User Reviews

"The Patriot", the story of an American farmer who fights in the War of Independence, is sometimes used, together with "Braveheart", as evidence of a supposed anti-British prejudice on the part of Mel Gibson. This is perhaps unfair to Gibson, who has gone on record as supporting the ties between Australia and the British monarchy (hardly the stance of a Brit-hating bigot). Although "Braveheart", which he produced and directed, was very much Gibson's own pet project, he was neither the producer, director or scriptwriter of "The Patriot". Indeed, he was not even first choice to play the lead. The producers originally wanted Harrison Ford who turned the part down, reportedly because he felt that the script turned the American Revolution into the story of one man's quest for revenge.

Because of its anti-British stance, the film was badly received in Britain. One newspaper accused it of blackening the character of the British officer Banastre Tarleton who served as the inspiration for the villainous Colonel Tavington. One commentator went so far as to say that it was the sort of film that the Nazis might have made about the American Revolution had they won World War II. Unlike some of my fellow-countrymen, I was not too worried about this aspect of the film. The total death toll in the American War of Independence was remarkably low, not only by modern standards but even by the standards of other wars of this era, such as the Napoleonic War. Nevertheless, in every war ever fought there have been crimes on both sides, and the War of Independence was no exception. (The rebels could be as ruthless as the British, but none of their atrocities are shown in this film). Some of the deeds attributed to Tavington may be fictitious, such as the church-burning scene, but in real life Tarleton had a well-deserved reputation for brutality, and was not only loathed by the American colonists but also distrusted by his own side. In the film the British commander Lord Cornwallis is shown as outwardly gentlemanly and honourable, but prepared secretly to countenance Tavington's methods. In reality, Cornwallis wanted to have Tarleton court-martialled; Tarleton was only saved by his influential connections.

I did, however, have some reservations about the way these events were portrayed. It was originally intended to make the film about Francis Marion, a real-life figure. Unfortunately Marion, although undoubtedly courageous and a skilled guerrilla leader, was also a slave-owner (as any landowner of substance in 1770s South Carolina would have been) and was therefore deemed unworthy to be the hero of a modern blockbuster (even though a TV series about him was made in the fifties). His exploits, therefore, are credited to a fictitious "Benjamin Martin". The slavery issue could have been avoided by moving the action to, say, New England, but instead the film gives us a wholly unrealistic picture of race relations in the period. The black workers on Martin's land are all free men, and black and white live together in harmony, with black soldiers willingly fighting alongside whites in the Continental Army. This sort of dishonest, idealised portrayal of slavery was at one time common in films like "Gone with the Wind", but I thought that it had died out with the growth of the Civil Rights movement.

(Incidentally, a reason why so many Southerners supported the revolutionaries was that slavery had been declared illegal in Britain itself in 1771 and they feared that the British Parliament would eventually legislate to ban it in the colonies. Needless to say, there is no mention of this attitude in the film. In later life Tarleton became MP for Liverpool, and a vehement defender of slavery. In this, if in nothing else, he and Marion had something in common).

My other reservation about the film's political stance is similar to Ford's. The film probably concentrated so heavily on British brutality because it is difficult to interest a modern audience, even an American audience, in the actual reasons why the war was fought. It is easy to make out an intellectual case for the principle of "no taxation without representation", which had been part of British constitutional thought since at least the Civil War in the 1640s. It is much less easy to justify the spilling of blood in defence of that principle, and Martin, scarred by his experiences in the French and Indian Wars, is originally shown as a pacifist, unwilling to fight or to support the Declaration of Independence which he believes will lead to war. His son Gabriel, however, joins the Continental Army, but is wrongly accused of being a spy and threatened with execution. Tavington, believing Martin to be a rebel sympathiser, burns down his home and murders another son, Thomas. Martin is forced to take up arms to defend his family and then forms a guerrilla band which he leads against the British. Despite the title of the film, however, Martin is not really motivated by patriotism; he seems less a patriot than a pacifist who has abandoned his principles in order to seek revenge.

