biss Livres en français boutiques-francophones Protegez vos photos et videos personnelles vpcflyout Furniture Nouveau Kindle Paperwhite Prix Jutra 2016 Jazz, Blues et musique actuelle Exercice Tools ca_ty_gno

Commentaires des clients

3,7 sur 5 étoiles724
3,7 sur 5 étoiles
Format: Blu-rayModifier
Prix:12,46 $+ 3,49 $ expédition
Votre évaluation(Effacer)Évaluez cet article

Un problème s'est produit lors du filtrage des commentaires. Veuillez réessayer plus tard.

Affichage de 1-10 sur 97 commentaires(3 étoiles). Afficher tous les commentaires
le 20 juin 2004
I have a lot of respect for Mel Gibson & I feel he did the best he could in this flawed war movie. That being said, the dialogue is completely laughable at times & just plain stupid at others. When I first heard about this movie I rejoiced, thinking it'd be a factual (or at least partly) account of the famous "Swamp Fox" of the Rev. War, Francis Marion. His story would make an incredible movie, but the filmmakers decided to create their own version of Marion, who becomes Benjamin Martin. It goes down from there. Have you ever seen anything so unbelievably stupid as one crazed man & two boys wiping out a group of 20 British troops?!? And how about the mandatory bad guy gets killed by the hero at the end! Nothing like a bayonet through the throat to entertain an audience! I guess they were trying to achieve another "Braveheart", but they missed their mark completely. Being a history buff makes it easier to criticize movies like this, but I will say that it's pretty hard to not be entertained by the large-scale battle scenes, which are nicely done. I'll close by saying that as history, this fails drastically, but as pure entertainment it's not all that bad.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 3 juin 2004
I was excited at the prospect of a Revolutionary War Film. How disappointed I was when I saw this movie. I'm glad I rented it and didn't see it in the theatres...
If you know nothing of history, this film is great. It's really not completely terrible... but it's not *good*. The kids do a far better job acting than do some of the veterans. But you can't blame them, really, you can only blame a bad script. And why is the villain the most intriguing character in this movie? You'll have to read my "So you'd like to Root for the Bad Guy" movie list to answer that. =)
Here's what we learn about the Rev War from this film:
That ALL Brits soldiers wear nothing but Red coats, all Colonial soldiers wear blue, the Colonists spoke with nondescript "American" accents, that the French didn't arrive until after the battle at Cowpens (at the end, basically), Cowpens is a big dry field with niffty Mediaeval ruins, all armies fight in line formation, that "militia" means incompetent or rustic farmers with pitchforks, in battle you NEVER ever kill the Officers, that the high-ranking Officers didn't fight with the menial soldiers - they stood safely off to the side and watched, that blacks weren't slaves in the south (except to the rich), 18th C. Colonial women wore French style sacback dresses, married women ran around without matron caps, widows didn't wear black, and that unmarried men and women could shnog each other on the street or on the beach without their parents or anyone else protesting. Sounds good, right?
Good GRIEF! Did Rodat and Emmerich REALLY think the American audience was SO stupid that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a British and a Colonial soldier? And that we wouldn't remember the most major events from our American History classes? That we wouldn't be able to guess that when the "good" (Boring) characters were getting shot at by a handsome bloke on a beautiful horse that HE must be the baddie?
Boo to the Smithsonian society for even helping this terrible "Hollywood History". They should not be proud. They should hang their heads in shame for the inaccuracies they committed against history. "Accurate down to the Buttons", my butt.

Here's a sum up of all the faux-pax committed in this film, so you can feel smug and intellectually snobby whilst watching it:
*Widows wore black - Charlotte Selton does not. ever. I didn't know she was MARRIED the first time I saw this film!
*Colonial women did NOT wear Sackback gowns. (Hell, Brits didn't for the longest time, either! that would be a Continental fashion. Everybody say: "Continental"...)
*Militia means: Fully. Trained. Mobile. Army. Lesser in prestige. Not skill. Militia does NOT mean: incompetent rustics with brands and torches. This is in contrast to: Regular Army. (At least they got that right)
*British Uniform Colours: Red. Blue. Green (Tavington: GREEN Dragns). WHITE "spray-on" pants. Black boots. Nice hats. Mostly Tricornes.
*Blacks (African Americans) did NOT make Gullah camps on beaches. They would have been in the Mtns.
