Excellent movie set in the Revolution

Rating: Null/10 (10 June 2003)

As a RevWar "buff", I am very grateful this movie was made, no matter what anyone says. It's about time the RevWar got some attention in film (or anywhere else, for that matter). I guess this makes about 4 feature films that have *ever* been made in the history of movies (and I am a movie fan - oldies, not so much today) completely devoted to the fighting itself. I saw the movie 3 times in 11 days - and I am not at all a contemporary movie fan. (I also saw it later in a 2nd-run joint.) That's more than I usually visit a theater in a whole year. There are indeed problems w/the film and I could go on and on; but they are mostly details, some of which aren't so important. I'll review by opposing the lambasting critiques it got when it came out.
1st, the historical "snobs" (I can't come up w/a better term for it, I got so tired of the nit-picking). Yes, there are many details wrong, or omitted. Wrong flags/too numerous, too many clean pretty-boy tents and uniforms for what should be down-trodden rebels, failing to recognize that indeed there were myriad kinds of "uniforms" (including civilian clothes) for the rebels NOT blue-faced-red, red coats on green-coated Loyalist dragoons, no actual mention of any battle that occurs here (don't look at the DVD cover - you'll see they never mention a battle/place name for any of the action in the movie except an occasional printed intro - and at best any of them are amalgams of several battles), not allowing real-life Continental (not militia) officer Daniel Morgan credit for "shoot twice, then scoot", slaves vs freemen on Gibson's farm (still don't know the truth there), using giant siege pieces on battlefield, British marching like baton&drum parade corps, etc, etc, etc. But the basics really aren't too bad, considering it is a fictional account. At least they had fewer of those powdered wigs than really existed, and the action was somewhat realistic. And they showed that slaves could earn their freedom (not to mention the freemen who fought). And like it or not, Tarleton (Tavington) was really hated and feared, church-burning or not. The feel of the movie is less fake than any RevWar or such-period movie I've seen. Of course, there haven't been many, but still, it felt very real, despite all I can criticize.
2nd, the political snobs. I won't even get into this; let's just say self-flagellating Americans hate this movie because it represents the birth of a nation they seem to despise, and they despise most the people who gave it birth. They hate that it seems so clear-cut that "Americans" (rebels) could be the "good guys". The British can be mad if they want, but oh well, what is to be expected? Why do Americans have to make nice-nice w/their own stories involving enemies? Every other nationality gets a pass, don't they? As a fictional John Adams said "this is a revolution, dammit; we have to offend somebody!" Of course, everyone ignores the fact that no one in this movie is shown to be a monster except Tavington; Cornwallis and the colonel and other of the British officers are shown for what they were: basically civilized gentlemen in a bad situation. They are reasonably sympathetic characters. I also liked that this was set in the southern colonies, rather than the stereotypical New England (which had hardly any major fighting other than starting it). Now, there's some new and interesting realism!
3rd, the violence snobs. As if desperate to keep people from seeing the film, cries went out about how "violent" this movie is. Nonsense. This is 1 of the tamest movies which naturally involves violence in ages. There is no glorying in gore, no zeroing in on some disgusting detail and holding there for 10 seconds+. The most gruesome for me frankly, was Mel going to town on the poor British guy - yet even that was more old-style movie, merely showing blood spattering on Mel rather than even once showing the hapless victim at all. As for the much-bemoaned head-lopping, that is fleeting, as is the identical leg-lopping from another skipping cannon ball. They are shown for 1 second, hardly counting as gory, but enough to impact you on how bad this was. On this last part, I find it interesting how this movie was panned for being "too violent", yet "Saving Private Ryan" wasn't. Well, guess who wrote it? Yup, same guy. Yet Rodat's "SPR" was much more gruesome than his "Patriot". There was deliberate focus on the horror of wounds. (Ever forget that guts-spilling episode w/blood coming out all over the guy's torso and out his mouth as t he others tried to help him after an ambush? We had to watch his wounds for upwards of 3 minutes. It was horrible.) Yet that Spielberg WWII movie was hailed as "merely showing the true horror of war; it's good for everyone", whereas apparently a RevWar movie w/minimal gore is not allowed to do that.
Outside these facets, I'd also mention outside the violence (minimal, of course, considering) that there is absolutely nothing patently offensive about the movie, a miracle in this day and age. There is no sex or any such situations, not even foul mouths. Amazing. It's OK to watch it on a date; no embarrassing and humiliating situations! And no fear about children walking in on it - only the stressful situations and fleeting violence make it unsuitable for younger kids to watch the whole thing. I can wish for a better, more accurate, more comprehensive movie on my favorite war, but this was a keeper. It did very well by me. I was so afraid I'd be cringing, but I wasn't. In fact, it's a great emotional story, too. When I can cry about the death of a character only 20 minutes into the film, that's pretty good. A very good movie, 1 of my all-times.