The film is attractively photographed, although I felt that it sometimes showed a sanitised, prettified version of eighteenth-century life. In some ways it reminded me of "The Last Samurai", another visually attractive epic flawed by a dishonest approach to history and by excessive length, although I would rate it slightly higher, largely because Gibson makes a more commanding and impressive epic hero than does Tom Cruise. From the viewpoint of anyone without patriotic preconceptions, it can be seen simply as an exciting (if overlong) adventure film- my wife, who is not British by birth, was cheering on Martin and booing Tavington. Nevertheless, its approach to history never gets beyond a simplified story of heroes and villains. 6/10

The Patriot is NOT a documentary. It didn't pretend to be, and wasn't. Loosely based upon Francis Marion (the "Swamp Fox"), it only touched on Marion's impact on the Revolution in South Carolina. If anything, it was downplayed. For instance, in real life, he had over 150 men in his guerrilla band. The movie portrayed him as having far fewer. As a documentary, it fails on this and many other points. As a movie, it is a tremendous success.

As far as visuals, they were stunning. The wide-open vistas and battle scenes were breath-taking and beautifully filmed. Yes, it was violent, but that lent a realism to the film that most other films about this era lack. The look and feel of this period was portrayed well.

The acting was superb. I won't give anything away, but this did NOT (arguably) have either an entirely "Hollywood" plot – people, including civilians, DIE, as they do in war – or much of a "Hollywood" ending, despite a relatively happy one. That was impressive, and made the film genuine, exciting and at times, shocking. Plot points such as Benjamin Martin's youngest daughter's feelings about her daddy, and the romance between his son and a young girl were touching, and even emotional.

I found some things complain about. Crisp, clean, brand-new Colonial American flags suddenly appear after, and during, the final battle. In reality they would have been rags by then – or at least not so clean. One bad bit of dialogue: Benjamin Martin is on the beach with his sister-in- law, and he asks if he can sit down. Her reply, "It's a free country – or will be soon," was a 20th century throw-away line dressed up with a 1780 caveat, and I cringed at it.

The film was historically accurate in many respects. The formal way of speaking, plus the family-above-all, loyalty-to-The-Cause attitudes expressed throughout, were genuine, even though both are out of favor today. Children using weapons, and going off to fight on a moment's notice, was not an uncommon story, and supposedly happened in a branch of my own family. Relationships like Martin's and his wife's sister did occur, often out of necessity. I was surprised to read afterwards that the battle tactics of the last scene occurred, almost exactly as shown, at the Battle of Cowpens, including fierce hand-to-hand combat. Colonel Banastre Tarleton – the basis for the movie's character William Tavington – was indeed seen as a war criminal by American colonists at the time, and the real Tarleton even had a horse shot out from under him!

But was it biased? Sure it was. Roughly a third of the American colonists were Loyalists, another third were "rebels", and another third were undecided. It would have made the story more complete and complex to portray this (or the time Tarleton mistakenly slaughtered some of those very Loyalists!) But I've read a poem online ("Ode to Valour") dedicated to Col. Banastre Tarleton's "heroic exploits" that would shame modern-day propagandists.

I think we all accept that not every British officer of this era was a monster. In fact, in the movie – as in real life - Cornwallis and other British officers were appalled that the "Ghost"/Swamp Fox did not play by the rules of "civilized warfare", and chastised characters like Tavington who also breached them. The real Swamp Fox knew a bit about balance, however. After after the war, when the real Francis Marion served in the South Carolina Senate, he is said to have advocated a lenient policy toward the Loyalists. The real Tarleton survived the war, went home to write his memoirs, was seen as a hero, and was elected to Parliament. Maybe we need a sequel to cover all of these other aspects of the story. Until then, this one is a must- see.

Just watched this movie for about the 20th time (I have it on TiVo) and for the life of me I cannot find the disdain many who have written here have commented on. Last I heard, this was FICTION - NOT a documentary; Ken Burns did not produce not write nor direct nor narrate this piece - Roland Emmerich, a man known for action FICTION did. Yes the depiction of the Revolutionary War was NOT 100% accurate but was never intended to be; just a drama set against the background of a war and it was refreshing to see the war in the background, whereupon American blood is spilled on American soil, was the Revolutionary War and not another Civil War piece; indeed, the Civil War has been played so many times in films over the past quarter century it was just refreshing to see a different war....

