The Patriot

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.

Terrifically entertaining, if overlong and often inaccurate historical drama about how a warrior, played by Mel Gibson, avenges the loss of someone dear to him and helps win independence for his country, triumphing over a sneering English foe. Oh sorry, that was "Braveheart." Mel's **other** overlong and often inaccurate historical drama about an avenging warrior/patriot with a sneering Brit nemesis is pure Hollywood cheese. Beautifully filmed cheese, but cheese nonetheless. The inaccuracies are not the problem; the predictable plotting and tacky dialogue are. Did our forefathers struggle for American independence just so that their story could one day be told in the most cliched terms possible?

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 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.