(This 'review' was actually a paper for a history class discussing the historical accuracy of the film, so it reads quite oddly for a review. Still, it does address my opinion of the film as well, so I'm posting it here anyway.)
The Patriot, set during the Revolutionary War, tells the fictional story of Col. Benjamin Martin, played by Mel Gibson. Martin is a hero of the French and Indian War who, though he is in favor of American Independence, has seen enough of war, and declines to fight. In contrast to Gibson's character is the eldest of his seven children, his son Gabriel (Heath Ledger), who, inspired by the ideals of liberty and the vision of 'the cause', quickly signs up to join the Continental Army.
Martin's standpoint, however, changes rapidly when Gabriel is captured by the British on Martin property, and, in violation of the rules of war, sentenced to death by hanging. Though the elder Martin seems resigned to this, one of Gabriel's younger siblings is not, and attempts to give Gabriel an opportunity to escape. Instead, he earns himself only death, from the bullet of brutal British officer Col. William Tavington, played by Jason Isaacs, looking for all the world like an evil Timothy Dalton.
From this point on, beginning with a quite visually impressive, if implausible, rescue of Gabriel, the two Martins officially join the fight against the British, fighting in several historical battles, culminating in a final, fictional, battle, in which Tavington is killed, and the British forces roundly defeated.
A moderately entertaining way to spend 158 minutes, but is it accurate? Absolutely not.
To get the obvious out of the way first, none of these people existed. Though many of the characters were composites of actual people, there was no actual Benjamin Martin. There was not a Col. Tavington, nor a French soldier named Jean Villenleuve to fight by his side, nor a Captain Wilkins to tell the British of the whereabouts of Martin's family. In fact, of all the people depicted in this film, perhaps only General Cornwallis was a real person.
Most disturbing to me, however, and a large source of my dissatisfaction with the film, is the demonizing of the British. Were this film recounting true events, there would be no cause to complain. But the British soldiers are depicted committing such atrocities as burning down a church after locking the townspeople inside. Did this happen? Certainly. But in Germany. In 1944.
In fact, this "good versus evil" standpoint turned me off to the film as a whole. The only two British characters we were given any depth into, Tavington and Cornwallis, were depicted as bloodthirsty and brutal. Cornwallis at first appeared to be an honorable man, but, succumbed to and actively encouraged the murderous impulses of his underling by films end. We are given a single line by a single British officer that depicts them honorably. And murder of wounded American soldiers, the arrest of Gabriel, the murder of Gabriel's brother, and the torching of the Martin home, follow it immediately.
To be sure, events such as these were committed sporadically, by both sides, but to depict them as exclusively, and enthusiastically, the domain of the British, strikes me as almost offensive. Equally offensive is the whitewashing of slavery. None of the 'Good' characters have slaves, bypassing any real moral introspection that might have added much-needed character depth. The film goes further to imply that the victory of the rebels will inevitably lead to freedom and equality for all, something that the slightest knowledge of history will refute.
Yet the film seems almost determined to convince us of its accuracy. And accurate it may well be, in dress, geography, set design. I would not know. But the story is another matter. The Patriot is hardly a story of the Revolutionary War. Instead it is simply a standard revenge story using the Revolutionary War as a backdrop, and caring not what historical truths it steps on to tell itself. In fact, the Revolutionary War seems almost arbitrary. This film could be set against any backdrop, and it would hardly have to change at all. A soldier's son is murdered by an enemy commander, after which we watch him take revenge on the commander's troops, and finally the commander himself, in a bloody man to man dual set against a larger battle. That could be set during any war. Change 'British' to 'Klingon', it could well be Star Trek III.
For reasons such as these, I was overall quite dissatisfied with this film. It wanted to be an epic, but instead was, to me, a tired retread of a tired plot, which seemed to have no problem making up facts to paint our oldest allies in as negative a light as possible. This is not to say there were no highlights to the film. To watch what seems to modern eyes a foolish method of battle, watching rows of men frantically trying to reload as fast as they could, is simply fascinating. Mel Gibson's acting was better than I expected by leaps and bounds, and, having long been a fan of Rene Auberjonois, I enjoyed his scenes immensely.
When all is said and done, The Patriot was an interesting film to kill some time with, and certainly an interesting insight into life of that period, but it was not one particularly unique, compelling, or, I fear, accurate in any way.