Braveheart, this isn't!

Rating: 4/10 (30 June 2000)

During the month of June, 2000, Mel Gibson has had the good fortune to be the lead actor (or lead male voice-over) in two movies which opened in the same week: The Patriot and Chicken Run. If anyone, regardless of their age, were to ask me which one they should see, I would answer Chicken Run in a heartbeat, despite the fact that The Patriot is twice the length. It was just that bad a movie. There are a few positive aspects of The Patriot, including startlingly good acting by almost every cast member, as well as some very impressive cinematography. Unfortunately, the bad far outweighs the good in this case, as even the hard work of Mel Gibson and Tcheky Karyo, one of Europe's most beloved actors, could not overcome a severely poorly written script and remarkably bad direction. The problem with the screenplay is that it lacked everything Braveheart had: believability, emotion, and raw power. The Patriot was a huge, jumbled cliche from beginning to end. The "bad guy" was far too sinister to evoke any kind of emotion other than apathy. The combat scenes were reminiscent in their scale of Saving Private Ryan, only The Patriot did not offer the same level of startling realism, so the excessive violence was more nauseating or comical than powerful. Each advancement of the plot was crafted to either make you shed tears of sorrow or tears of joy, except that an hour into the film, one wonders when the ride is finally going to end. Thus, comparing this movie to Braveheart seals this movie's fate forever. Where Braveheart is visually stunning, The Patriot only tries to be. Where Braveheart is an emotion-evoking masterpiece, The Patriot is a hackneyed, two-bit story. Where Braveheart is unforgettable for its dramatic and inspiration character, The Patriot is unforgettable for its remarkable example of how to write and direct the perfect cliche. I gave this movie a 4.