*Blacks were NOT freed men. No matter how nice their masters.
*Mens' wigs were NICE. Not shoddy. Most all men wore wigs. As did the ladies.
*Young ladies (Anne) did not talk sauce to their elders or betters
*You do not refer to people by first name, unless it's your immediate family, or very intimate friends.
*You did not need to always call your father "father". Papa and Pa worked then, too.
*Bedrooms were UPstairs.
*They did not Troop the Colours when on the battle field.
*General Cornwallis was not nearly the old fop he is here portrayed as, but was younger than Mel Gibson by the time of the Rev War, and was beloved by his men because he fought alongside them, down on the field, in the gritty mayhem of war. Go Cornwallis.
*AND, British Great Danes' ears were and are not propped like modern-day American ones are. Their ears stay floppy. Cute doggies. Nice doggies.
Sadly, this film falls short of greatness and even coming close to semi-accurate history, for all the above listed reasons and so much more (namely that the main characters were boring, 2D fluff about whom we didn't care, even when they died).
So, kids, remember: to avoid looking like a loser, pay attention in history classes! That way, if you ever become a filmmaker, you can avoid the major pitfalls of this movie!
Oh well. At least that Colonel Tavington was dashingly handsome in his wickedness, yeah?
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 14 avril 2004
Few films are made about the Revolution since WW II, the financiers on Wall Street must not be comfortable with the concept. The film begins by showing a meeting to discuss Independence, and the need for war. One man talks of "taxation without representation", but the Declaration of Independence lists all the grievances. (Do you remember them?) There is no mention of the 1765 Stamp Act and the ruinous taxation that followed. There is little said of the business of this planter. Isn't tobacco the equivalent of coca leafs or opium poppies? The film gives an example of the fighting of that time. The Carolinas suffered the most in the Revolution, even more than New Jersey, where many of the battles were fought (the land bridge connecting Philadelphia to New York). The after battle scene shows pistols and muskets used to kill wounded prisoners; they would have used gun butts, bayonets, or swords as in other massacres. The film is accurate in showing boys experienced with firearms, and the use of knives and tomahawks in close combat.
Colonel Mel leads his militia into guerrilla attacks on British supply wagons. The militia was usually used to attack foraging troops. These losses tied down the British regulars and prevented their advance. No mention of the Loyalist militia here. The film shows the British setting a trap to ambush the ambushers! (How could this failure of intelligence occur? Just for dramatic effect?) The "Ghost" plays a trick on the General to get 18 prisoners released. Another failure of intelligence? Historians will object to some of the events created for dramatic effects. But popular entertainment isn't academic history. The celebration at the seashore seems designed for an intermission.
The scene where the townspeople are locked in a church and then burned alive has been criticized as an invention. But it symbolizes the cruelty and horrors of war in the Carolinas. Afterwards Mel's men catch up to some of the troops. Could that experienced Colonel be surprised by not posting guards? The evil Colonel escapes by a ruse; would an experienced soldier be fooled?
The final battle seems to be based on the battle of Cowpens, when the retreating militia led the charging British into the prepared trap and won the battle. There is a final confrontation between Mel and the evil Colonel. Cornwallis is forced to retreat to Yorktown, where the French fleet traps them and forces a surrender. The War of Independence was won! But you owe it to yourself to read a history book to learn more. Mike Wright's "What They Didn't Teach You About the American Revolution" is a good place to start.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 2 avril 2004
First off I will have to admit, I liked this movie. But it was a mixed bag of good and bad. It did come out as a lot of people pointed out, like braveheart, but not nearly as good.
here are some of the good.
The action sequences and cinematography are amazing. This director really knew how to set up the battle sequences so that they are both picturesque, and frightening at the same time. This was rated as one of the middle period Napoleonic wars, and the fighting style is much different than what we are used to. You dressed in bright uniforms and marched to your death. Cavalry charges were still used to a great degree of effectiveness, and they used them with deadly efficiency. The cannons were primarily large bullets that they would angle specifically so that they would bounce or skip and hit as many soldiers as they could, similar to a bowling ball.
There were some funny moments with Mel Gibson and his children.
A few twists and turns were in the plot, where it was following a cliche movie device up until the very end, where they turn it around at the conclusion.
