IMDb user comments for
The Patriot (2000) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 108:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1077 comments in total

---

68 out of 103 people found the following comment useful :-
Good but ........, 10 July 2000
Author: Zal-5 from London, UK

The Patriot is technically a good movie. Nicely made with good characters, good acting, a strong storyline and fabulous cinematography.

But, to say this movie distorts history would be an understatement. And that is extremely sad in a movie that sells itself as an accurate portrayal of events during the revolution. The Patriot, unfortunately, crosses the line and try's to portray as 'actual fact' a film which is predominantly fictional. Hence, the 'real life' equivalent of Benjamin Martin actually used to scalp Native Americans in his spare time (a fact neatly overlooked by the director).

This 'rose tinted' view of history is at its worst during the church-burning scene where a British Army officer ordered the murder of many innocent civilians by locking them in a church and setting it alight. This event never took place and yet, thanks to The Patriot, a whole generation of Americans will believe that the British Army actually committed this horrendous act in South Carolina -- when in fact history shows that it was not the British Army that burned a church full of people in 1776 but the Nazis that did during WW2.

As a Brit, I don't so much mind Hollywood always portraying us as the 'bad guys' -- after all it is American money making these films -- I'm more concerned that some Americans actually believe what they watch. This is especially true in movies like The Patriot which 'pretend' to be real.

It's a shame that in such a technically competent movie, which pays such attention to minutiae detail like the costumes, that something as significant as the accuracy of the screenplay could have been so grotesquely overlooked.

---

44 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :-
Engrossing Revolutionary War tale, though not historical, 13 April 2006

Author: roghache from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Being Canadian, I probably know fewer details of the Revolutionary War than the average U.S. viewer, but note that many seem absolutely outraged at the historical untruths of this movie. When I watched it, I personally found it quite captivating but always have enough sense not to get my history from Hollywood. Since my viewing, I've looked up some info and note various inaccuracies such as misplaced characters, exaggeration of British atrocities, inaccurate torching of a church with townsfolk inside being burned alive, and depiction of American owned slaves being freed to serve in the Continental Army. (Apparently, it was the British who promised to free them if they joined their forces, but later reneged.) My apologies if my facts aren't straight.

It's the FICTIONAL story of a widowed South Carolina farmer, Benjamin Martin, who is disgusted by his past supposedly heroic deeds during the French Indian Wars. He has resolved to avoid participation when the Colonies revolt against Britain and stay home to protect his seven children. However, he witnesses atrocities against his two older sons, Gabriel and Thomas, by the cruel British Colonel Tavington. Gabriel, the oldest, has joined the battle against the Redcoats early on, been captured, and sentenced by Tavington to hang. Thomas, the second son, attempts to free Gabriel as he is being taken away, only to be killed by Tavington right in front of his father. This forces the reluctant Benjamin into the fray, organizing a local militia group of farmers and ex Indian fighters who will tie up the British until the French arrive.

Mel Gibson gives a moving portrayal of the father who is driven into a battle he sought to avoid in order to protect his family from the British. For me, his personal and family story is the essence of the tale. Just as one would expect, Benjamin Martin comes across as very sympathetic and heroic. Apparently this character is sort of a composite of possibly three different real men of that era.

The film has wonderful period costumes, though also (like Gibson's earlier Braveheart) more than enough violence for my taste. However, it did bring to life for me the Revolutionary War, unfortunately in a purely fictional rather than historical way. Though I enjoyed this picture, it seems to have taken a lot of liberties with the truth. The movie should therefore be considered strictly as entertainment, not a history lesson.

---

97 out of 165 people found the following comment useful :-
Humiliating to Americans and an insult to those who fought in the American Revolution., 19 August 2001

Author: jamesk1 from Trumbull, CT

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

The Patriot is an indescribably bad movie that sinks to the lowest form of film making for a quick buck. Mel Gibson has gone and cloned his biggest success (Braveheart) in hopes of duplicating its success. The Patriot, like Braveheart, is a completely ahistorical exploitation of real events in which costumes and sets will be done as accurately as possible, but the actual events are distorted in order to make it some kind of period piece version RAMBO. The main difference is that Braveheart was at least a good movie.

