Scriptorius

The movie is clearly fiction in the greater sense, but the themes it aims to explore in fine detail are the themes of the American Revolution. It paints the war with a brush of strong contrast and the moral differences and struggles of the people involved. The sense of moral strength and weakness is not academic. The participants are shown applying their moral theory and the consequences thereof. The war began after an extended period of increasing tension and the feeling by the American Colonists that their rights as Englishmen were being denied. This movie begins with Benjamin Martin, the protagonist, expressing his views regarding joining in conflict, having seen it first hand. The movie introduces the viewer to hostilities and the frustration of the characters. These frustrations have real historical roots; for example a British officer in 1778, Col. Charles Stuart wrote: "Wherever our armies have marched, wherever they have encamped, every species of barbarity has been executed. We planted an irrevocable hatred wherever we went, which neither time nor measure will be able to eradicate." The movie explores the conflicts between armies, citizens, neighbors, and family members as a consequence of the times. The movie is accurate in the small details of history and it hits its mark. It also works at good continuity; one small example: at the end of an ambush of the British by Martin and his sons, we see the scene fade but it looks like one of the dead sits up. Later, we find there is indeed a seriously wounded survivor of the ambush. The chief bad guy in the movie, the thoroughly ambitious and ruthless Colonel Tavington, is portrayed splendidly by Jason Isaacs. The Tavington character is loosely based on the history of British officer Col Banastre Tarleton. The very real Tarleton was boyhood best friend with Henry Mouzon. On August 7, 1780, Tarleton burned Mouzon's home to the ground. Tarleton apparently liked to burn things. This site shows the historical marker for the church burned by the British under Tarleton's orders: http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=27903. So yes, the war in history brought out the worst in Tarleton's heart. The participation by black volunteers and the slaves who served on behalf of their owners in the American militia depicted in the movie likewise traces to real events. After his surrender, in history Cornwallis was surprised to find in the American camp what he thought was one of his own men, James Armistead. Armistead was the key intelligence agent the Americans had for spying on Cornwallis. They say history is a fiction written by the winners. The Patriot is a fiction written by the winners and a good one at that. Those who fought for freedom did feel the plight of those enslaved. The very few who found their way to new freedom did so by serving their new nation with the highest honor.

This movie has been re-titled "Sea Snakes." Maybe it had a name change to dodge a bad reputation. Anyways, it's a movie about snakes on a submarine. " Aha," you say. "The crew will simply isolate compartments, wear breathing equipment, and turn the compartment oxygen off." Well, we all know that would make for a 15 minute movie ... So pretend that it's not a real submarine, a real submarine crew, or real snakes. Oh yeah, the scientists aren't real either. I guess this is my beef with this flick, no suspension of disbelief. Most of the stuff looks fake, and it's hard to care or get engaged. There's a lot of technical errors and they are annoying. One teeny example: in one scene the ship's corpsman (the medic) puts some anti-venom next to a bunch of glass containers, all sitting on top of a cabinet. That's OK if the cabinet is affixed to a building in a non-seismic zone. All those glass jars would have fallen off the cabinet and shattered once the sub went to sea. If you want to see bigger technical errors or learn lessons in careless movie making, watch the flick. Just don't expect to be entertained.

Yep: total trash. Every time the script brought in another detail my response was either disbelief or pain. The whole movie is a study in the "how not to" of film making. A nuclear plant in the US was actually hit by a tornado well before this movie was made. It shut down safely and its back up systems functioned as required. Does this movie highlight any serious technical, social, or other reasons why nuclear plants are endangered by tornadoes? NOT! I always wondered why a "plot device" is a bad thing -- don't all plots rely on them? This movie is an example of why plot devices that are noticed, noticed to the point of being shoved at the viewer, really are annoying and disrupt continuity. Speaking of which: a lot of continuity problems. The whole movie is one giant plot device: atomic plot twister indeed. The characters and their relationships seem very contrived. Some key dialog between Jack and his (?) girl are totally unbelievable considering their circumstances. The movie is supposedly set in West Tennessee: sure didn't look that way to me, either demographically or geographically. I could understand a naive person thinking that a fire hose and a fuel transfer hose could be or would be used interchangeably -- but not the on-scene fire department officer. There are a lot of technical problems: nuclear plant design, nuclear plant operations, sheriff department procedures, etc. None of the professionals looked professional -- they looked like actors without even a superficial background on what the character's job required. The movie consistently dissed about every type of worker in it. Some reviewers have described this movie as a comedy because it is so bad. For me, it even fails to be funny: mostly painful to watch. Was this the director's fault? Very noticeable when some characters tell themselves why they're acting the way they are ... as if memorizing what the director just told them. I just wanted to scream, DON'T DO THAT! Oh well.