User reviews

As a high school US History teacher I often use a few scenes from this film in my classes. I have found value in some elements of this dark, brooding, and sluggish film and think it deserves some credit. Examples are: NY City in the opening and closing scenes, (they are our history books brought to life). The battles of NY, specifically Long Island and Brooklyn Heights (the film is vague as to which exact battle this is) the complicated world of Nastasia Kinski's character Daisy, daughter of loyalists, mother yes, but which side is her father really on? Additionally, the miserable conditions at Valley Forge, and very importantly, Tom and Ned "quitting" the war after their first battle (Historically Washington's "grand army" melted away by the autumn of 1776). As a teacher I love the resource of this film. As a parent I want my children to be exposed, As a period movie fan I don't love this film very much.

From the first few scenes onwards, I got the impression that Al Pacino really wasn't enjoying his time in 'Revolution', and the aura of apathy which followed the then-recent legend of 'Scarface' more or less destroyed one of the few potentially redeeming qualities of this film. There is a scene towards the end of the film in which the actor seems to muster up some enthusiasm for performance and reminds us that he was the face of Michael Corleone and Tony Montana, and not just a lookalike. The scenes in which Pacino "bonds" with his on-screen son – Sid Owen and later Dexter Fletcher – are near- insufferable, and it becomes very easy throughout 'Revolution' to forget that these characters even know each other. The action in this film felt like a cheap series of re-enactments, common to (but forgivable in) dated documentaries. The first major confrontation between the Americans and the British was enjoyable in places, however, and the score enriched one or two haunting sequences of the irrepressible redcoats, led by Donald Sutherland, marching on the revolutionaries. The attempts to create a drama subplot of Nastassja Kinski's family tensions was not fun to watch, and her pro-redcoat relatives were so quickly introduced and dismissed that they became instantly forgettable. Overall, I do not recommend this film. However, if you have an iron-willed enthusiasm for the American War of Independence, you may derive some minor satisfaction from seeing a world-class actor caught in the middle; but, just as Malcolm McDowell and Peter O'Toole could not redeem 'Caligula' for a less- than-maniacal fan of ancient history, the chances are that you'll still come out unfulfilled.

It's 1776. France and England are in perpetual war. After the Declaration of Independence, British troops land in New York. Fur trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) had lost most of his family. All he has left is his boat and his son. The revolutionaries confiscate his boat and they promise to pay him in gold in two weeks after the war is to end. His son Ned unwittingly signs up for the revolution and Tom is forced to join up to protect him. Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski) is the rebellious daughter of a rich New York family. She is drawn to the revolution and rebels against his war profiteering father. Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland) is the ruthless English soldier who fights alongside his drummer boy son.

The son is the brattiest of brats. Pacino is Italian to his core. There is no way to alleviate that and his natural accent doesn't help. Kinski is foreign in her accent and annoyingly arrogant in her rebellion. Of course, her family is horribly selfish. The British are cartoonish. The revolutionaries don't start off well either. It's an ugly world overall. The only compelling work comes from Sutherland who knows how to play his uncomprising role without becoming a caricature. It is interesting to depict the rebellion start with such an ugly mob. Usually they're more noble than that. That has to be a part of the reason why this movie bombed so badly. There are also other pressing problems.

It's notable that the black actors barely speak a word. I'm sure the movie is trying to say a little something about slavery. In Philadelphia, the slaves are rising up as freedom rings out all around them but it's left confused. Obviously, none of them are freed in reality but it's not clear from the movie. I think the blacks being march off in the opposite direction is suppose to be them being sent into slavery in the south. I also have a problem with Pacino fighting off the two Indian scouts. It's barely believable and it would be easily solved if the friendly Indians arrive a minute earlier. They could help him kill the two Indian scouts. In addition, I don't understand why he doesn't go with his son at the end. He spends the entire movie rescuing his son but leaves him for the city life. That's stupid. I don't mind portraying the war as an ugly affair but this one is not that good.

I had wanted to see this movie for quite some time, but for some strange reason it never appeared on television despite its cast. However, I finally managed to find a copy of it at a specialized video store in my city. (The version I found was the director's cut.) So what did I think of it? Well, I admit that the look of the movie is very convincing. The costumes, props, and set decoration look fantastic. It really seems that they captured what the colonies were like more than 200 years ago.