Being somewhat of a military historian I will say that the depiction of soldiers going musket to musket in the open field was indeed accurate; many may find it interesting to know that according to the gentlemanly practices of King George's army, both sides would also recess for tea at noon every day and resume the fighting afterwards - guerrilla warfare was not popular during the day which is why Gibson's militia unit was so overtly successful early on. That being said, the comments about the accuracy with the muskets are fairly accurate but I will say that I only see straight barrel musket rifles - none of the bell shape tipped muskets; the longer you keep a projectile on a straight course the more accuracy at longer ranges despite the lack of rifling grooves in the barrels (I spent time on Rifle Teams for 5 years). The prime inaccuracy I noted was when Tavington shot the rider (running away on horseback) in the back with a musket pistol at probably 40 yards or more - so unlikely, it tarnished the whole scene.

My favorite person - Billings; Leon Rippey's cynical, almost giggly snickering laugh completely stole the every scene where it was used and he is a long term favorite actor of mine; Jason Isaacs absolutely best screen villain of this movie (and perhaps in top 10 screen villains of all time).

I guess it boils down to "different strokes for different folks" we all have our opinions on this and I've aired mine.

I have been a Mel Gibson fan since his very good Mad Max and his horrible Summer City. I loved this movie and it is in my top ten favorites of all time. Mel is very believable as Benjamin Martin who fights only after he looses one son to death and one son to the army. Heath Ledger plays Gabriel Martin who goes to fight for his country despite his father's protests. I know that not all of the facts are historically correct but this is a movie and did not claim to be a history lesson. The period is portrayed very well and the battle scenes are so well done that you almost feel you are there. This movie is very graphic in the battles and if you do not like the sight of blood and other realistic battle scenes then this might not be the movie for you. I watched the entire movie and did not realize the length. I was so engrossed in the plots.

I'm very surprised at the lower ratings here. This is a successful example of a movie which balances having fictional characters/situations take place in a historical setting while still maintaining some accuracy. Aside from that, the acting is solid and the effects and quality for a movie made in 2000 are top notch.

The Patriot is a film that I've always had mixed feelings about. After seeing it again recently, I think I have a more coherent idea of how I feel about this film.

To sum this film up neatly, it is a retelling of the story we know in Braveheart, with some alterations and being slightly worse.

From a historical standpoint, The Patriot is about as historically accurate as Braveheart - that meaning that it really isn't. By now, many have already meticulously picked apart its inaccuracies so I won't really dwell on it too much. But as a piece of popular cinema, I don't think this film's intention is to be historically accurate anyway.

The Patriot is an impressive looking film, I believe. The action sequences are exciting to watch and the scale of the battles are appropriate enough where there aren't noticeable CGI people also partaking in the fight.

Speaking of the CG effects, they are looking a bit dated now. Some of the computer generated blue screen backgrounds don't look very convincing, especially when they go to Charles Town at the beginning of the film. But since the shots don't dwell too much on them, it's not too bi a deal, I believe.

The acting performances aren't bad at all. Mel Gibson found his niche after Braveheart and went with it and his performance here translates incredibly well. The actors that portray the various British officers in this film do put on a bit of a James Bond villain performance and it does get a little distracting, but there is some complexity in the writing at times that makes up for that in those moments.

It's also to be noted that the soundtrack for this film is amazing. Of course, this is the work of John Williams and it goes extraordinarily well when paired with this film. It is the shining aspect of this film and I cannot compliment it enough. It has to be one of the more underrated works John Williams has done.

Where this film ultimately loses me is when it comes to the issue of slavery. I understand this is among the myriad of other historical inaccuracies with this film, but it's this particular aspect of American history that really hurts it the most. The most obvious example of this is when the workers on Martin's farm say that they work his land but are not slaves. It is also framed in this film that the British army offering freedom to any slave who serves with them is a bad thing, but later when the American army announces something similar, suddenly it's righteous. This, of course, wasn't the case and it's very misleading. There's a scene in the film where Gabriel makes a promise that once the British are defeated, the old world will be pushed out and a new world can be built; one where all people are free. This is so obviously untrue but the film ignores it. As a result, it feels like the one slave character shown in the whole film is duped into serving with the continentals just to be enslaved again once the eventual government decides, through inaction, that slavery is necessary. I get images of the American Civil War in my mind every time I see that scene, and it's that scene that really hurts this film the most- but ironically enough, maybe the most accurate part of it...

