bad history vs big action

Rating: 4/10 (17 November 2013)

It's 1776 South Carolina. Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) is a war hero and living in peace on his plantation. His son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) joins the Continental Army without his permission. After a battle, he treats his son Gabriel, and both Regulars and Colonials. The brutal Colonel William Tavington (Jason Isaacs) burns down his plantation and kills his son Thomas (Gregory Smith). This drives him to seek revenge.
Should I ignore the bad history and enjoy the big action? That's the question here. I can ignore demonizing the Brits, or the cartoon villain. Maybe they didn't burn down a church. Maybe the characters are cartoons. Who cares? That's going to happen in any war movie. What I can't stomach is portrayal of slavery. They try to sidestep the issue by proclaiming all the blacks working on the plantation are actually free men. It really rang hollow. I rolled my eyes and tried to move on.
The action is terrific. One thing Roland Emmerich knows is big time action. He doesn't disappoint. I could still side with big action. It's still fun and games. The real Martin be damn. But every time a black person gets a scene, or blacks get a mention, the whole movie grinds up against reality. The movie tries desperately to excuse it away, and it's an awkward attempt every time.
Mel Gibson tries to Braveheart the American revolution. The problem is they run into the problem of slavery. While its good to root for the underdog Scots in Braveheart, the ignored underdog in this movie are actually the slaves. This movie tries to sidestep it and gentrify it up for modern mass consumption. But at some point, the issue cannot be ignored. I've got to say bad history wins out over big action.