What ever happened to historical accuracy?

Rating: Null/10 (30 June 2000)

As much as I love the filmgoing experience, one thing I will never be able to accept is Hollywood's insistence on painting everything in stark black and white. Believe it or not, there are those of us out there who don't need to be force-fed when it comes to deciding who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, and yet Hollywood filmmakers insist on lineating plotlines to the extent that the "heroes" are completely spotless while the "villains" are all totally vile monsters, regardless of whether or not these portrayals have any grounds in fact. This concept is exemplified perfectly in "The Patriot," wherein Mel and his cronies save the free world from the evil clutches of the vile British Empire. Don't get me wrong; I believe that the American cause was a just one and I'm very proud to call myself an American, but I'm also very proud of my English heritage, and the constant portrayal of the British as the antagonists every time I turn around tends to wear a little thin, especially when it's taken to the extremes shown in "The Patriot."
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW***
For example, no British officer would *ever* order the mass execution of wounded enemy soldiers, period. It simply *would not,* and *did not* happen. Any historian worth his or her salt will tell you the same. Also, the intentional firing of a church - especially with innocent civilians trapped inside - would be grounds for execution amongst the ranks of the British army, and certainly would not have been condoned by any British officer, least of all General Cornwallis, who was, by all accounts, a fair and honorable man (in the movie's defense, they did start his character out as such, at least).
Another issue I had with the film was the development of Gibson's character. Close to the beginning of the film, we see a side of him which promises some interesting development later on in the film (I won't say exactly what), but, surprisingly, this *rather extreme* side of his persona never surfaces again, even when you most think it might. This left me feeling rather let down, and disappointed that a very promising sub-plot had been ignored.
Something that I *did* enjoy about the film was the constant use of John Woo-style action sequences. Normally I'm annoyed by such shameless rips-off, but I felt that it was used very appropriately here. It's been while since I've seen so many various weapons flying up to meet outstretched hands in slow motion (well, except for M:I2, but if you're a Woo fan like me, yuo're pretending that that one enver happened). You might think that such things would be out of place in a historical epic; on the contrary, I felt that it breathed a much-needed new life into what could easily have been nothing but a collection of over-used cliches.
In short, this was by far Roland Emmerich's best film to date, and if you can take it at face value as a traditional 'good guy vs. bad guy' revenge tale then you won't be disappointed. However, if you're looking for a historical epic in which the characters require a little more thought to decide who the good guys are, if there are any at all, check out Kaige Chen's "The Emperor and the Assassin." You won't be disappointed.