The Patriot is interesting. I feel it's a bit long. Granted, I'm just coming from seeing the extended cut but I do think this film could have gone without some things. Not horrible if you're looking for a fictional story that takes place in a real time in history. Just don't use it as an educational tool unless you're going to talk about the uniforms and clothing of that period.

I was hesitant to see this movie due to the violence I had heard about. Yes, the movie is violent. But it is also fantastic.

I love Mel Gibson as a family man. He's always a great hero, but he displayed a warm, compassionate side too. His scene crying over his son will break your heart.

I cannot recommend this film enough. My only regret is that a PG version is not also put out, so that younger viewers can also see it.

The Patriot is based around one Benjamin Martin, an ex-soldier, who now happily living as a family man finds himself thrust into conflict at the break of the American Revolution.

He loves the Brits does Mel Gibson, "Gallipoli", "Braveheart" and here with "The Patriot", see the pattern anyone? As with the aforementioned "Gallipoli" and "Braveheart", certain liberties have also been taken with events in "The Patriot" so as to glossy up for the eager Hollywood contingent. It's not my want to scribble about the facts of Benjamin Martin (Re: Francis Marion), or William Wallace for that matter, information as such is but a mere click away on the world wide web.

So casting aside the artistic licence factors, is "The Patriot" any good? Well nearly it is -- nearly. Gibson is fine, he shoulders the burden of the film with great gusto and no shortage of emotional depth. It's very easy to accept him as a staunch family man who transforms into a blood thirsty warrior. The problems, acting wise, lay away from Gibbo's central performance. Surrounded by caricature villains (though Jason Isaacs' Tavington is deliciously vile) and underwritten characters (Chris Cooper wasted and Joely Richardson is but a mere prop), Gibson has no choice but to hog the screen. So much so it ultimately turns into a one man star vehicle, which for a costume war epic isn't a great thing really.

Roland Emmerich ("Independence Day" and "Godzilla") directs and handles the battle sequences very well, there's lashings of blood as men line up to shoot and dismember one and other. While cannonball's whizz, bang and tear off body parts, it's grim, yet oddly rousing stuff. Not even the overtly flag waving and sloganeering on show can off set the impact of the well constructed battles. There is of course lots of tragedy to be found in the film, and these are some what surprisingly, tenderly handled by Emmerich, but mostly it's via an on song Gibson, who remains one of the few modern day male actors capable of believable grief. All of this is given a John Williams score that suitably flits between rousing and ethereal, and things are further boosted by the sumptuous photography from Caleb Deschanel.

There should have been more thought given to the racial (slaves) aspects in the conflict, and this coupled with the bad errors of under developed characters hurts "The Patriot" as a filmic exercise, not so as to stop it being entertaining, but more to stop it being a one man show. But as it is, thanks in the main to Gibson, and in spite of the overtly evident faults, it's an above average drama. 6/10

Let us be clear about this. The burning of the church is a lie. It did not take place. The film, not the church, is the atrocity. Let us also get a few things straight about the American Revolution. It was fought on these issues 1. The colonists refused to contribute to the cost of their own defence (and no, that is not a spelling mistake) from the French, which had been paid for in British money and the lives of her young men. 2. It was fought so that the colonists could break out from the colonies in the East and invade Indian territory which the British Crown - George III - has designated as Native Title. Jefferson is well-documented as have his eyes set on the West. 3 In the south it was fought to maintain slavery. Most blacks fought on the British side and for good reason. They had heard of the Case of Sommersett v Stewart in which Lord Mansfield, chief justice of the King's Bench had granted habeas corpus to James Sommersett who was a slave in Virginia and had been taken to England. The Anti-Slave Trade Movement was also gaining ground in Great Britain. The film tells Americans what they want to hear. If you don't like the truth, don't make films about history.

I had fairly high hopes prior to watching this movie for the first time. I actually enjoy 'period' films, and American history is a particular favorite.

So I was very disappointed with "The Patriot". I felt that the director simply overlaid a generic story onto the Revolutionary War theme, and did so in a very unbalanced, black and white manner. I don't want to restate the many views already expressed, so I'll just say that my main objection to this film, was the way it assumes the viewing public are all simpletons. For example, why was it necessary for the director to bludgeon us with his obvious bias against the British in this film? I mean, how many atrocities did he require Col.Tavington to commit before he ensured that everyone in the audience was baying for British blood? Come on Mr Emmerich, haven't you ever heard of subtlety?

