Revolution #2

Rating: 7/10 (7 November 2000)

Perhaps director Roland Emmerich is trying to make up for Godzilla, which he also directed. Perhaps he's trying to show us all that the success of Independence Day wasn't just a result of magnificent special effects and a hefty budget. At any rate, Emmerich was taking on quite a challenge, for the last American Revolution movie was that 1985 Al Pacino disaster "Revolution". 1776 never seemed so distant as when Al donned that furry hat and passed himself off as an 18th-century trader. Oh, sure, with that accent, no less.
This time around, there's a foreigner at the fore. Mel Gibson's from Australia, as some of you might know. Wouldn't know it to hear him speak, of course, with an American accent that's more fluid than anything most of us will ever use in our own lifetimes. Get Mel behind closed doors, though, and I suspect he's all ready to put a shrimp on the ol' barbie. Here, of course, he's as American as he always is in the cinema. Gibson stars as Benjamin Martin, calm farmer, hero of the French and Indian War. Legend has it that Martin went crazy at Fort Wilderness (not the place in Disney World, I soon discovered) and killed a bunch of bad guys. But now he's older and wiser, and he's darn sure he won't be laying to arms against any ol' Redcoats, taxes or no taxes. He's got something like nine kids to feed, all by himself (all you single moms out there, feel free to either commiserate or express your outrage). Well, things tend to change quickly in movies, even if the movie's 160 minutes long (ouch!). Before too long, Ben's pitchfork-deep in the melee, helping the colonials to defeat the British, who are represented (rather haughtily, of course) by Lord Cornwallis. Those of you who remember your history know that eventually
(WARNING! WARNING! PLOT ENDING REVEALED! DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU LIKE SURPRISES ABOUT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WHICH OCCURRED OVER 220 YEARS AGO!)

Cornwallis surrenders, and the colonists win their freedom. Ah, but half the fun is getting there, right? Luckily, the movie doesn't bog us down with historical details such as battles, dates, etc. Remember Braveheart, that movie with an Australian playing the part of a Scotsman who rallies his people to revolt? This movie's not like that at all, since we have an Australian playing the part of an American who rallies his people to revolt. But while both films are completely different (!), let's look at some wonderful similarities. Disorganized rabble? Check. Evil despot? Check. Gallons and gallons of spilled blood per person? Check. Gratuitous violence? Check and double check!
If this were viewed as a historical drama, there would be all sorts of problems with the accuracy of the plot (in fact, the British complained loud and often when the movie premiered, something about it portraying them as evil despots bent on world dominance, or something). Luckily, most of us don't care a whit about such stuff and nonsense, so we look at this movie to show us action. Pounds and pounds of action, preferably in the form of senseless violence. I mean there are decapitations! Who wouldn't want to see that? Many people, of course, but not too many - this film kicked butt at the box office.
As a morality tale of sticking to your guns, the film loses its way a little, I think. Benjamin Martin goes against his beliefs for some pretty solid reasons, but after he takes the plunge, all bets are off and we have a straightforward action movie. But as a chance to see Mel strut his hero stuff, it's golden