However, the story and characters are less convincing. For example, the movie seems to suggest that most Americans were pro-revolution. In actual fact, a third were pro-revolution, another third were British loyalists, and the remaining third either didn't care or were undecided. Another odd fact is that the movie portrays just about all of the pro- revolutionists as despicable - odd because the filmmakers were trying to sell this movie to the American public! Actually, most of the other characters in the movie, like the British soldiers, are also shown in a negative light. There are precious few characters in the movie to care about. The actors try, but a lot of the roles are shallow. Donald Sutherland and Nastassja Kinski have little to do despite their billing.

There are other problems in the movie I could go on for some time listing, like Pacino's extensive yet completely unnecessary narration. Still, I will admit that while I didn't like the movie, I wasn't bored at any moment. There's plenty of eye candy, and I confess a curiosity as to how Pacino's character would end up. The movie isn't as bad as some critics have claimed... though I won't hesitate to add that it wasn't worth the years I searched for a way to see it.

I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)

I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.

But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.

Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.

Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.

There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.

After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.

This movie has consistantly been trashed by numerous professional and amateur reviewers alike. Even Leonard Maltin, my personal favorite movie guy, rated it a "BOMB". I can`t understand why. Although it isn`t a perfect film endeavor, it does tell a story that`s never been told before...but obviously in a manner that many found extremely annoying at best. Aside from New York and L.A. movie houses, I don`t believe this film was released nationally at any time. Personally, I thought it was a very different type of movie, but effective and entertaining in a strange way. It gave me a feel for the time period, including an appealing atmospheric identity. Being an ex-NewYorker and exposed to the famous Revolutionary battlefields, that still exist throughout the metro area, I felt an aura of actually being present in that time period, with events occuring on both surrealistic and realistic levels. Al Pacino is a born/raised New Yorker and I believe captured the essence of his character very well. Pacino gave a solid portrayal of an 18th. century individual caught up in a violent period of American history. This movie has been unfairly criticized and overly maligned in my humble opinion. A unique film deserving of more praise then it has been awarded. See it for yourself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----

I can't figure Al Pacino out. I watch him in the Godfather, Scarface, Carlito's Way, and I think I am watching one of the greatest actors of the last thirty years. Then I see him in Two for the Money, Any Given Sunday and Revolution, and I wonder what the guy is thinking.

I stumbled on Revolution a few nights ago, and thought I would invest the next two hours on this. Here is a news flash: Want to get prisoners to talk? Force them to watch this over and over...they'll confess to anything.

I won't rehash the plot since there is no coherent plot, but it does take place during the American Revolution and Pacino plays an uneducated peasant who does not want to get involved, but ultimately does. While he has no money, no education and dresses like a caveman, a very hot Natasha Kinski falls in love with him for no apparent reason, since they have only two minutes of dialogue together.

Quite frankly, if "Al Smith" starred in this movie, instead of "Al Pacino", it would have ruined their career. The script was horrible, but Pacino's demotivated performance and obvious fake accent made it even worse. Donald Sutherland's role was laughable. I really can't describe it. Natasha Kinski is a main character, but has like 5 lines in the movie. In fact, nobody speaks much in this movie.

One of the most laughable premise in the movie is how Al Pacino and Kinski have this uncanny knack to continually run into each other on the battlefield. Its like the entire Northeast is a Starbucks. "Hey, funny to see you here again, on ANOTHER battlefield 100 miles away...see you in a few months".

I am required to give this one star by IMDb, since there is nothing here for a negative score.

Searching for some short-length used videotapes, I found the laserdisc version of "Revolution," which I'd never seen. This non-letterbox, TV format version had the usual "talking to air" problem with 2.35:1 movies. Although a scratch and miscellaneous dirt made the picture skip/repeat/wobble, it was an interesting foxhole-level look at the American Revolution. The scenery, set design, costumes, and varied kinds of people made me think that this was Sergio Leone's take on The War for Independence. Was Al Pacino believable as a backwoods English colonist? No, but like a scratch running through a film, the "speech impediment" is overlooked as the tale unfolds. This film, unlike "The Patriot," shows camp followers, Indians on both sides, fighting women, "Not Worth a Continental" issues, lots of dirt and the conventions and results of 18th century warfare. Valley Forge isn't as grim an encampment as paintings and written records reported, but it's a close miss for the English countryside location. Are the characters believable? Hard to tell, since their histories and motives aren't complete. (Having the action jump place to place with jumps in time make this a "fill-in-the-missing-backstory" exercise found in James Clavell's book "Nobel House" series.) Is it an interesting movie? Definitely, and has that 18th century "fleas, dirt, and grease" look that is missing from "The Patriot." 7/10, for presenting issues and motives that turned English colonists into Americans.

Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution – his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier – talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.

Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life – living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army – swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.

Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast – Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy – that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.

I've watched this film several times over the years and was really surprised to learn (after checking it out on IMDB) that is was considered a flop at the time of its release! Also baffled completely by the relatively low rating.

I'm certainly not an expert on this historical timeframe and like most period films, I'm sure they got some things wrong. However, this gritty, grimy film seemed to me, what the time and place must have been like. In other words, it conveys a certain, almost documentary style realism, right down to the rather odd pacing of the film's plot. The film doesn't seem to build to a climatic ending, but rather plays out a slice of life in all its awkwardness. Compared to a film like, "The Patriot" (which contains some pretty outrageous Hollywood stuff), I find this somber film to better represent the period (in my mind).

Oh, I liked Pacino's performance! It isn't over the top. He seems like a regular fellow caught up in extraordinary events. Again, can't understand the overly critical review of his acting here. Ditto for Sutherland and Kinski.

Definitely worth watching if you're looking for something outside of a formula Hollywood "history" movie. I think it will become more highly regarded in its context as time goes on.

"Revolution" is short on story and action, however, the set design, costumes and above all the cinematography is first rate. I can easily imagine that the way the film shows 18th Century life in North America is how it actually was. Unlike earlier (as well as later films) that favor a more "clean" depiction of the era "Revolution" shows the poverty, desperation and filth that was common in cities like New York without exploiting it. It is unfortunate that the plot and casting of the film didn't do justice to the outstanding work of the set designers. I can't bash the story too much because there have been far worse films that are now heralded as classics. If you like period films then give "Revolution" a chance, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

After the Academy Awards, the most important awards ceremony is the Golden Raspberries (known as "Razzies") – the "worst of" counterpart to the Oscars. The thing about the Razzies is that they don't go for the literal worst movies of the year – otherwise they would give prizes to a load of trashy B-movies. Instead they bestow their honours upon the high profile flops, the movies that could have been so much more, the casts and crews who should have known better. Revolution stars Al Pacino, one of the greatest actors of his generation, and was directed by Hugh Hudson, he of 1981 Best Picture Chariots of Fire. And yet, in a stark "Oh how the mighty have fallen" scenario, it recouped less than two percent of its budget at the box office and was nominated for four Golden Raspberries.

Revolution is not without promise. In contrast to the usual gung-ho attitude of pictures on this subject (cf. The Patriot), this takes an approach rare in historical pictures on any era, showing not the makers and shapers of change, but those unwillingly caught up in it. The Robert Dillon screenplay still ultimately comes down on the side of the revolutionaries, but it shows the conflict with the minimum of political emotiveness, and a storyline whose occasional poignancy comes from its even-handed intimacy. Director Hudson has excelled in creating tableaux that are full of believable bustle and period dirt, even if they were entirely shot in rainy England. There's a realistic melange of accents to be heard here; not just clipped British and broad American, which didn't really exist in any recognisable form at the time anyway. The credibility of some of the bit parts is very effective, such as the bolshy soldier who prods Pacino when he's chosen for the fox hunt, a slappable face if ever there was one.

And yet the movie's the biggest flaws are on the same grounds. There are some woefully unrealistic and downright silly characterisations here. Chief among these is Nastassja Kinski's. While no means badly acted (in fact she does very well all things considered), the character as written is in no way believable. Not that you can't have rebellious and resourceful women, but stabbing a man in the nadgers at a soirée is a bit hard to swallow. It would probably have warranted her a stint in an asylum, and certainly more than just a telling off from her mother. And giving the Englishman in question a stupid nasal voice and cartoonish demeanour was a huge mistake. It all seems totally at odds with the realism elsewhere in the movie. There are problems too with the over-earnest attempt at a documentary look. Hudson's constant use of hand-held camera quickly becomes tiresome. Pacino's performance is heartfelt but there are times when he appears to break into improvisation yet comes across too much as the modern New Yorker.

