An entertaining movie but not a history lesson

Rating: 10/10 (4 July 2000)

Brig. Gen. Francis Marion, the historical person that Mel Gibson's character is loosely based on was a true war hero and patriot. The ones who are denigrating his legacy are mostly British `historians' and those who are too stupid or lazy to do their own research.
Actually, Mel Gibson's Benjamin Martin is a composite of 3 historical characters: one of course was Francis Marion the `Swamp Fox'; another was an illiterate backwoods general, Daniel Morgan, who encouraged the militia at the battle of Cowpens (final battle enacted in the movie) to stand their ground against the British; and the third was a cavalry officer, William Washington, who pursued Tarleton after Cowpens and fought him in hand-to-hand combat, which they both barely survived.
Gen. Marion used tactics that the Brits termed `ungentlemanly' for warfare, but he got the job done, just as the Viet Cong did 200 years later against our own GI's. Marion knew, because of his lack of manpower, equipment, and experienced soldiers, he couldn't take on the superior British forces using outmoded and quaint European-style warfare (in fact, this idiotic style of warfare continued up until WWI). The movie depicts this very well. So Gen. Marion wisely used the only tactics left to him  hit-and-run, which he learned from fighting the Cherokees during the French and Indian Wars.
The movie's villainous Lt. Col. Tavington, who is also loosely based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, is not too far from the truth, though a little over the top.
It was during the retreat of Waxhaws that Tarleton came to symbolize British cruelty in the Revolutionary War. Tarleton was seen as a "butcher" when American forces under Col. Abraham Buford laid down their arms in an attempt to surrender yet the British continued their assault. From then on, his reputation grew and `Tarleton's quarter', in effect, came to mean "no quarter".
In the tradition of the day, after the surrender at Yorktown, American officers hosted the defeated Cornwallis and other British officers at their respective tables. But no American invited Tarleton nor would any eat with him. Tarleton asked if the omission was accidental, and he was told that, indeed it was not, because of his past atrocities.
Tarleton lived a long life, condoning his use of total war  burning houses, destroying crops, the end justifying the means. He also would never admit to any fault at Cowpens, saying he was `outnumbered' and received inadequate assistance from Cornwallis. He wondered, "how some unforeseen event" could "throw terror into the most disciplined soldiers".
I didn't go into this movie for a history lesson but to be entertained, and I was, but after reading some of the inaccurate and illiterate reviews, I found it necessary to give a `history lesson'! The movie wasn't perfect  it was cloying and obvious at times, but I give it high marks for effort and for bringing to the screen an important part of American history that has received disparate treatment in movies, and I think Devlin & Emmerich can now be forgiven for Godzilla.