Revolution

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 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.

"Revolution" could have been a fascinating story. Unfortunately, it seems that director Hugh Hudson had shot his entire wad when he made the Oscar-winning "Chariots of Fire". Both "Greystoke" and this film were sloppy, choppy messes with no narrative flow. It is confounding, because it is obvious that there was a lot of attention to detail in parts of "Revolution". But only in parts. There is as much here that simply doesn't fit--the most glaring example being Al Pacino performance as a colonial trapper. He apparently forgot what movie he was in, and frequently uses a halting accent very similar to the one he used only two years earlier in Brian DePalma's "Scarface". And I don't think his character was supposed to be Cuban. The rest of the film produces the same effect you would get from flipping through a beautiful set of American Revolution postcards--at random.

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.

Sort of both a proto-PATRIOT (though mildly less-addlebrained) with reverse-elements of LAST OF THE MOHICANS (the Huron are the good guys this time around), this film covers the criminally underrepresented ground of the American Revolutionary War in a generally hackneyed way. I did like the recurrence of some elements in the film, such as how it was really "about" bonding with and protecting sons and how the careers of protagonist Pacino contrasted with oddly-cast British antagonist Sutherland. The two characters feel cartoonish at times as Sutherland carries out several heartless atrocities, exemplifying the un-nuanced way British are often depicted as villains, but he also impressively comes off like an honorable human being at the same time.

There's about as many baffling decisions on display as there are surprisingly good ones. What barely qualifies as a "love story" between Pacino and Kinski never makes sense and it's never clear why bougie but idealistic Kinski gets so enthralled with apathetic commoner Pacino. All of Kinski's scenes slow the film down along with many irritating scenes of Pacino getting wronged and stolen from left-and-right with him usually responding by angrily shouting at someone. The actual battle scenes come off very stiff and awkward, though to be fair that was generally the fighting style of the time.

I do give the film credit for actually recasting one of the characters as he ages instead of relying on goofy makeup or prosthetics. I also give it credit for the ending holding back on the most obvious way of concluding the narrative and reminding us that the characters in the film actually are supposed to be human beings. It is a bit baffling though that since the film was made in Europe with so much British money that they went with Donald Sutherland as the villain with a distracting accent. They could easily have cast any number of local British character actors of the day (say someone ike Anthony Hopkins, Paul Darrow, John Hurt, etc and the film would have been 50% better.

A good looking film with a couple nice surprises and believable production design, but unfortunately weighed down with too many flaws and pacing issues.