The Last Days of Patton

The first Patton movie was a classic, but some stupid TV exec had to convince George C. Scott that this sequel was a good idea. Of course you wouldn't expect much from a TV movie, but this... What were they thinking? This depressing slop just seems to drag on and on, until at the end you're almost happy he's finally dead. The last few days of Patton's life would never be fit for an entire movie. The ending of one, maybe, but it should impossible to stretch Patton dying in a bed into feature length. Yet somehow they did, and even longer. My theory is that at the last minute, someone told the writer they wanted a two-parter. That would explain the huge amounts of padding in this film. My advice, stick to the original and forget this one ever existed.

I'm curious about the assertion that some have made that the film was a "character assassination." I myself saw nothing that would lead one to come to such a conclusion. Certainly, the film indicated he was not without faults, but I believe this only served to make this formidable militarist icon more approachable, actually breathing life into a dusty history lesson.

I enjoyed the film a great deal, even though I think it could have benefited by some reduction in the length. The ending was quite moving- -giving us a personal glimpse into the last moments of a living, breathing human being--instead of just a decorated martinet. It forced me to turn my thoughts to my own mortality and the events that have shaped my own life. As a result, I had a long and fruitful discussion with my parents which had been long over due.

I'd recommend the film highly, giving it an "8" out of 10.

George C. Scott is excellent as is the rest of the cast in this compelling and very well made film. Most of the other posters seem to have missed the point of the film though. "Patton" 1970 was an epic war film which played on Patton's mythic status and personality extremes. Scott played it with such skill that he made it become more than just a war film and it took on the quality of a Shakespearean tragedy. Sequels in general have a hard time usually because they are lazy and thinly-veiled remakes of the original film they follow. The very few excellent sequels that I have seen take a new direction to the original and explore new territory e.g. French Connection 2. This is probably why "The Last Days of Patton" receives such low ratings - this film is not a war film at all, is not epic in scope or budget(being made for t.v.) and concentrates instead upon Patton's personal friendships, family, his youth and also the softer side to his character that was not really explored in "Patton". The story is quite sensitive and moving - very different to the original but in it's own way just as good. An excellent companion piece that complete's the Patton story.

... but it isn't as bad as the other commentators might make you think.

Based on Ladislas Farago's followup to Patton: Ordeal and Triumph (one of the source materials for the original film), Last Days shows Patton on his deathbed, and intercuts flashbacks, mostly of his early life, his courtship of Bea Ayers, his days at the Point and before the first world war. (Patton's adventures on Pershing's 1916 Punitive Expedition to Mexico, and in World War I could make another great film, in the right hands.)

Eva Marie Saint plays Bea very well, and it's always nice to see a pair of contemporaries playing an aging couple, rather than allowing the casting to be dictated by "who's hot," and then relying on makeup to age them.

Overall, a good movie, although I'm tempted to agree that is was an unnecessarily long movie.

July 1945. The war in Europe is over and General George S Patton, 3rd Army commander and a man who made a large contribution to the Allies' victory over Germany, is now military governor of Bavaria. True to form he doesn't always see eye-to-eye with his superiors and is prone to making comments that they don't approve of.

A sequel to the excellent 1970 film Patton, of sorts. The 1970 film covered Patton's death so chronologically not a sequel but this, the 1986 film, concentrates 100% on Patton's post-war life while the 1970 film devoted about 1% to it. The fact that George C Scott reprises his role as Patton in this film having won an Oscar for his portrayal of the General in the 1970 film certainly makes this look like a sequel.

The outcome is quite interesting, showing Patton's governorship of Bavaria and how his methods don't accord with General Eisenhower's policies, his reassignment and final days. Quite educational in many respects and quite accurately told. While I'm not an expert on these things, the medical procedures and prognoses towards the end seem very authentic: no dumbing down of that aspect, which is a relief. The last portion of the film is also quite emotional.

Good performance by George C Scott (again) with a solid supporting cast that includes Eva Marie Saint as Patton's wife, Beatrice, and Richard Dysart as Eisenhower. I found Murray Hamilton a bit hammy and irritating as General Gay though.

This film is not in the same league as the first Patton though. Admittedly, that film did win the 1971 Best Picture Oscar so it was always going to be a tough act to follow. While the first film was a compelling, enthralling depiction of the life of one of WW2's greatest generals, this film is much more subdued and conventional.