it's Hollywood

Rating: 3/10 (30 June 2000)

After I left the theatre, I was wondering why I went to see this movie in the first place; I think I was another victim of a movie trailer that seemed interesting. I'm quite happy I was able to secure student admission (5.50) as opposed to the 7.00 regular price because, in a sense, "The Patriot" was worth about 1/2 of every penny. I got the feeling that Gibson extorted the $15 odd million contract from the producer as a sort of insurance against the movie being a failure. In this case, it was a good idea on his part. I'd hate to see a decent actor's reputation get trashed...like the case of John Travolta and "Battelfield Earth".
the Bad about "The Patriot": (1)It's an inferior remake of Braveheart, set in America. 'Nuff said. (2)Dialogue. They paid Mel Gibson millions to spout cheesy one liners. Not just any one liners, we're talking about one liners of the same calibre of Harrison Ford's "Get off my plane" in Air Force One. One liners like you hear emanating from Bruce Campbell in "Evil Dead 3, Army of Darkness" (ie "Gimme some sugar, baby"). Other characters, like the reverend, have the same problem: "A shepherd has to defend his flock *meaningful pause* and sometimes fight off the wolves". (3)Plot: Sappy and unoriginal. The beginning scenes with the boy getting shot, house burning down, for example, were presented with little emotion; their only purpose was to turn Gibson from pacifist farmer to raging Revolutionary Rambo (hence comes the movie poster shot of Gibson loaded down with lots of muskets). (4)Historical Inaccuracy. Ok, I'm pretty anal about history, just read my review of U-571. On the other hand, I can accept artistic license. But when Hollywood starts rewriting history to puff up the good ol' USA image, it becomes a bit more than artistic license. I mean, the Brits are already up in arms about U-571 and the Patriot! If World War III between Europe and the United States is started by Hollywood, I said it first! ok, on to a few of the inaccuracies: -I seriously doubt that Tarleton massacred a village by burning them in a church or was nearly as brutal as he was portrayed in the film.
-In a similar vein, the Brits were portrayed as pretty bad. I guess the directors were scrounging for 'villains' (when in the Revolutionary war there were none) and decided to just vilify the British. Hey, its easy, fast, and cheap. -Until the advent of rifling in barrels, muskets were not very accurate. Revolutionary warfare was basically portrayed accurately in the film; the problem came up in the scene where Gibson and Sons slaughter 20 red coats with their sniper muskets. Not to mention all the guerrilla warfare where the colonials kill a red coat nearly every second with no casualties.
Good things: -the Battle Scenes were incredible. Bloody, epic, and very very cool. -Good acting by most of the cast, including Gibson et le francais. -Neat-O special effects.
Basically it boils down to entertainment that is severely marred by unoriginal directing and writing (ok, this is the same team who made the American "Godzilla", what should I expect?). Don't see it unless it's a matinee.