The Patriot

A thunderous spectacle.

It's big, exciting, ambitious, and it makes you cry in all the right places.

It's often corny, but it's never boring, and it'll sweep you up in its momentum if you give it a chance.

There's no denying that Emmerich's film, though a good half hour too long, keeps us watching.

Shamelessly stirring, brandishing Mr. Gibson's anguished masculinity like a musket. It may be effective, but you leave the theater feeling used.

The film is long, empty and bogus.

Overblown sanctimony and sentimentalism as corny as the Fourth of July.

Not an American, not a supporter of their system but I love this movie it is so awesome.

Basically this is a weaker version of Braveheart adapted to the American Revolutionary War. If you do not believe me just make a comparison from characters, motivations and story arcs. It is the story of Benjamin Martin played by Mel Gibson who is a former soldier who is dragged into the Revolutionary war by dire circumstances and with this also the story of the war and struggles. Within. While the character is fictional I learned recently that he is also a mixture of historical characters. Again it is the Hollywood version of events full of emotion, glory and black and white morality. The truth is less nice but never point this out to US citizens as it is glorified and nearly a dogma. The reality was grim as there is no glory in war and both sides committed horrible crimes (which is a textbook definition for war by itself). However this is an entertainment movie and not a documentary so for me it does not influence my rating. I am not sure if it is as intense and emotional for non Americans as me. To shorten it the movie uses all the techniques to get immersion like Braveheart. This is show not tell, giving emotional impact, make the bad guys (enjoyable) evil, great scenery and breathtaking battles. However I think they have overdone it as there is to much pathos, patriotism and melodrama. It weakened the experience as it gave sometimes a disbelieving feeling that got me out of the immersion. There is nothing for me to criticize for the actors. The cast is well chosen and delivers their roles. I will praise Mel Gibson and Jason Isaacs as best performers in this movie. Both accomplish each other as their respective antagonists / nemesis. There are also some good jokes sparingly used in the movie. The main question that remains is why does this movie not work as good as Braveheart does? For me it is mostly that they overdone some aspects and we have seen it done better in other movies (The Braveheart comparison and similarity did also not help). Maybe Roland Emmerich is not as good as director too but I must remark that I see also no serious mistakes. Overall it is enjoyable but fast forgotten movie.

Roland Emmerich saw Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" and what did he do? He thought the US should have its own Braveheart and called Gibson to help, giving him the lead role. This film begins badly: as I had occasion to refer to when I reviewed "Braveheart", Gibson's film is terribly bad as far as historical accuracy is concerned, however appealing and cinematic it may be (and it is, its undoubtedly epic). This film is unfortunately not better, at least historically and with regard to the English, who are portrayed in an almost insulting way. Okay, there are atrocities in war but everything has limits, and the British still had, at this time, a mentality very much for the gentlemen's war, at least the officers. I accept the argument that its fiction and not a documentary, but even if it is, it should respect more its historical background. I believe that many Englishmen did not accept the way this film portrayed their army. Despite this, the film has some historically correct details, as is the case with all the well built and elegant colonial settings and the costumes, in particular the military uniforms. The way the soldiers fought, quite formal in its essence, is also historically accurate. As a piece of entertainment, the movie works well. The epic way it was designed is nice, looks great in movies and even on TV. It has an extraordinary soundtrack by John Williams and cinematography, colorful and vivid, looks great. I also give a word of praise to the actors, Mel Gibson particularly. This actor had an interpretive tone very similar to what he kept in "Braveheart" but without that horrible fake Scottish accent. Here, Gibson seems more at ease with his character, a man seeking personal revenge in the midst of all the conflict he engages in. Heath Ledger, still young, also gives serious evidence of talent. Joely Richardson and Tom Wilkinson met what was expected of them, even though their characters did not require much. Jason Isaacs gave life to the villain and, although his character is not credible at all, he can be very sadistic and scary, showing the cruelest side of the war.

I'll start with the good things, the scenery, costumes and cinematography are fabulous, the battle sequences are very well staged and the score is wonderful. However, everything else didn't work for me. The film does suffer from a number of things(similar problems I had with Braveheart actually), and the historical inaccuracy is pretty much the least of its problems. This film does distort history, and badly, but it also suffers from too many subplots that prove superfluous in some cases, trite dialogue that make little impact and a truly pantomimic villain played by the usually excellent Jason Isaacs. The direction is nothing special, the pacing is too slow and the film is 10 minutes too long. The acting is lacking too, Mel Gibson tries hard with a very one-dimensional and unlikeable character but he struggles. In fact, only Heath Ledger gives a glimmer of hope and that is because he is the only character you feel sympathy for. Overall, I tried to like it, but too many flaws brought it down. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I can't believe people think this is good. Acting wasnt great moments are stretched and I felt like I was watching a soap opera. Every scene has someone crying. By the end of it I was bored.