Tasku

Mel Gibson plays Benjamin Martin, or "the ghost" - a one man army, family man and a colonel in the Continental Army. He joins the war against the Britts to get vengeance for his sons death, and to look after his oldest son, who joins the fight despite his fathers disapproval.

The Patriot is an OK movie, but it lacks the feel of realism, as it is soaked with Hollywood clichés and overflowing heroism, without the grim look of real war. Racism in the south is shrugged upon by small disputes of skin colour in the start of the movie, and "honor to fight with you" in the end.

Battles are well done, with the red coats and the blue coats marching against each other on open fields in the old "honourable way", but the war itself is not the focus of this movie. The focus is put on Martin and his militia, hiding in the swamp and fighting against the Britts on their own terms, ambushing supply wagons and chasing the evil Britt cavalry Captain responsible for Martins son's death.

In another words it seems the war for Americas Independence is only in the background, while these two - the hero and the antihero - fight each other. Gibson's character being the perfect family man, who can look beyond skin colour, a man of principle, and of course legend among soldiers. The British cavalry captain is apparently the First Anti-Christ, burning down churches, killing women and children left and right, and of course enjoying it! What I'm trying to say here, is it is not even trying to be historically accurate, and it is not trying to give a statement against war, as all good war films do.

But it is worth watching.

6/10

As it has been said on earlier comments, this movie is the basic serial killer - profiler thriller, following the same old story line and the same old "surprises" and "twists" you've seen in every movie from the same category.

What makes this movie a thriller, is those quick scares it gives the unexpected viewer. Like every other Hollywood thriller, that's all this one has to offer.

Well, to be honest that's not all true - Ethan Hawke's nervousness rubbed on to me. He plays his part well. Other than that the acting is not bad, but nothing to mention really. Hawke's acting saves this film. He's the only reason I gave it more than a 5/10. I gave it seven. Should've given a six, but nevertheless, it's worth the watch if you don't mind it being so predictable.

As an overall experience, I enjoyed this movie. Or is it a mini series for TV? I don't know, I bought it as a DVD, and watched it as a movie.

Spectacular costumes and architecture from the 19th Century, colourful and luxurious, it completely drew me into the film. Christian Clavier plays the part well, and I find him believable as Napoleon.

I would've liked to see more battles, since the only ones shown in this film are the ones Napoleon lost. Surely he didn't loose all his battles, if he conquered so much of Europe? The French armies long march into Russia and Moscow is only quickly shown in this film - as they arrive in their spotless blue and white uniforms, and as they leave all tired and beaten. For a campaign that cost the lives of some 200,000 - 300,000 French soldiers, I was a bit disappointed. Surely in a 6 hour movie, there would've been time to show these historic events in closer detail.

Battles are few, but they are well done, almost making you stomp your head on the wall, screaming: "Stop acting like robots and dive for cover!" - as the French march in their well formed lines into enemy fire, and fall on the ground dead. War is so pointless, and there is no glory in it.

But why oh why did Napoleon speak English in his broken accent, instead of French? I would've liked to see a French Emperor speak his own language, even if I would've had to read the meaning of his words from the subtitles.

I liked this film for it's document-like story telling, and the fact that two veterans: Järv himself and another man from the same unit were involved in making it, as advisor's. This shows in true story told exactly right and in the way death is described and fake blood is not spared on the wounded.

Järv's own photographs - taken by himself with the camera he carried with him in the war - are shown as he takes them in the film, and some black and white documentary clips are added to remind the viewer, this war really did happen. It's a nice touch, and a brave move, which could've flopped the movie. But it works.

What I didn't like, was that Rambo-style Super Soldier Heroism shown on some battle screens. Also Russian head on attacks are quite common in the film: "Don't use the trees or dive for cover! Just run at them! CHAAAARGE!" Then again. Soviet's were known to use such tactics (especially early in the war). Järv's groups heroic raids on enemy positions are also a fact of history.

I will comment Triathlonwest's earlier comments, to correct a few facts. First of all Soviet Union didn't attack Finland in The Winter War because "Russia needed land around Stalingrad to defend the city against possible German attacks" - as Triathlonwest stated. There's plenty of land around Stalingrad. They demanded a buffer zone for LENINGRAD. Soviet Union also demanded Finland's nickel mines at Petsamo, and several military bases inside Finnish borders, and close to the capital Helsinki, which would've basically given the Soviets free pass to enter the city, if war would've been later declared. And to this comment: "The reason the Fins lost territory to the Russians were their stubbornness and refusal to compromise". Behind the scenes, and before Winter War (or the Russo-German war), the Soviets had a pact with Germany (The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) to share Europe between them. Germany would get Western and Central Poland, and Western Europe, while Soviet Union had "claims" on Eastern Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania and it's other western neighbors. So the war would've most likely started even if Finns would've accepted Soviet demands. Out of all countries included in this pact only Finland remained independent during and after the war. All thanks to Finnish stubbornness.