It's a hot summer day in 1933 in South Philly, where 12-year old Gennaro lives with his widowed mom and his ailing grandpa, who sits outside holding tight to his last quarter, which he's ... See full summary »
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio,
New York trapper Tom Dobb becomes an unwilling participant in the American Revolution after his young son Ned is conscripted into the British Army as a drummer by the villainous Sergeant Major Peasy. Tom attempts to find his son, and eventually becomes convinced that he must take a stand and fight for the freedom of the Colonies. He crosses path with the aristocratic rebel Daisy McConnahay who gets involved in the support of the American troops. As Tom undergoes his change of heart, the events of the war unfold in large-scale grandeur.Written by
William Agee <email@example.com>
Director Hugh Hudson, hired the acclaimed war photographer and photojournalist Don McCullin to work on the film as a stills photographer and as an extra. McCullin later described it as an extremely depressing and unhappy experience that he never wanted to repeat. See more »
In the battle scene, a caplock musket is visible. The first caplock firing mechanism was not patented until the early 1800s, 20 years after the end of the American Revolution. Caplock firing mechanisms depicted in the film were not in wide use until the 1850s, 70 years after the American Revolution. See more »
Get out of here, you Negro!
We want freedom too!
See more »
In 2009, Hugh Hudson made his own director's cut titled "Revolution Revisited" which was also released on DVD. The new version featured new narration recorded by , a different ending, and removed 10 minutes of footage from the film. See more »
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)
I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.
But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.
Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.
Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.
There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.
After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.
55 of 88 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this