Customer Reviews


709 Reviews
5 star:
 (307)
4 star:
 (146)
3 star:
 (97)
2 star:
 (67)
1 star:
 (92)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favourable review
The most helpful critical review


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Love it
this was a great experience , dealing with this company was great, I really like this product. very very good
Published 16 months ago by Shannon Bradley

versus
3.0 out of 5 stars good movie. but......
picture quality is not very good on my big LED t.v .lazy conversion no effort put in to it. shame on them
Published 5 months ago by Jody L. Wild


‹ Previous | 1 2 371 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

5.0 out of 5 stars An American Patriot, July 7 2004
By 
Rudy Avila "Saint Seiya" (Lennox, Ca United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
The 2000 summer film, "The Patriot" which I believe was in theatres appropiately on the 4th of July, stars Mel Gibson in the heroic role of Benjamin Martin, a father fighting for his family and his colony from the British enemy forces of General Cornwallis (played by Tom Wilkinson). The movie was directed by Roland Emmerich, the director of Independence Day, which, though science fiction blockbuster epic that it was, still maintained the 4th of July American patriotism theme much like this movie. Being entirely different from his usual blockbusters (Godzilla, Day After Tomorrow most recently) Emmerich immerses us into the historical period of early America in the 1770's, when the budding, newfound country was at war with Great Britain. The American Revolution was the first real war in America. The country was earning its independence and fighting for it in the most literal sense.
Althoug the movie keeps its period piece/costume drama visuals, in the dialogue you can find traces of modernism. For example, in one scene, Mel Gibson sits with his wife and asks "Can I sit here ?" and she replies in comedy tone "Hey it's a free country.. or that is it will be". Much of Mel Gibson's own influence is in this movie. He did not direct this movie although he could have easily done so. The fighting scenes, the battles, the gunfights and the violence is very Mel Gibson in nature (he is after all responsible for such films as Braveheart). The portrayal of the British is of course biased since it's on the American side we're sympathezing with. Cornwallis is a man we love to hate-rude, arrogant and cruel. The other British in the film are also portrayed as very nasty. The message of patriotism, love of family and home is all quite strong here. But it does make a good film if you're into this period, if you want to see Mel Gibson doing a historic piece and as the hero which he always does so well in. Mel Gibson, though much older now, is still a great actor and provides much romantic/sex appeal. On DVD, the movie is loaded with extra features including commentary and "Making Of" segment.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars very good action movie, July 6 2004
if you don't go into this movie expecting braveheart or a historicly accurate movie, you will probably like it. good dvd.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Not the Most Historically Accurate, But Entertaining, June 25 2004
By 
Michael Taylor "Michael Taylor" (Indian Trail NC) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
While The Patriot is entertaining, there are some historical inaccuracies:
1. Cornwallis was not at Cowpens (the movie's final battle) and there was no large mansion on the battlefield! Cowpens was known as a place for cattle to graze and contained some woods but no large houses.
2. Mel Gibson loosely portrayed Francis Marion (aka "The Swamp Fox) while Jacob Issacs' portrayal of Tavington was loosely based on Banastre Tarleton. As far as I know the two never met in battle and Tarleton survived the war. Tarleton did command the losing side in the Battle of Cowpens.
3. As far as I know, there were no French at the Battle of Cowpens - the battle was fought by militia and Continental troops on the American side vs. loyalists and British troops on the other side.
4. I do not believe any record exists of Mel Gibson's character ("The Swamp Fox") ever meeting Tavington (Tarleton) or Cornwallis.
I live only about 1.5 hours from the Cowpens battlefield and have visited the site several times. So much for Hollywood historical accuracy!
Despite this, I did enjoy the movie and could feel Gibson's reluctance to join the American cause and found myself despising Tavington (killed two of Gibson's sons, burned the church with people in it, shooting wounded Americans, torching homes, etc.). In my humble opinion, I thought at least the acting was good.
Buy or rent the movie and enjoy, but be warned: there are some bloody scenes for the squeamish. Such is the nature of war!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars Just Okay, June 21 2004
Action scenes are good, some good effects are generated. The script was cheezy. Interestingly enough this film evoked quite a bit of patriotic response from the general public. Maybe that's reason enough to view it. In a strange kind of way, it was propagandic.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars Distorted history, bad script, yet still a guilty pleasure!, June 21 2004
By 
Dave (Tennessee United States) - See all my reviews
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.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Very Good, June 10 2004
I don't usually like violent movies, but this one is great because it captures history during war time.
Acting was brilliant!!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


3.0 out of 5 stars Bad History, June 3 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?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1.0 out of 5 stars This is not History, It's a joke....., May 7 2004
Devlin and Emmerich's careers as movie makers started to fizzle with this movie, and it's easy to see why, with Gibson's wooden performance and way over-kill production values, this movie was no better then Braveheart or Gladiator, Big productions with no heart.
At least the John Williams's music is nice to listen too.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1.0 out of 5 stars even Mel was bored, May 4 2004
By A Customer
I am not normally good at identifying bad acting, and I'm a big Mel Gibson fan, but this movie was horrible. The acting was so bad I actually knew what people were talking about when they said the acting was terrible. Mel is normally a good actor, so he must not have been taking this seriously and who could blame him with such a bad script. Save your money, or get something like Braveheart or Last of the Mohicans (Not Mel, but a good film) instead.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


2.0 out of 5 stars You wait years for a film about the revolution and get THIS?, May 1 2004
By A Customer
There are so few movies, good or otherwise, that focus on American Revolution, that any film on the subject deserves attention. Unless it is this one. An absolutely inane mess, with so many errors, dramatic missteps, cliches, and outright lies that listing them would take two feet of page space, THE PATRIOT is the early-American equivalent of Michael Bay's PEARL HARBOR, and that isn't a compliment. Essentially a rip-off of Gibson's own BRAVEHEART, here's another of Hollywood's endless parade of tired, by-the-numbers "revenge" stories. And yet, who could've expected any better from the ding-dongs who made INDEPENENCE DAY, the single most mindless big-budget film in Hollywood history (and the competition for that title is truly stiff)? Two stars for some excellent, expensive 18th-century production design, and half-decent (but no more than half) battle scenes. Do your brain a favor and go watch John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK instead or, for that matter, 1776, but this pseudo-epic really isn't worth the time.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 371 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

The Patriot (Extended Cut)
CDN$ 33.78
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Only search this product's reviews