In response to its poor reception, Hudson would later revisit the material for a 2009 special edition appropriately titled Revolution Revisited, and it is this version of the movie which I have seen. Apparently around ten minutes of footage was shorn off (I don't know what this was so can't comment), and they added narration by Pacino, written and recorded ad hoc. This latter was to my mind a mistake – it adds nothing, basically spelling out the character's thoughts at any given moment, even though the essence of them is already there on the screen. It somewhat spoils the taciturn moodiness of the character, as well as the chaotic wordlessness of some scenes. It's nice however to be able to enjoy a decent new transfer of the picture, because it really isn't as bad as its reputation (and those Razzie nominations, all of which it lost to Rambo II, I hasten to add) would suggest. It is incredibly moving at times, a high point being Pacino's desperate comforting of Ned as his foot wound is cauterized. It's also beautifully shot. This is ultimately a movie of two sides – the very good and the very bad, with no middle ground of mediocrity. And this is very frustrating, because you can see just how easily it could have been a masterpiece.

From its unintelligible accents to its wretched miscasting to its overblown plot about lovers being separated by the chaos of war and revolution to its ridiculous location shots to its absurd portrayal of the American Revolution as a combination of the French Revolution and the Vietnam War, Hugh Hudson's "Revolution" is an absolute mess.

It was also a critical and box-office bomb that hurt the careers of everyone involved in its making. Its director Hugh Hudson was briefly a hot commodity in the early 1980's thanks to his grossly over-rated "Chariots of Fire" somehow winning Best Picture in 1981. The disaster that was "Revolution" pretty much ended his career. It also put its writer Robert Dillon's career on hiatus. Its star, Al Pacino, was so embarrassed by it by that he stepped-away from film-acting for four years. It derailed the attempt to turn Nastassja Kinski into a bankable movie star. And even Donald Sutherland saw his career temporarily reduced to foreign and TV films in its aftermath. With the exceptions of 1956's "The Conqueror" and 1980's "Heaven's Gate," it's hard to name a movie that had a more catastrophic effect upon its cast and crew.

What went wrong? Let's start with casting Al Pacino with his "Nu Yawk" accent as an 18th century fur trapper. Not good. Nor was it helped by its overlong and convoluted story of a father (Pacino) and his son being dragooned into the Continental Army and then meeting the revolutionary daughter (Kinski) of a wealthy NY Tory family before being separated "Gone with the Wind"-like by various tribulations and tragedies. Its "American Revolutionary" extras (one of them British pop singer Annie Lennox) carry-on as if they walked off the set of an adaption of "A Tale of Two Cities." Its British characters are absurd caricatures: the unintelligible sergeant major (Sutherland) and officers who are either foppish homosexuals or sadistic pedophiles. Further, for some reason American Indians (one of them young Graham Greene) are portrayed as being present in both armies at Yorktown. And it was filmed on locations in England and Norway that look NOTHING like the mid-Atlantic states its supposed to be set in. The coast of peninsular Virginia does not feature rocky cliffs!

It's not only awful history, but just plain bad film-making with too many interminable scenes where characters are just mumbling into each other's ears.

In sum: a truly terrible movie. I rarely give single star ratings, but "Revolution" richly deserves one considering how it's virtually unwatchable. Its sheer awfulness ruined and damaged careers and reputations.

I've just seen "Revolution" on TV and I have to say that it's a much better movie than one may think. Sometimes a movie is worth-seeing only because of its wonderful production values. And "Revolution" is an eye-popping visual feat: wonderful cinematography, first-rate period details. I might say that beside Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" and Tony Richardson's "Tom Jones", this is the most beautifully made period movie about the eighteenth century. "Revolution" is also an important film because there are only about a dozen films on the Revolutionary War and almost all of them are a matter of obscurity - at least for a Hungarian movie lover. The most popular is Roland Emmerich's "The Patriot" (2000). In my opinion that's a much worse film than Hudson's maligned film. When "Revolution" was released it was a critical and commercial disaster. I think it didn't fit in any of the movie trends of the 1980s. But in the future it might be regarded as a flawed but valuable movie. Its flaws are obvious and much-discussed so I don't want to speak about them. If you're interested in beautiful period pieces and the Revolutionary War you might like this movie.

The Revolutionary War was waged here in the Americas'. Seeing this movie called " Revolution " directed by Hugh Hudson and written by Robert Dillon, one would expect a great outcome. However, I saw this film and as a Historian I expected so much more. The story begins in 1776 and continues to the end of the war. A father (Al Pacino) is visiting New York shortly after War has been declared. Straying away from his father, the son is inducted into the military, forcing the father to follow with the dubious promises of pay and compensation for his boat. Once fighting has been enjoined, they soon meet up with Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland) a brutal , but very professional British soldier. From then onward, the two experience the confusing and often destructive effects of the war. Along the way, they are helped and sympathized by women of the revolution, like Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski). Unfortunately, the movie tests the limits of patience as our director includes scenes which should have been edited. The war becomes interesting with several easily recognized actors along the way, such as Robbie Coltrane and Graham Green, playing minor roles. Despite it's cumbersome length, the movie did have several realistic features, like the battle of Yorktown which were included in the final draft. Acting-wise, the cast made this movie and should be seen as most epics, over several nights. Good movie though. ****

How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."

Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.

What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.

I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.

I don't think Revolution deserved to be panned as much as it was. The production values are excellent. The costumes look authentic, the colors are muted, and the atmosphere looks like the movie was really filmed hundreds of years ago. In the opening scene, which shows the Boston Tea Party, you can actually feel the misty fog in the air. There's a crowd scene in town that also captures the dreary mood: little bits of ash blow into the frame and stick to the characters' clothes; a detail like that wouldn't have been expected by the audience, but it helps transport them into the crisis of the film.

The story isn't bad, either. Al Pacino's son, Dexter Fletcher, makes a child's mistake and enlists in the army so they can have some money. When the army refuses to make the error right, Al has to enlist to keep a close watch over his son. Meanwhile, Nastassjaa Kinski breaks out of her repressive household, headed by Joan Plowright and Dave King, who are sympathetic to the British side of the war. She comes across a wounded Al and forms a deep connection to him as a symbolic soldier in the grand revolutionary cause. Why weren't audiences moved by the dramatic storyline and visual splendor?

I don't know, and the good news is that thanks to the Revolutionary War, we live in a free country. Everyone can decide for himself whether or not he likes Revolution. For my money, it's pretty good.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie is not your friend. Almost the entire movie is filmed with a handheld camera, and that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

Al Pacino goes all angsty in this film version of the American War of Independence, a film surprisingly made by the Brits (surprising given the content of the storyline). REVOLUTION was bad enough to single-handedly destroy the British film industry in the late 1980s, and it only really got going again a decade later.

Whichever way you look at it, this is dull stuff indeed. Pacino's heart clearly isn't in it, and he feels and sounds like a very boring Tony Montana here. Donald Sutherland plays a British villain, somewhat inexplicably, and watching him struggling with a Yorkshire accent of all things is one of the most embarrassing things I've seen in a movie.

REVOLUTION's general look and feel is decent, and Norway makes a good stand-in for true American locales. But the battle scenes are cheap-looking and the storyline never really goes anywhere despite the lengthy running time. Everybody seems to be a bad guy and the performances are way over the top; take Richard O'Brien for example. The only fun I had from it was spotting the youthful British stars at the beginning of their careers (Dexter Fletcher, Robbie Coltrane, Sid Owen, etc.), otherwise this is boring stuff indeed.

Because of the dark portrayal of this subject is probably the reason the critics and most people not privy to what really went on during the war don't like this movie. But it is a Okay revolutionary war film.

It's kind of the norths version of "The Patriot(2000)" with out the fireworks and musical score, which is its main weakness. Other weaknesses might be the lack of character development, and the mis-casting of the main stars, except for Annie Lenox.

Out of the few films on this subject, it works because of the accuracies in it, but fails as a drama. So it is good for a history lesson.

"Revolution" reportedly cost $28,000,000 to make (a considerable amount in the 1980s) and earned LESS than $400,000 at the box office! This is an atrocious record that few other films can match or exceed. And, while there are good parts to the film, I really think the studio deserved to lose their investment because the film is very misguided. After all, why have an American actor with a STRONG modern New York accent and well-coiffed 1980s hair play the leading man in a film set in the late 18th century? He says 'ain't' all the time...even though the word wasn't in common usage until the 19th century. Why film the story in the UK and Norway instead of the States? This is especially ludicrous when you see mountains that look nothing like the mountains of New York and it's clearly Norway! Why get many of the historical facts wrong when simply doing a bit of research could have eliminated these mistakes? After all, the film begins with everyone in New York City on July 4, 1776 passing out copies of the Declaration of Independence and celebrating independence....but announcements about independence and passing out of copies of the Declaration did occur on this day...in Philadelphia. How could New Yorkers hear about it AND print up copies to pass out in an age with no telephones, telegraph or TV?! Why have Annie Lennox in the film and have her sing...and DUB her with another singer?!?! Why would you capture an evil British officer near the end of the movie...and just let him go?! You COULD take him prisoner if you didn't want to shoot him. And, finally, how could the film be about war and yet be so dull and with such underdeveloped characters?!