One review said that the film had 'tremendous originality', well, if you thought that The Patriot was original, this is obviously your first film. This is bursting at the seams with cliches. Let me list them for you:

1: War scarred family man who wants nothing to do with the present conflict. The American Revolution instead of the Scottish Rebellon.

2: A British villain who does everything that a screenwriter can think of to look as evil as possible. This particular one is so cartoonish he could rival the Terminator.

3: A murdered family member abruptly forces our peaceful family man into the conflict. The one in this film is a barely developed son figure who you don't really care about when he dies because you didn't get to know him too well.

4: Children who are somehow able to outsmart trained redcoats (?).

5: Lots of villains who all have terrible aim so as not to let our hero get hurt. Most of the stunts Gibson pulls in this film would get anyone killed instantly.

6: An estranged family member our hero must reconcile in a teary, pointless moment which is there for the sole purpose of tugging at the heart strings.

7: Lots of cute little kids to make us go "aaaaaaawwwwwwwwww" and cry when one of them dies.

8: A black man who fights with South Carolina for the cause of freedom. Does it make sense to anyone that a black man would ever fight with a slave state?

9: A lone racist guy who hates the black man (only one racist guy in 1776 South Carolina?). He predictably makes friends with the black man in an abrupt and incredibly fake moment that made me want to vomit.

10: A gun happy priest

11: A doomed teen romance that is grossly uninteresting.

12: A utopian slave society that lives on a beach and takes in Mel Gibson's clan (?) even though these same slaves were hauled off by the Redcoats earlier in the movie.

13: Eight or nine brutal murders of friends and family members of our hero because the director and screenwriter have no idea how else to create dramatic tension.

14: The climactic fight scene in which the Terminator villain is killed by our hero and single handedly wins an important battle of the American Revolution (the battle is never indentified).

Allow me to recount my other problems with The Patriot: The battle scenes are rediculous and totally predictable. Mel Gibson somehow single handedly kills 20 men,mostly hand-to-hand combat with the help of his sons who conveniently have the aim of expert snipers. The final battle is extremely boring because the Americans are winning for most of the battle. The characters are so black and white its almost laughable. The film does not have one scene where the musical score is not roaring and trying to make sure you feel only what it wants you to. The film treats its cliches as if they are original and profound. The British are depicted as Nazi swine who kill everything that moves while the Americans are all helpless farmers who have to fight.

The Patriot is boring, pretentious and manipulative. Avoid at all costs.

Overall Grade: F

---

27 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
Heroes and Villains, 9 March 2007

Author: James Hitchcock from Tunbridge Wells, England

"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

---

35 out of 58 people found the following comment useful :-
Try to see it as entertainment and not as a source of knowledge..., 22 June 2005

Author: Philip Van der Veken from Tessenderlo, Belgium

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I've always had a weak spot for historically inspired dramas. I like movies like for instance "Braveheart", "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven". I don't like them because they give me some good insight on what that time period was like. Most of them aren't very accurate and if I want to know more about the real history, I'll watch some documentaries or read a couple of books. No, I watch this movies to be entertained and that's also the most important thing I focus on when reviewing this kind of movies: Did I like what I saw or was it boring as hell?

The story of the "The Patriot" is situated in South Carolina in 1776. Benjamin Martin, a hero from the French-Indian war who has recently buried his wife, is haunted by his notoriously brutal past. He decides not to take part in the American Revolution against the British, because he wants to protect his family and doesn't want to leave them behind fatherless. When one of his sons, who earlier on had enlisted against his will, returns home, it all starts to go terribly wrong. The son is arrested by the British Colonel Tavington and accused of being a spy. He will be executed, but before it comes to that point, one of Benjamin's other sons runs towards the soldiers and is instantly killed. This makes Martin decide to enlist anyway and he becomes the leader of a makeshift militia, which consists of peasants, slaves, a minister and other irregulars. They are successful in their fights, but will all soon be confronted with the personal consequences...

