There is something wrong with this movie

Rating: Null/10 (1 July 2000)

There is something wrong with this movie. Not that it is badly made or lacking in production values. Indeed, all that money can buy has been generously bestowed on it and, if you are willing to disregard certain things, you will probably spend a good evening. But certain things simply cannot be ignored.
The problem, as others have said, is one of historical truthfulness. Not that one should be too pedantic about the details history : I see nothing inherently wrong in inventing characters and refashioning events, when this is well-done. What, however, is wrong, very wrong, is to accuse people of the past of crimes they did not commit. Nobody will dispute that there is a streak of ruthlessness in the British character and that, during the American Revolution, history records many instances of confiscation, looting and destruction of insurgentsÕ property by British troops, as well as hangings of people actively involved in the patriotic cause. At the same time, that ruthlessness had limits and to suggest that atrocities such as those described in the latter part of the film (systematic slaughter of innocent civilians, including the entire population of a village) could have been been perpetrated by British officers, let alone condoned, if only tacitly, by Lord Cornwallis, is a calculated insult to a great nation to which America owes its deepest cultural roots and which remains one of its closest allies. Furthermore, in the film, those scenes of atrocities are utterly useless, for, already within three minutes of his first appearance, Tavington has done more than enough (and within the limits of the harsh rules of war as they were understood at the time) to fuel Ben MartinÕs spirit of revenge for the rest of the film - and a spinoff TV series, if they care to make one.
Another major problem with THE PATRIOT relates to the rather dubious brand of patriotism which it preaches. Once upon a time, Hollywood knew how to make films celebrating the love of America in such a way as to infectiously communicate it to millions throughout the world. Think of such fine productions as SERGEANT YORK, ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON, among numerous others. Alas, it seems that the recipe has since been lost and that the only forms of expression of patriotism known to contemporary American movie studios are loud, vulgar and unimaginative. Truly, there must be more subtle ways to advertise the love of the US than to wave the Star-Spangled Banner to the sound of blaring fanfares over and over again!...
The most questionable aspect of that newfangled patriotism is its utter insensitivity to the feelings of people of other nations, whose lives are presented as expendable (think of the many tasteless jokes about redcoat-killing in THE PATRIOT...), whereas American lives are treated as sacred and infinitely precious - as if only Americans were fully human... Such a view is both offensive and morally repulsive. I suggest that American movie producers make it a priority to look for ways more respectful of human dignity to enhance a national patriotism which can otherwise be so admirable, and especially for the way in which it succeeds in transcending ethnic and racial differences.
PS For the record : Lord Cornwallis was not an elderly military genius, as depicted in the film, but a YOUNG man (born in 1738, he was not yet 43 when he surrendered at Yorktown...), who owed his position more to his birth than to his professional competence, as well as a liberal gentleman who, in subsequent years, did much for the advancement of the civil rights of Irish Catholics (THAT should be of some interest to Mr. Gibson!)