Nastassja Kinsi (the GERMAN actress) is given the task of becoming Al Pacino's English-speaking girlfriend in the film...even though they spend no time together in order to fall in love! She just appears and disappears and follows him for no apparent reason...as if much of their relationship ended up on the cutting room floor.

Now all these complaints are valid...and probably many more. But at least the story is mildly interesting, as the 'revolutionaries' (Pacino and his on-screen son) don't seem like dedicated patriots or troublemakers...just sad folks caught up in a war. I did appreciate that. I also appreciated SOME of the cinematography and battle scenes...at least the costumes were nice.

Overall, this is a film which was very misguided and could have been good. Instead, it's just dull and confusing in its sloppiness. Sadly, I cannot think of many better American Revolutionary films. For example, "The Patriot", while fun to watch and exciting, it is a historical mess and so are most other movies in the genre. I did think Cary Grant's film, "The Howards of Virginia", did a nice job portraying the revolutionary period and it's amazing such an important topic has little to show for it otherwise.

An incomparable historical epic about the American Revolutionary War, Revolution brings Al Pacino to the fore as Dobbs the trapper swept up in the Continental Army and Kinski as Daisy the rebellious daughter of a cynically duplicit Tory merchant family.

Set against the backdrop of the American Revolution, Al Pacino plays Tom Dobbs a man swept up in Revolutionary upheaval fighting alongside his son. After the battle of Brooklyn, Dobbs like most of the patriotic army melts away, but enduring life in British occupied New York City proves too much. Dobbs and his son escape conscription into the enemy army by fleeing to American lines. They're out to teach a murderous redcoat (Donald Sutherland) a lesson.

Daisy plays the part the Red Coats complained of and dreaded: nurse at Brooklyn, spy in Philadelphia and occasionally an irregular soldier with a loaded pistol for an unsuspecting enemy.

The historical choreography was outstanding. Attention to detail is remarkable particularly in the period music. The uniforms and costuming are magnificent. If Donald Sutherland plays an iron-willed, British Sergeant-Major, a realistically fiercesome antagonist, the movie catches the principal grievances between the opposing forces. The deposing of the last Royal Governor and battle of Brooklyn are imaginatively and accurately staged. This is no small feat. Only one block of the original Hanseatic city is left in New York City and the entire battlefield of Brooklyn and Long Island lay under the nation's fourth largest city. And perhaps `The World Didn't Turn Upside Down' when Lord Cornwallis wept in his tent and General O'Hara's Second Guards surrendered to the tune of Minstrel Boy.

A Classic That Warrants A Second Look Revolution, the movie, was not well received in its time. Lost in the wilderness of the post-Vietnam malaise of anti-heroism, critics pinged Al Pacino's inescapable accent. How do you suppose men from the Hudson River Valley in 1775 spoke when English and Dutch were still interchangeable? Some reviewers did not like the battle scenes. The patriotic gore wasn't enough? Some didn't think the snow was deep enough at Valley Forge. Even in the North East's snowiest winters, it doesn't snow every day.

In consequence of the time in which the movie played to, the film was a box office disaster grossing less than $200,000. There maybe a time when motion pictures like books win a status long after release they did not enjoy immediately. Hopefully that time will come for Revolution a movie well worth revisiting.

I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, proving once and for all you shouldn't believe everything you hear (having "heard" that it was one of the biggest career mistakes Al Pacino ever made..)

I'm not really sure what made critics (and others) hate it so much. I thought Al Pacino gave a very good performance as Tom Dobb, the battle scenes were well done, the supporting cast were good, there were no glaring historical inaccuracies.. so what, I ask, was the big deal?

Regarding Al Pacino's accent.. (I believe this was one of the focal points of the critics derision) I must say that I didn't hear anything wrong with it personally. Sure, it kind of "fluctuates" during the course of the film, but considering the character he's playing (an inarticulate unlearned man "of few words") and the era in which the film is set (a time of great cultural turbulence) I'd say that a slightly mix-and-match accent is actually quite appropriate. Sometimes he sounds American/New York, sometimes regional English or Irish, but it never bothered me for a minute truth be told (and it's not like he had to deliver any long booming Shakespearean speeches anyway..) (Honestly, I thought the "Most Ridiculous Accent Award" should have gone to the guy playing the pompous English army captain who led the dog hunt. High-pitched, exceptionally nasal and outrageously camp. THAT guy was the one who prompted a snort of derision from THIS viewer.)