually lead him to join the battle, nor from the even more horrific events that follow. I *almost* got there a couple of times, just as Gibson almost did, but never quite made it.
More importantly, though, I was distanced from being immersed in the film by the negative slant on even the most heroic of the characters. Benjamin Martin (Gibson) seemed motivated not by patriotism but by revenge, and the glimpse of the depth of his violence in killing and then continuing to rage at and maim the victim left me feeling sick (as it did him and his boys). Others were motivated by financial gain, others by power; I was sort of hard-pressed to find the character mentioned in the title: the Patriot. Maybe the title was meant to be ironic; maybe the director wanted to make the statement that our history is not as glorious as one has been led to believe (true, of course, but still...). Or maybe the goal was simply to show war so close up (like Saving Private Ryan did) that it will finally sicken and offend enough people to say "Never again". *That* part worked for me: I could barely watch many of the battle scenes, and was sort of offended after all that by the way the music swelled gloriously at the climactic final battle; I almost think that should have been done without any music...
So -- a grand film, but ultimately, for me, a film that left me a little sick.