tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post295441079228072707..comments2024-03-08T03:14:02.855+11:00Comments on This Island Rod: The Patriot (2000)Roderick Heathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08107539379079558068noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-86482159279576943992012-03-27T03:39:45.023+11:002012-03-27T03:39:45.023+11:00Hi, JD. Emmerich and Bay definitely share lodgings...Hi, JD. Emmerich and Bay definitely share lodgings as Hollywood's emperors of trash, but I can't find them entirely equivalent because Emmerich is a much more controlled visual stylist - if even he's making utter rubbish (<i>10,000 BC</i>), it's still good-looking rubbish, whereas Bay at his worst seems determined to rape one's middle ear. This film, as filmmaking, is positively artistic and intelligent compared the <i>Pearl Harbor</i>, even if both are finally crimes against history and good taste.Roderick Heathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107539379079558068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-67648713578989698302012-03-27T01:44:44.074+11:002012-03-27T01:44:44.074+11:00Emmerich's bizarro forays into historical film...Emmerich's bizarro forays into historical films boggles the mind. He really needs to stick to what he does best: overblown, CGI-heavy disaster flicks. The man doesn't have a subtle bone in his body and much like Michael Bay lays everthing on thick. One only has to look at the sudsy epic misfire that is PEARL HARBOR to see that he and Emmerich are two peas in a pod.<br /><br />Great review, Rod. It almost makes me want to watch this film.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164105442273577128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-21406370899645980762012-03-26T12:46:46.882+11:002012-03-26T12:46:46.882+11:00Ha, Kristen, I do rather know what you mean about ...Ha, Kristen, I do rather know what you mean about the love/hate relationship, as this essay was my attempt to wrestle through just that. There are some things to love about this film and some things to absolutely deplore. And count me as a fan of Jason Isaacs too, and as ridiculous as his part is here, he gives himself over to it with relish that would be more admirable in a different context. Funnily enough of all the things about the film I don't mind it's the length - if you're going to tell this sort of tale the canvas should be epic. It's the fine detail that's the problem.Roderick Heathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107539379079558068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-16826007736933814692012-03-26T09:39:11.270+11:002012-03-26T09:39:11.270+11:00I have a love/hate relationship with The Patriot. ...I have a love/hate relationship with The Patriot. There's nothing better than a smarmy Jason Isaacs but the movie is far too long and pretty much limits the entire Revolutionary War to one location . Excellent writeup!Kristenhttp://www.journeysinclassicfilm.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-43690574907634306342012-03-25T18:10:53.425+11:002012-03-25T18:10:53.425+11:00"...most of it was shot in slow motion as I r..."...most of it was shot in slow motion as I recall, so it's twice as long as it should be."<br /><br />You guys are the ones giving me all the laughs today. Thanks Patrick.Roderick Heathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107539379079558068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-39595576355441211992012-03-25T13:54:38.253+11:002012-03-25T13:54:38.253+11:00Your review is better than this movie deserves. I...Your review is better than this movie deserves. I don't remember all the things I didn't like about it, too earnest maybe, most of it was shot in slow motion as I recall, so it's twice as long as it should be. Anyway, good job.Patricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-53726365602543153722012-03-25T09:58:58.838+11:002012-03-25T09:58:58.838+11:00"Soon even Jesus wouldn’t be safe."
Bes..."Soon even Jesus wouldn’t be safe."<br /><br />Best line from any movie review/analysis anywhere so far this year.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10667380722587782819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-41266605211744234572012-03-25T00:48:13.416+11:002012-03-25T00:48:13.416+11:00Wittily said, Adam and Joe.