Apart from the black and white nature of the whole picture, there were far too many totally unrealistic scenes. Are we really to believe that Benjamin Martin and his two young boys could so easily despatch an entire company of British soldiers?

What a shame that what could (and should have) been a balanced, stirring narrative on an important period of America's history, was ultimately reduced to such formulaic Hollywood fluff. I sincerely hope that another studio/director revisits the topic, and does it right. As always, I suppose it all comes down to making a film that will score big at the box office, versus making a film that will actually mean something long after the movie posters for it have been torn down. If you like American period films, give "Dances with Wolves" a go - it's far superior!

6/10

Spectacular and breathtaking film about the American Independence War dealing with an enjoyable family and the tragic events happening along the way . Benjamin Martin : Mel Gibson is a conscientious objector due to previous wars he suffered and he is nowadays a widower of seven children : Heath Ledger , Logan Lerman , Gregory Smith, Mika Boorem, Sky Bartusiak , Trevor Morgan ... He is a former guerrilla soldier who just wants to raise his family in peace . Unfortunately , local Redcoats as Col. Tavington : Jason Isaacs , underlings : Adam Baldwin , and commander-in-chief : Tom Wilkinson have other ideas . When Martin's idealistic soldier son Gabriel : Aussie Ledger is captured , daddy gets caught in action . What would you do if they destroyed your home , threatened your family . Where would you draw the line ? Before they were soldiers , they were family . Before they were legends , they were heroes . Before there was a nation , there was a fight for freedom . Some things are worth fighting for .

Revolutionary War vengeance pic with thrills , noisy action , overwhelming fights and well-played . The main character and central axis of the movie results to be Benjamin Martin/Mel Gibson, magnificently performed , as a bloodied veteran of the French and Indian Wars , and a few years later a pacifist , but his pacifism owes as much to pragmatism as conviction to defend and care his several children . A violently idealist movie dealing with historical events about the Independence War , battles between Colonians and British army . Alongside the great Mel Gibson appears the early deceased Heath Ledger and a large cast of secondaries giving sensational performances , such as : Chris Cooper , Tom Wilkinson, Joely Richardson , Tcheky Karyo , Donald Logue , Adam Baldwin, Leon Rippy , Rene Auberjonois and special mention for Jason Issacs providing a really baddie role as sadistic colonel.

Adding a rousing and attractive musical score from maestro John Williams, Steven Spielberg's regular. As well as colorful and brilliant cinematography from Caleb Deschanel. This overlong , bloody and melodramatic motion picture was compellingly produced -along with Dean Devlin- and directed by Roland Emmerich (The Day after tomorrow , Godzilla , Independence Day , Stargate , Universal Soldier , Moon 44 , Ghost Chase, Joey) . Rating : 7.5/10. Better than average . The flick will appeal to Mel Gibson fans . Worthwhile watching .

This film left me with fixed feelings. I will begin with the negative and end with the positive. What bothered me most about The Patriot are the carcicatured portrayals of the British. I know they are supposed to be 'the villains' but often their cruelty is over the top, especially Jason Isaac's character. Another annoyance is the presentation of the battle scenes. While they are spectacularly choreographed and filmed, it's absurd when characters (eg. Martin's family) are viewing them like a football game instead of ducking for cover. Despite these quibbles, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Mel is absolutely convincing as the alternatively grieving and raging patriot. I found some of the death scenes so moving I started crying. The supporting cast is also superb and took their direction perfectly. I also enjoyed the detail payed to the costumes, props, and hairstyles. The Patriot is NOT an accurate historical docudrama but it is a rousing and entertaining well above average summer movie. Recommended, 8/10.

To somehow attempt to view this as historically accurate is to miss the entire point of the film. It is not based on true events of the character itself since its fictional. The surrounding backstory is a real event, the character and anecdote is not. People discussing this is just low hanging fruit

As for anti-british "bigotry", i dont really care. I would assume that if this movie is in fact anti-british, it probably got something correct afterall. Since the founding fathers after all were not progressives and were trying to set up their own regime and colony outside of the british empire. They were white, and english originally, but they (in the creation of america/constitution) were establishing a seperate civilization. And you can see this demonstrably when u see wars between all various european groups.

