IMDb > The Patriot (2000) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Patriot
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Patriot More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 114:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 1138 reviews in total 

221 out of 325 people found the following review useful:

Good but ........

Author: Zal-5 from London, UK
10 July 2000

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

204 out of 354 people found the following review useful:

Humiliating to Americans and an insult to those who fought in the American Revolution.

Author: jamesk1 from Trumbull, CT
19 August 2001

*** This review may contain spoilers ***


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

Was the above review useful to you?

97 out of 142 people found the following review useful:

Heroes and Villains

Author: James Hitchcock from Tunbridge Wells, England
9 March 2007

"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

Was the above review useful to you?

67 out of 89 people found the following review useful:

Engrossing Revolutionary War tale, though not historical

Author: roghache from Canada
13 April 2006

*** This review 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

94 out of 147 people found the following review useful:

Some of you need to lighten up, this movie is good!

Author: Rushinblue from United States
3 August 2007

I am getting a kick out of the nasty reviews some of you have given! I never realized there were so many experts on the Revolutionary War era, its events, or the way people were back then! And most of these experts seem to be located elsewhere in the world to boot!

I don't ever recall seeing advertising that touted this movie as some historical tome. The movie is entertainment, that's all. It's a story based in the American Revolution period. So what if it took liberties on facts. So what if it used story lines to create an environment that wrapped the viewer in an emotional frame of mind. THAT'S WHAT MOVIES DO, FOLKS! It's a movie, for Pete's Sake, not a historical documentary touting actual events. It's just a movie that captures the essence of the time from the viewpoint of one family, right or wrong. It does that very well, IMHO. I cannot believe that there are no movies out there in other countries that slant the truth to reflect their viewpoints.

Oh, BTW, to the reviewers who think that we Americans believe everything we see, trust me, that's not happening. We're not all that dumb and gullible, despite Jay Leno's Jaywalking may make it seem! Come on, folks, LIGHTEN UP!

Oh, BTW Part Deux, children were trained at an early age back then to shoot, and shoot accurately. Guns were not a paranoidal issue then like they are now. So I have no problem believing that these children could shoot a rifle, other than possibly the rifle knocking them over from the recoil!

Was the above review useful to you?

57 out of 88 people found the following review useful:

Try to see it as entertainment and not as a source of knowledge...

Author: Philip Van der Veken from Tessenderlo, Belgium
22 June 2005

*** This review 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

60 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

Liked it - see below

Author: cleverfox from United States
2 April 2008

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

55 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

While it's definitely no Braveheart, it's still a solid film.

Author: Profondo-Rosso from Roanoke, VA
25 October 2000

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.


Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Well worth seeing - and accurate on many fronts

Author: Stephen Abbott (Movie Steve) from United States
26 July 2000

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 much less. As a documentary, it fails on this and other points. As a movie, it is a tremendous success.

As far as visuals, it was 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 have either a "Hollywood" plot or much of a "Hollywood" ending, as I feared it would. 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 soon will be." 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. 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Almost So Bad To Be Entertaining But It Leaves A Bad Taste In The Mouth

Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
28 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Since the last film I reviewed was COME AND SEE the Soviet film depicting Nazi war crimes in Bylorussia in World War 2 most distressingly the inhabitants of a village being burned alive in a barn I thought it'd be a good idea to rewatch THE PATRIOT a film set during the American War of Independence starring Mel Gibson and directed by German Roland Emmerich to see if it's every bit as bad as I remembered and which caused a lot of controversy when it was released

Unsurprisingly it is every bit as bad as I remembered . The battle scenes of massed ranks standing in front of one another firing muskets are vaguely realistic if only on a tactical level because in those days chivalry at its most basic still existed in the mind of military men and was a gentlemanly act . Strangely Richard Rodat ( The screenwriter of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN ) and Emmerich seem to have created an alternative universe where butchering the civilian population just because things were going slightly badly was part of a strategy by the Brits . There is some debate about atrocities happening during the period but historians are unanimous that while some things may have happened that could be classed as war crimes nothing on the scale as seen in here did happen during the period . It led to one critic Jonathan Foreman writing a famous article in The New York Post decrying THE PATRIOT as " blood libel "

Interestingly the film draws attention to the fact that the colonial rebels were helped by the French . Before anyone starts to applaud this fact their role is totally downplayed . There is a French officer present who's aiding these patriots because his wife and children were burned to death by these nasty Brits . Goodness me according to this film the British empire's idea of war is stocking up on a lot of matches setting fire to the nearest passer by who can't fight back . You can almost understand why he likes to slaughter surrendering red coats and it's left to Mel Gibson ( I won't refer to him as his character's name since he's Mel Gibson playing ... well Mel Gibson ) to point out that killing unarmed prisoners is wrong . Interesting too that that it's heavily implied at the end of the film the French only turned up at the end when the war was effectively over . I think that might have been true of America's role at the end of WW1 but certainly wasn't true of the French in the American War Of Independence . France , Holland and Spain all gave military help to the colonials throughout the war especially naval power . Effectively the whole world was against Britain helping the revolutionaries on land and sea

In this version of America everyone lived in a multi ethnic egalitarian utopia where all men are equal before God . Not only were black people not slaves but if look closely you can spot the occasional black face walking along streets unhindered .One can understand how much hatred Spike Lee has for the film and has been very vocal about it and it really is laughably bad the way the film spins out how much equality is afforded to African -Americans in the late 1770s . It's a bit like watching a version of SCHINDLER'S LIST were no one actually gets murdered for being Jewish . Just for the record Britain abolished slavery in 1807 while the Americans didn't get round to it for decades later .

This is a movie that shows Hollywood at its very worst . If it'd been made by a bunch of American journeymen film makers it would have just been Hollywood rubbish . However since I'd previously seen COME AND SEE it does leave a very disgusting taste in the mouth that it stars Mel Gibson and has been made by a German director . The only good thing to say about it is that it's so bad that no one will be able to take it seriously

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 114:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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