The Patriot

Ok, I thought this movie sucked big time. But, I'm just posting this because I think it would have been cool. When Mel Gibson is running with the american flag towards the bad guy on the horse at the end, wouldn't it have been awesome if he stabbed the guy with the pointy end of the flag, then ripped it out and waved it around like a madman? If that happened, I would have liked the movie a hell of a lot more. Your thoughts?

__________________
**** the Lakers!

I thought it would've been really cool to kill the bad guy with the American Flag, too. That would've been sweet. It seemed like the obvious thing to do. Anyway, I thought the movie, at times, was great, and other times, horrible. Some of the dialogue is very good ("You're MY child" was particularly well-delivered), and some of it is stupid ("If you're asking if I'm against taxation without representation, well yes, I am"). It was very dramatic at times, but I think it killed off one too many characters. It tried to jerk more tears out of you by FORCE with that one death near the end.

I'm a sap and I fall for all of Hollywood's tricks. I loved this movie. Having kids myself I could really put myself in Mel's position. It would be really hard to let one go fight. But if I could do that thing with the axes watch out!

I admit, this movie dragged on in a few places, but all in all, a good movie. Some of the battle scenes were very well done. Worth watching though, informational nonetheless.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I was just a titch put out that Mel did this movie so soon after Braveheart.It really drew attention to the fact the two had so many similarities.It made it less of a movie for me because he dove right in to this hero's role so soon,and it lost some of the credibility for me.I hate comparing the two movies,but this one just lacked the passion.

Did anyone else have a problem with the role of slavery in the movie? There wasn't any. That's such a Hollywood thing to do, make Mel Gibson the one plantation owner in South Carolina (of all places) who doesn't own slaves. Spike Lee said it best: "Who's picking all the cotton?"

Hold up...do we know how many people owned slaves? I recall hearing/reading that many people were not wealthy enough to do so. I could be wrong, but I'm not going to get upset over it unless I have some kind of evidence telling me that Gibson's character would have been LIKELY to have slaves. And heck, don't forget that there was a slave character in the movie, and he was ridiculed some, before becoming accepted due to a common patriotism. So it's not as if Hollywood just ignored it.

Hey, maybe you've got stats that say Gibson's character would have surely owned slaves...but if you don't, well, I have to believe this is another case of a liberal (yep, sorry, politics abound here) just taking offense at something right off the bat. I hate to make assumptions, but I see that happen A LOT. If it's not the case here, I apologize...but I sure do see it often. Accuse first, ask questions/do research later.

Well, if you remember right, when they come to take Gabriel they take the people that work his field, and the guy says that slaves will be given the oppurtunity to go into battle, but they say they're not slaves, and that they work the land for free. SO HA!!!

Well, actually Spud, I think Steve's point is that it's awful convienent that the hero is not a slave owner. My argument is that it may have been common for most people to not own slaves...for various reasons, one of which is simply money. Seeing as how blacks were hated by many in the South, I'll bet they would've flocked to any place that would let them live/stay in return for work.

Anyway, I just have a big problem with people who tend to assume something is offensive or dishonest by default, just because it has some vague connection to civil rights and racism. I'm not saying Steve is doing this (I'd need to do some research to see), but it seems that way. Vague, potential, mildly possible racism against a minority will get lots of attention, lots of press, and will generate a lot of premature or uneducated accusations. Howeve, racism against a majority won't garner so much as a mention in the school bulletin. It just screams double-standard.

I hate to get off-topic like this, but I would also like to add that I don't see why I am categorized as in the majority because I'm white. I'm mostly Scottish/Irish...but I look similar to someone from England, or Germany...so I'm lumped into the giant category known as "white," and therefore I'm apparently in the majority. I don't get it.

Well, and this is getting off the subject of The Patriot, but why isn't anyone debunking the fact that in Blazzing Saddles the sherriff is black.

Slavery is a tender subject, and any mention of it sparks debates(just like this thread has done). So why can't people just let this kinda thing go?

The point I'm trying to make here is that Hollywood completely glossed over the subject of slavery in the movie. Do any of you believe for one second that a PLANTATION OWNER in SOUTH CAROLINA (the most racist colony at the time) who is obviously wealthy enough to own a large house and a fair amount of land doesn't own slaves? I don't find it realistic at all, therefore I had a hard time believing anything else the movie said. But I don't think it's racism so much as a tactical move by Gibson and the screenwriter. I mean, if the movie DID make him a slaveowner, then I'm sure some groups would protest for some reason. But the movie isn't brave enough to be more believable, and we're stuck with some classic Hollywood ballessness. Usually I don't really believe in realism unless it helps the story, but this is one of those cases where I would have enjoyed it more had it not decided to wuss out.

I knew someone would make this a political issue. Let's save it for the Intermission forum, fellas (and ladies.)
Don't get me wrong, my problems with the movie don't stem from how it treats slavery, after all, it's peripheral to the central story. I thought it was too long, occasionally boring, and predictable.

P.S. TWT, it goes both ways. Europeans are generally classified as white, and Africans are classified as black. It's just making generalizations, something that you certainly have no problem with.

