The Patriot is not very "Patriotic".

Rating: 3/10 (11 February 2010)

Note: I would've rated this a 1, since it was what it deserved but note it is certainly not the worst movie I saw.
It just sucked =(
What I want to begin with is the positives of the Patriot then we'll play down the negatives. OK, there is nothing good about the movie. I cannot even begin to say how bad it was. If I were you, I would most definitely not let my students watch this or anyone excluding the people who would want to mock this film.
The action was cheap and fake; the uniforms looked so stiff like they were plastic or something and the backgrounds is like paintings. That said enough on the outside; let's proceed with the actual facts and ideas behind the movie.
Again, it is not very "accurate", in fact, it probably contradicts everything you have told us about the Revolutionary War. My first question is, why would they make up fictional characters when the historical figures are right there? And the film never actually includes that many known characters at that time. The only person in there I knew was Cornwallis. They also used tactics and tricks that are very controversial and not really probable. The characters were all pretty flat, I wouldn't care if they died or something. They were also pretty badly drawn out from history. Benjamin Martin was not a nice guy like how he was portrayed. Tavington was probably the worst character, all he had was one intent, to take revenge on Ben and it is just not interesting. Real soldiers, especially colonels would have much higher priorities and would value bigger problems over one man.
Would you honestly say that colonial militia would put up fake cotton filled depictions of British officers 100m away from Cornwallis and he would actually buy it? My guess is no, and I'm guessing so is yours. Then why would they do that? Again, I guess it was a low budget production film that is an inaccurate, shallow action flick that insults the actual events that took place.
I promised you some positives so I would briefly mention it since there is actually not much substance here. The only good part is the brutality of the film. I'm not saying violence is good and we should encourage it, but at that time it may have been the most appropriate. But unfortunately, that again brings back the negatives. Whenever the militia shoots it's like an expert marksmen shooting at a range like 1 ft away from him. They never miss. But the British, they are like losers with guns that have like bullets leaking out like water out of a broken pipe and its wood or something. This is probably the most inaccurate fact in the movie, since it was just the opposite.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're pretty tired of me droning about how horrible the film was (even though it was =)), but I mean it's true. I find it offensive and not helpful, perhaps the only reason you would let us see it was to tell you how bad it was and compare. So yeah, salute!
Another note: This is a report to my Social Studies teacher.