As I already said in the introduction, I'm not looking for historical accuracy, because I know I'll not find it in movies like this one. Hollywood has a tradition of changing the actual facts, to make a movie look more appealing for the audience and I'm sure the same has happened more than once with this movie as well. No, what I want is entertainment and THAT, I did get. Some major battle scenes, some drama, the obvious patriotism, some decent acting,... it can all be found in this movie and I must say that I liked it (most of the time).

The main problem that I had with this movie was the sometimes oh so obvious struggle for the American hearts. It's almost like if they forget that there are also people outside the USA who will watch their movies. All the Americans are good and all the English, French,... are bad and arrogant. Perhaps the American audience needs such stereotypes in order to be able to identify themselves with that fierce warrior on the big silver screen, but personally I can see past that fake patriotism.

Nevertheless, this is an entertaining movie and I would say that it sure offers some good value for your money if you aren't looking for too much historical accuracy. The acting and most of the story (like for instance the part in which he loses his boy) are touching and more than OK. Overall I liked what I saw and that's why I give this movie a 7.5/10. It's no masterpiece, but it sure is better than average.

---

21 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
While it's definitely no Braveheart, it's still a solid film., 25 October 2000

Author: Profondo-Rosso from Roanoke, VA

It's very easy to label this film as a Braveheart rip off from the trailers (which is what I thought), but after watching it, it's actually a completely different film.

The basic plot involves Mel Gibson's character and his family's experiences surviving and fighting in the American Revolution in South Carolina.

The film really excels in it's cinematography and the beautiful locations. Almost every shot in the film is picturesque and dripping with detail and rich colors. The acting is also extremely well done with another rock solid performance by the dependable Mel Gibson. In fact, I really couldn't find a weak person in the cast.

Possibly the major flaw that I found was the film's running time of 165 minutes. There are some points where the film drags a bit and I think that with a bit more editing and fine tuning of scenes this film could have be a lean and mean 120 min. film.

Another complaint that I had was the battles. While technically well staged and choreographed, they also didn't quite get me involved like I thought they would. In fact, I thought that some of the quieter scenes in the film were some of the most successful.

Overall though, I enjoyed the film and while it has it's share of problems, it's still turned out much better than I was anticipating.

Rating:8

---

37 out of 66 people found the following comment useful :-
Despite it's being fiction, it is certainly good entertainment, 26 October 2000

Author: ech

Whenever I see a film that is supposed to have historical basis, I am always a bit surprised to find out how much people complain about historical inaccuracies. I admit that I have done so in a few cases myself (Thin Red Line). However, in this case, I feel I must point out a few things.

All such films come with a disclaimer saying something to the effect that the characters portrayed aren't real and the story is just that, a story. For entertainment. Martin and Tavington did not actually exist, they are merely characters, possibly based (as has been suggested) on actual historical figures. I often wonder if such films as Treasure of the Sierra Madre, or Rio Grande, or just about any western flick was judged so harshly when it came out as we judge 'historical' pictures today? Or any pirate film? Zorro? Any film with knights in it? It seems to me that unless you are making a documentary, the historical accuracy doesn't truly matter in detail. Certainly, I enjoy films better when they seem to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of a time (costumes, technologies), but I don't carp about whether some person existed. Even if they did, I expect the film to be untrue so I can be entertained. For example, most wars are not constant fighting. Certainly some battles went on for days at a time, but there is a lot of waiting and a lot of marching. Yet most war films seem to be battle after battle after battle, with no real respite except for the wounded. Not so. How about some facts? Fact: Americans fought against themselves during the war. Many Americans served with the British forces. Fact: There were in fact many atrocities committed by the British forces, rapes, property burning, etc. Don't believe me? Check out the history of what happened to the original signers of the Declaration of Independence, their families and their properties. That's actual history, not just entertainment history. Of course, this wasn't only limited to the British forces. According to Massachusetts history, the Revolutionary forces (not necessarily the armed forces even) were, um, not kind to people who sympathized with the British. The tavern recruitment scene suggests this quite well. Were churches actually burned with a town's population inside. Maybe, maybe not, but it certainly was dramatic, wasn't it? Fact: Literacy was not as common at that time as it is today. Many people, especially the lower classes, and slaves could not read.