Adam, yes, the momen...Wittily said, Adam and Joe. <br /><br />Adam, yes, the moment where Gibson goes batshit, as you say, is a good one, and one that contributed to the feeling I have that Rodat had originally intended something more thoughtful and ambiguous, although apparently that daft church burning bit was in his script from early on. Adam Baldwin's character is a Loyalist, not a Brit, so his character seems to say that if you were loyal to the crown you were only a traitor, not a total psycho or stomping snob. I'm no Tory sympathiser myself, but the film's attempt to whitewash out all the contradictions in the rebel cause just feels wrong.<br /><br />Funny you should mention the Trenton raid as a worthy subject for a good movie, as by far the best depiction of the War I've seen so far is Robert Harmon's 2000 telemovie <i>The Crossing</i>, with Jeff Daniels as Washington, based on Howard Fast's novel about just that event; it's not really "epic" as a telemovie can't be, but it is intelligent, realistic, and heroic in just the right fashion, emphasising the disparity of strength and supply and the intelligence of Washington to give the film excitement.<br /><br />Joe, an Aussie newspaper critic did say something smart about it when it came out - there's a good movie in it trying to get out. "A hundred dollar eye and a nickel head" is dead right about Emmerich.Roderick Heathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107539379079558068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-59097398304268330282012-03-24T17:30:52.048+11:002012-03-24T17:30:52.048+11:00Fantastic review, Rod. I never considered THE PATR...Fantastic review, Rod. I never considered THE PATRIOT was supposed to be good -- although the involvement of Caleb Deschanel and John Williams muddies the puddle a bit -- but I was never bored by it. I agree with you on Emmerich's visual command. He's got a hundred dollar eye and a nickel head.Joe Valdezhttp://thisdistractedglobe.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-10466771149261447732012-03-24T15:49:29.890+11:002012-03-24T15:49:29.890+11:00Let me rephrase that one sentence: it's not li...Let me rephrase that one sentence: it's not like the colonists <i>didn't</i> do some vile things of their own.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1137730880076755122.post-86884017734427753872012-03-24T15:46:10.181+11:002012-03-24T15:46:10.181+11:00Oh, this movie is painful. It had a great cast and...Oh, this movie is painful. It had a great cast and a great screenwriter, and then fell into the hands of a lesser filmmaker and the shit just hit the fan from that point onwards. In all fairness, I enjoyed it when I was in middle school, probably because of the action scenes, but I can't look at it today. Isaacs is so laughably one-dimensional and hateful, the film's patriotism too jingoistic for its own good, the contrivances too impossible to ignore (isn't it such an amazing coincidence that Gibson and Isaacs wind up in hand-to-hand combat in that battle sequence at the end!?? What the fuck!)<br /><br />I do remember it having some revealing moments, like when Gibson goes absolutely batshit at the creek and butchers that poor British soldier in front of his sons. That scene was well-done. But the rest of the movie contradicts that scene. Emmerich and Rodat are trying to portray the British in a balanced light, I guess, by making Adam Baldwin the hesitant voice of reason compared to Isaacs, but still: ISaacs is WAY too cartoonish. I mean, sure, the Brits have their ugly moments in history, but they certainly weren't <i>this</i> vile to colonists (or, if they were, it's not like the colonists did some corrupt things of their own in response). I'm not trying to make a Loyalist argument or anything (because I do think it's pretty cool that we managed to secure our own independence), but what was Rodat thinking? It's like he looked at Paul Revere's dubious comic strip of the Boston Massacre and assumed, "Oooh, those bad Redcoats! Bad, bad Redcoats!" It's the same reason why I can barely tolerate <i>Braveheart</i>, another film that demonizes Brits to incredible extremes. Although then again, that movie was scripted by Randall Wallace, and his ideas are, well... evil.<br /><br />This cannot seriously be the same Rodat who wrote <i>Saving Private Ryan</i>, which had (I argue) a mostly even-handed perspective of America's enemies in war. Or maybe that's because SPR was directed by a filmmaker who knew when to put Rodat on a leash. But I guess Emmerich was boneheaded enough to let him run free.<br /><br />I agree too, Rod, that we don't yet have any really good films about the Revolutionary War. I was gonna mention <i>Last of the Mohicans</i>, but that's the French & Indian War. Let's see somebody make a great big battle epic about Washington's crossing of the Delaware River while showing how the Redcoats are reacting on the other side. Or something.Adam Zanziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14524618281515322239noreply@blogger.com