People are mad because of 3 reasons. 1 - its "historical inaccuracy". 2 - "omg Gibson doesnt like english people!!!1 and 3 - its cheesy and patriotic. The first 2 reasons simply dont make much sense.

This is a very watchable and enjoyable film, don't get me wrong. I feel compelled to say however that you should not believe a lot of what it says. I don't know whether Mel Gibson hates the British, or more specifically the English, but you would be forgiven for thinking so. But neither this film or indeed Braveheart do anything to make one think differently.

In wars bad things do happen, but the idea of honour and decency is something British officers are very much trained to practise. Even if a 'rebel' office was to commit vile act he would not have done so under the blessing of his commander.

Now as an Englishman I look at American films and wonder why many of the 'bad guys' have British accents. Perhaps an American will explain this to me one day. There is also something very wrong with the 'patriotism' idea in this film. It demonises one side (i.e. the British) and shouts the praise of the 'Americans'. Given the terrible acts carried out by the United states since such as the massacre of the native American Indians and the constant wars to expand its own borders this movie should have been more evenhanded. Especially since the old imperial system so vilified by Americans resembles very much what America is today.

It is important to say that I don't hate America and i don't go to rallies in which American flags are burnt, indeed I look to America as a source of friendship, yet why does the American film industry continue to make overly biased and plainly historically inaccurate films? Oh and as a matter of my own national pride, the wars of independence were won entirely because of the aid granted to the colonists by France!

"The Patriot" was an amazing thrill ride. With outstanding performances from Mel Gibson, Heath Ledger, and many others, "The Patriot" was hands down the best movie i have ever seen. The old revolutionary war scenes and battles make this movie a tremendous action film. It is also topped off with some amazing drama. The acting in this movie was just unbelievable, which helps make this the best War Movie i have ever seen.

The main problem with 'The Patriot' is the inconsistent pace. With a running time of just under 3 hours, the movie staggers between scenes where the pace is exactly right and then drifts back into inanities and treads water.

Especially the backstories / subplots of the characters seem constructed and are meager. Some events are just slapped together and ticked off in a few scenes (according to the motto 'eat or die'). At the end of the day, these events only serve to advance the frame story and justify half-baked motives of the characters. For the viewer, this simply seems clumsy.

Of course, you can say that the main focus is on the war actions. But then you can leave out the characters' sideshows completely. Either you do it sensibly or not at all. The movie is called 'The Patriot'. The motive is clear, it's about honor for the country. So it wouldn't have been a problem.

Time and potential would have been there, there are interesting characters, but we learn almost nothing about most of them. The consequence is one-dimensional characters. This is especially unfortunate for the figure of Heath Ledger. Unbelievable potential is wasted here.

The movie is quite well and quality staged, the fights and locations are authentic. Especially the beginning is really good, after that it stagnates. Highlight for me is also Jason Isaac. He proved once again what a great actor he is.

Whenever the movie focuses on the fights and the war, then it can convince. As soon as it's about the part up to the next battle, the focus is set wrong in my opinion.

Me, I'm not bothered - a piece of colourful escapist nonsense. A popcorn movie, as the producers say. As a Brit in his 50s, the substantial liberties taken with history don't keep me awake at night, because I realise they are simply dramatic licence.

Then I find myself in "discussion" on a website - to do with popular music, nothing to do with film - with a young American gentleman, and a jocular remark suddenly sends him off on a tirade, the gist of which is that he hates the British because of the atrocities we committed during the War of Independence, and he knows this to be the case because he saw it for himself when he watched The Patriot.

OK, so the lad is clearly a bit lacking in the Education Department, and has been even more substantially short-changed in the Common Sense Department, but that doesn't change the fact that he - and, presumably, a not inconsiderable number of others like him - have taken this pile of poo on board as fact.

I don't know what the answer is. Better education? More responsible film-making? Cull the dimwits? (I'm allowed to make this suggestion, after all, I'm a Brit and you know the sort of evil murderous thugs we are - just watch The Patriot!)

Answers on a postcard.