p r e f e r r e d r e v i e w e r s :
 |
 |
|
You haven't selected any preferred reviewers. To learn more about customizing your experience, click here.
|
|
|
 |
 |
o t h e r r e v i e w e r s :
|
|
|
shanster [ 9.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I loved it. That being said, how many more times will Mel Gibson's wife die, sending him into a vengeful rage? Braveheart set in New England. But still, it is a bloody (literally and figuratively) good movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chapter11 [ 4.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
"The Patriot" is far too slow and cliched to be a truly great film, or even a particularly good one. It's entirely by the book, and excels only with a typically strong showing from Mel Gibson. Though well-made to a certain extent, "The Patriot" embodies everything bad about the war picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
babyduck [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
This was a historical fiction flick with large emphasis on the "fiction" part. With a title like "The Patriot" you expect that - the film is made primarily with an American audience in mind. As a result the British are portrayed as incredibly naive, pompous and a few of them just plain evil. This large imbalance makes a large portion of the film hard to take.
Regardless, if you are going to see this film, you must watch it on the large screen. The battle scenes were incredible to watch and once again make you think, with guns and artillery why the heck did they stage pitched battles like they did???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jeff_v [ 3.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
This movie was terrible! Clearly, everyone else at OOFnet is insane. The acting was slipshod, the direction ham-fisted, the script cliched -- there was nary an authentic or interesting moment in the film. I give it a three just because the cinematography is so fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stitch [ 7.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
I had mixed feelings going to this movie as I had heard good and bad from most of my trusted sources. But I did enjoy it. It made me care and it made me cry. It was well filmed and acted. I'm sure it will make a star out of Heath Ledger, a young Aussie actor who plays Mel Gibson's eldest son. Yes, there were a few too many cliched scenes, a couple of people died that I really wished hadn't, it is maybe a bit gorier than it needed to be, the muskets shot a tad too accurately, but all in all it entertained. Be warned, it is a long movie (almost 3 hours), although it didn't seem that long, which is always a good thing. I also hope people don't assume that this is a factual film. It is based on true people and events but it is very much a Hollywood production. My one major complaint, storywise, was the whole glossing over of the slavery issue. Our hero actually paid his African-American workers. I really have a hard time believing that in 1776 a gentleman farmer in South Carolina would not have owned slaves. As abhorent as the concept is to us, even the most "enlightened" founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves. There was a small side story in the film about a slave and a crass white farmer that keep locking horns but is seemed too little too late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JD [ 8.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
What a fantastic epic about the revolutionary war! Mel Gibson is spectacular and his supporting cast is terrific as well. This movie grabs your attention from the opening credits and it lasts throughout. This should be the BEST PICTURE winner as it is far superior to GLADIATOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
earlgrey [ 8.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Great film! Mel Gibson plays a general in charge of a militia during the revolutionary war. It is a good reminder of the price our forefathers paid to gain the freedom we now enjoy. Be advised, this movie is probably not suited for young children because of the violent content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love_Spoon [ 8.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Extremely well-made film about the American Revolution. The Civil War has Glory, World War I has All Quiet on the Western Front, World War II has Saving Private Ryan, the Vietnam War has Platoon, and The Gulf War has Three Kings, but up until now there hasn't been a really great Revolutionary War film. The Patriot, in my opinion is it. I heard several people say before I saw The Patriot that it was another Braveheart, but I think that's an oversimplification. Uh, yes, that's Mel Gibson, and yes, he's fighting for freedom. I can see the similarities, but they really are two very different films. I liked The Patriot much more than I liked Braveheart (perhaps it's the American in me...). I knew that there would be death in the film, but I noticed that tragedy was not overdone in the film. Gibson's character loses two of his sons in the film, but rather than going off half-cocked killing everyone, he weeps and prays for strength (more like real American settlers would, I suppose). The film does lag in parts, and something else that I noticed is that when the audience is taught to hate a character such as Colonel Tavington so much, one can't help but feel disappointed when his head isn't lopped off with an axe or his eyes poked out, or some other dreadful thing. In that respect, the film is a touch anticlimactic. What an effect a film can have on a person! It was a great film to watch on July 4, but it is a great film anytime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards [ 1.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Give me a break. The dialogue is lifted directly from textbooks, with unlikely lines like "This is taxation without representation!" and "it's a free country...or at least it will be, someday", and the story is equally preposterous. It can't decide whether to be about Mel Gibson's mission of vengeance or about the entire war. At times there is a great deal of violence and unexpected death, which tends to ring true, but then the villains are mustache-twirling caricatures and the good guys are stalwart and impossibly noble (even Mel Gibson, who's supposed to be complex because he starts out as a pacifist). This is the Revolution for Dummies (aka summer movie audiences)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SilverHorse7 [ 10.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Wow....That pretty much sums it up (though I'll go on :). The acting was superb. Mel relly knows how to act and draw people into the story. You Begin to relize how bad the War was, etc., etc.. It had 'some' humor (ex. French man saying, "If I'm going to die I'd like to be dressed well" when he dresses up for the final battle.) Going into the movie I just wasn't sure about it. I thought it was going to be some sappy love story like a couple torn apart by th War. But was very surprized and thrilled when it was all over. Me, being a action kinda person, loved it. I usually don't cry during movies, actually hardly ever do, but I found myself very teary eyed during parts (ex. Thomas dieing, and the older brother dieing). It was rather gorey (which i liked, put feeling into it, like a Saving Privet Ryan kinda thing) and I would never bring a blood-scared person into it...they would freak. I though this movie was Awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
csumaylo [ 6.0 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
It is always good to see a film that trys to depict how our great nation came to be. That said, there were many very corny lines in this film, the battle scenes just didn't have the allure of some other movies Mel Gibson may have starred and directed in, and the story line just didn't work for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
crreig [ 4.5 ]
[ add to preferred ]
[ email this review to a friend ]
Except for a good score from John Williams (the king of heart wrenching soundtracks) and pretty (not stunning or splendid, mind you...just "pretty") cinematography, I would give this film a much lower rating.
What a superficial, predictable piece of shinola!! It force feeds us politically-correct, heart warming moments and gives us a straightforward revenge story disguised as a historical epic.
Making a "historical" film is dangerous. The medium of film is one of dream and history, while basically poorly edited fiction, demands authenticity. Aside from the uniforms, we find little of that here. The typical bloody knives (blades DO NOT hold blood after a stabbing, Hollywood!! Get it right for once!) and historically inaccurate grammer abound, but it is the 20th century perspective which makes the film so terrible. The film proselytizes about freedom and honor with full knowledge of what will come to pass in the years after 1777 to 2000. Well, thanks, guys, but after a century of story-telling through film...most of us have realized it's better to show than to tell. I've seen eight-year-olds produce more interesting plays with Star Wars and G.I. Joe figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weighted Rating | : 6.5 |
| No. Ratings | : 27 | |
| No. Reviews | : 15 | |
|
|
|
|