Some of the dialogue is interesting and the character motivations were not all standard. Mel Gibsons characters initial refusal to enter the war, his speech to the continental congress, etc....
Like Braveheart it had many historical ideas that were true in a sense, but didn't happen in the same way. There was a military leader in the british army that practiced a slash and burn operation similar to sherman in the civil war. As well as other decisions by the British that angered many colonials causing them to join the war when the originally stayed neutral. Cornwallis was a noted field commander and a favorite of the king.
Now for the bad.
Some of the cliches were almost laughably bad.
The antagonists, though well acted and interesting, were over the top in some key areas. Cornwallis was not flawless in his exploits, and he was a patriot but actually opposed harsh treatment of Americans before the war, including the infamous "stamp tax". Though some leaders in the millitary did a slash and burn campaign, I don't recall any mention of people being burned alive.
The method they had for victory in the end was a bit simplistic. The main selling point was it was the defeat of a giant in the war for independence. Though the British army in question was a giant in that time, it seemed like too cliche and easy of a ruse, relying on the arrogance of a oppsing general.
The ambush sequence where Mel Gibson and his sons killed a large number of soldiers was a bit far fetched. Though troops at that time were terrible at defending against ambush, they weren't necessarily stupid, and could have mounted a better defense.
The murder of his son in the earlier part of the movie was over the top in its attempt to show how wicked the leader of the Dragoons was. When he ordered the wounded killed, that would have been sufficient, him shooting a boy even out of necessity was a step short of him wearing a black top hat and twisting his mustache.
All in all I give this 3 stars as a standalone movie. It will entertain most and just about everybody will find something they like in it. But the lack of consistency, overuse of cliches, and mixed quality writing will bother most people.
As an action film alone, it gets four stars, but for an overall film, 3.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 15 janvier 2004
this film does have merit. For one it is entertaining, I like Mel Gibson and the other actors as well and IMHO believe they did a fine job of acting. Jason Isaacs in particular did a fine job.
For another it shows a large audience in the US that the war for independence was fought in other places besides Boston, Valley Forge, New York etc It also demonstrated the brutality of the war in the south.
And it is my hope that the film will spur people to pick up a book about this part of the Rev War. There are many, excellent books about it. May I recommend BRUTAL VIRTUE (dispels the myths about Tarleton), THIS DESTRUCTIVE WAR: THE BRITISH CAMPAIGN IN THE CAROLINAS, and a new book A GALLANT DEFENSE (which superbly details the battle to take Charleston SC).
Once you begin reading you will learn that the Brits were not monsters and the Patriots were not saints. If your entire knowledge of the Rev War in the Carolinas is from this movie then you will be either pleasantly suprised or sadly disappointed after you read these and many other fine books on the subject.
The movie, after everything is said and done, is nothing more than 2 hours of entertainment very loosley based on actual events.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 12 janvier 2004
The patriot basically is a knock-off of "Braveheart" in buckskin vests and powdered wigs, but that doesn't seem to bother Mel Gibson, who won an Oscar for directing that film and stars in this one as another tread-upon colonial who takes up arms against England for his nation's freedom.
A hero of the French and Indian War who has since pledged to raise his children as a pacifist plantation farmer in South Carolina. He takes up arms against the British after one of his sons is killed in cold blood.
Much like Braveheart, Gibson becomes a one-man army, leading a band of colonialist against the Red Coats.
Still, for all its adherence to formula, "The Patriot" is certainly handsome and effectively rousing in small ways, like the scenes in which Martin smelts his dead son's toy soldiers into musket balls, or when he rallies farmers and villagers to arms, resulting in a motley militia of "colorful" roughnecks from central casting.
Not a bad movie, but as with Braveheart, not high in historical accuracy and he Gibson isn't surrounded by nearly the stellar cast of that movie.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 30 novembre 2003
Patriot proves to be a highly entertaining film but its not history, real or pretend. It sheer fantasy per Hollywood, especially when you got 20th century military warfare values inserted into 18th Century. Its sad that British soldiers are treated like Nazis in this movie and there seem to be no sense of time or period to this movie. Its make it up as you go on. I found it quite entertaining listening to the director talk on my DVD as he mentioned so often how "historically accurate" he tried to be in all aspects. In this case, he probably got some of the names right and at least knew that the British infantry wore red and American infantry mostly wore blue. Who ever were the historical consultants on this movie must either come from Iran or were bribed to put their stamp of approval on it.