Did Cornwallis have a pair of great danes that were 'captured' by the enemy? I doubt it, but possibly. Were slaves that served in either army freed after a certain term of service? Again, I don't know. (I am not even certain that slavery was allowed in Britain at the time. Indentured servants, I think yes (though the difference is slight, I grant you), but actual slavery, hmm. I'll have to check on that.) The colonies typically did form their own militias for local use. The americans did, as a general rule, fight using more guerilla tactics (especially early on, the american forces were composed largely of more militia than regulars, see below for comments on militia), check the accounts of the battle of Concord, and what happened to the British forces as they withdrew.

War is brutal and ugly. People die. Many of the soldiers don't want to be there. Militia, being less well trained and thus disciplined, does have a tendency to fight very poorly in set piece battles (check current and past arguments for keeping a 'standing' 'professional' army).

Ignoring the historical accuracies or lack thereof (and btw, Braveheart was not 100% accurate either, though the main characters , Wallace, Robert the Bruce, King Edward, did all exist, but again, I don't seem to recall people complaining so loudly about that) I found Mel's character to be believable and well portrayed. Yes, there were elements of Hollywood happiness in the film (the beach town, he workers attitudes, the romances) and Hollywood sadness' in the film (the massacre, the child's death), but it was very entertaining. I found many of the battles to be very realistic (okay, pistols WERE NOT that accurate and never have been) and sufficiently entertaining for my needs.

Overall, a very good film. Hollywood, certainly, but entertaining.

---

29 out of 51 people found the following comment useful :-
Stupid, predictable, soulless tripe, 28 October 2001

Author: jabberwocky_dirge from AZ

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** As disgusted as I was to read the positive reviews of this waste of film, I was glad to see some sensible ones tearing it apart! Since others have focused on the plot and historical fallacies, I find no need to go over that. However, this film is, to put it bluntly, CRAP. Of course, you couldn't expect anything more from Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin, responsible for the brain-numbing Godzilla and Independence Day. They claim they're making "popcorn" films, just pure entertainment. I wouldn't even call them entertainment, they're too insulting to my intelligence. I suppose The Patriot was made to rekindle some of the Braveheart success. This is NO Braveheart. Braveheart was a masterpiece every element of film and had a lot of emotional power. The Patriot is bland, soulless tripe, imbued with a cliched and predictable plot, and false emotion. But, hey, those who just want to be "entertained" might be affected by it. *SPOILER* Puh-leeze, I could tell that Gibson's mute daughter would finally speak to him during a "pivotal" moment in the film since she was first introduced.

I think I've learned my lesson though. I will not dignify Roland Emmerich by watching any more of his crappy movies.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Liked it - see below, 2 April 2008

Author: wirby59 from United States

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.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Okay. Needs editing. Nice Battles. Watch "Glory"., 8 July 2000
Author: Sydney (morgandorfer61) from Ottumwa, Ia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

It was an okay movie if you don't want to watch anything too deep or anything that is making powerful statements. You don't really have to think about anything from "The Patriot" after seeing this film.

I do think the the film editor did a bad job because this movie was way too long for all that it was. There's only so long I can see the same battle over and over again but in different locations.

Mel Gibson does a good job of playing the same sort of person he plays in all his movies.

Jason Isaacs played his evil bad guy character with no depth. There was no sign of reality to his character, and you aren't haunted by any spark from his eyes.

(possibly a spoiler)

The best part of the film would have to be the first fight sequence between Mel Gibson and 20 redcoats with an axe. I quote one of my friends , "the matrix 18th century style". "The Patriot" realistically portrayed 18th century war fare but some of the battle scenes were copied directly from "Glory".

---

---

Page 1 of 108:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history