I see your point Steve, but do you really know that most (IE: the majority) people in that situation owned slaves at that time? Slavery was widespread in some areas, but it was not universal. Like I said, I'm not trying to make assumptions, but how do we know that Gibson's character was not actually more realistic in not owning them? We'd need some numbers here to say so one way or the other.

Anyway, I do agree that they would have been pretty screwed if they'd had him own slaves...though it may have been a more interesting film. It can show us that, no matter what, you need to judge a person by their context in history. Many great, moral men owned slaves...slavery is a blemish on them, but that doesn't make them inherently evil people...it means they did a stupid, bad thing. Some thought it was okay, and some didn't care one way or the other. It's a shame, but I think we all know some of our practices today could very well be considered barbaric or stupid or senseless 100 years from now...

...showing Gibson's character as a brave, loving hero, who happened to own slaves, would have been VERY interesting. It would show that even people who do bad things have their good points, and that even great men have their flaws. So I do agree with Steve in one sense: it may have helped the movie, but at the expensive of widespread appeal, IMO. However, I don't know that it was a lack of balls that brought about their final choice...maybe I should do some research on this...I might, but then again, I'm feeling a little lazy right now.

Since when am I down with generalizations, Steve-o? And yeah, it does work both ways...but a large majority of blacks are African-Americans. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of what other areas they come from...

..whites, on the other hand, are spread out all over the place. I don't mind anyone calling me white...but don't try to act like I'm in the majority because people of European descent look alike necessarily. If you count my race as Scottish/Irish, rather than "white," I'm in a minority, too. I don't want any extra civil liberties or anything...but I do think it's interesting that virtually no fuss is raised over this.

I disagree. I'm getting my logic from the fact that Gibson is presented as a wealthy man (his house says that alone). And the location of the movie says something too. I just find it hard to believe that he owned a PLANTATION and he didn't own slaves.

And the way the black character with the major speaking role was handled was pretty bad too. He decides to stick around and build Mel Gibson's house? Come on. This is corny, nobody can deny it.

I most definitely would have respected the filmmakers much more if they took this angle. I agree with you that it would have been interesting. I disagree, however, that the balls of a movie should be compromised at the expense of public appeal. The people who want to see a Mel Gibson movie wouldn't care, anyway.

(There's a generalization for you )

See, you're saying "they." What does that say about you? What does that say about your environment? You don't say "they" when you speak of Irish folks, do you? How about Italians. "They are all in little Italy." That's a flaw in people's thinking, that they feel like they need to distinguish themselves from folks of other races. (that's not meant to be personal, btw.) Since when is my blood a different color from my friend Randall's?

People don't complain about this because they realize it's the same principle as calling all dark-skinned African people black, and calling all Mexican and Spanish people Hispanics.

Heck, if it's gone this far, I'll have to try to find some numbers on the subject, to see if the movie was indeed realistic or not. Oh, and I didn't say they should compromise the movie for mass appeal...just said that it would have hurt mass appeal.

"They"? Well, yeah..."they" refers to anyone other than me. This includes black people, as well as people in slavery. If I changed the "they" to "we," my sentence would look like this...

...that doesn't really make any sense, as you can plainly see. I think you're reading into things a little. And yeah, I use "they" for people of my own race. I use it for my own dang family. If I consider myself to be part of a certain group in question, I will use "we," but if I'm not part of that group, I don't. What way would you prefer, Steve? I can't use "we" when talking about blacks, because I'm not black! Examples.

"Where's you family?"
"They went to the store."

...another example...

"What do you think of this Scottish family?"
"I think they drink too much." ()

I'm not so much complaining as I am pointing something out. And no, it's not the same principle...I think you may be misunderstanding me. I don't really care if someone refers to me was "white," because it's a good description of my appearance...it's readily evident, and broad, without being too vague. I don't take offense if someone is referred to was hispanic, white, black, asian, or anything else like that. It's no big deal.

However, I do find it interesting that I'm referred to as white, and THEN referred to as a majority. Yes, if you break the people in this country in four groups (Asian, blacks, whites, and Hispanics...and yes, I know that doesn't cover everyone), then yeah, I'm in the majority. However, if you break us up by actual bloodline, then I doubt my race would be in the majority.

In short: when you tell me I'm in the majority, you're grouping me by the color of my skin, and my appearance, rather than my actual nationality. I think that's very much worth noting.

Gosh you guys are gettin pretty into it with this thread. I mean it was just a movie, don't get all specific with what you found wrong with it. It's just a frickin movie.

I haven't watched it for about 10 years, though I'm sure I am getting like a pussy. I cried twice, I will try to find the scenes..

Its amazing that this thread is nearing 12 years. anyhow, some of the dialogue was cheesy at times. the acting wasn't bad at all. Heath Ledger getting killed by Jason Isaacs was pretty dramatic. I feel as though Gibson was trying to make a new epic on the Braveheart level, and that didn't happen.

Mel Gibson was medium good.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Its was no Braveheart I know that. But them scenes struck a cord with me, that's all!

Yoder was wearing smaller underpants the last time he posted in this thread.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...