On the other hand, Mel Gibson movies are rarely boring and he was pretty good in this movie. He sure sugarcoated everything about the slavery issue but overall, there were enough blood, guts, humor and action to satisfied most viewers. I got the Superbit DVD version which was also excellent in all aspect but don't have the extra of the regular DVD which I also end up owning. As long as you don't learned your history form watching this movie, its strictly cartoon movie for fun and joy. Of course, some scenes were bit graphic.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 7 avril 2003
For really a first time try, the Revolutionary War movie
The Patriot was pretty good. It was bloody at times but it showed an accurate, or almost accurate, view of how it really was. A little on some of the historical characters in the movie, Benjamin Martin was a take off on Francis Marian, a back-woods general that was known by the British as Swamp Fox. Marian and his men played a major role in South Carolina Revolutionary War. Col. Tavington was a take off on
Banastre Tarleton. Tarleton was a violent British calvalry leader that was known for his cruelty. There are a few other things that I'll point out. At the battle of Lexington and Concord, one of the tactics of the colonist militia was to get behind stone fences, trees, and rocks and fire at the British from all sides. The British did not know how to handle this kind of fighting! In The Patriot what I saw was almost a lack of the brilliant planning that the patriots used! There was one seen were the patriots capture a British supply wagon. Instead of using any kind of tactic, they came out in the open on the road and tried to ambush them!
They ended up paying for their stupidity because Col. Tavington just happened to come up at the right moment! Another thing that just didn't work in the movie was when the patriots took back their men that the British had captured. Instead of raiding the
fort or capturing British soldiers to exchange, they made
scare crows and dressed them in British uniforms! They did not have any British prisoners to exchange and hoped that the British were as stupid as they were!
This would have only been tried, and only succeeded
in the world of Hollywood. The last thing that I will bring up is the seen were Tavington burned the town church with people inside it. The thing wrong with it is that there was no effort to escape. Overall though, the Patriot was ok. I thought the last battle seen was well done.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 4 février 2003
Anyone looking for anything with Mel Gibson in it will certainly be satisfied with "The Patriot," but anyone expecting even a semi-accurate look at possibly the most important events in American history better look elsewhere. From the film's outset, Gibson plays his character of farmer-turned militia leader Benjamin Martin with a sense of brooding and always with a voice of reason and logic, until he cries for revenge. The film starts with talk of the pending revolution and Martin's objection to it on moral grounds and not because of loyalty to the crown. But Martin is dragged into the revolution as a reluctant libertarian when oldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) defies his father's command to stay at home and leave the fighting to other patriots. Along with fighting, Benjamin is something of a diplomat in negotiating with British Gen. Cornwallis, played with some historic accuracy by Tom Wilkinson ("In the Bedroom"). As a fighting patriot, Benjamin tastes the bitterness of revenge when he vows to take out sinister British Col. Tavington (Jason Isaacs in a thoroughly villaneous and worthy performance). As a historical piece, "The Patriot" disappoints, but it may well not have been intended as a period piece. Rather, it renders itself to the impact of revolution and war on the families of their fighting men and on civilian populations. Keeping that in mind, "The Patriot" is a worthy project, and it serves to further bolster Mel Gibson as a talented actor and craftsman of tremendous range.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus
le 16 janvier 2003
I found the film to be deeply offensive at times, especially in the manner in which it glosses over the fact that Gibson's character, as well as being a war hero, was a murderer, rapist, peodophile and heinous criminal. There also seems to be some confusion over the whole slavery issue, because in reality the independent colonists treated slaves far far worse than the British ever did, and held back freedom for slaves a generation after the British had done so. It also just briefly touches upon wider issues such as the intervention of the French that could have been included in the mammoth running time.
Apart from these historical inaccuracies, the film isn't that bad. It never bores, moves fairly quickly and has a few amusing moments to lighten the mood. But it does revert to the shameless tactic of the glorified hero element far too much and the awkward romance touches just seem to have been crowbarred in. It is the stereotyping and the over-the-top melodramatic glorifications that drag this film down for me, and as a result The Patriot never becomes the epic that the far-superior Braveheart was.
Not a bad film then, but could have been a truly remarkable epic about an important part of history.
0CommentaireCette évaluation a-t-elle été utile pour vous?OuiNonSignaler un abus