Customer Reviews

Revolution [Import]

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

The makers of Revolution made a few mistakes along the way, but those have been dwelt upon at length and are sufficiently summarized in the comments of other reviewers. What this movie did right was to show a fast-paced chronology of the American Revolution through the eyes of ordinary individuals actually caught up in the torrid flow of events. As a history major, I loved the details that they where able to throw into the two hours of viewing while also establishing characters that you could actually care about. It is a dificult task to please everyone when you put forth a work of historical fiction and the fact that they were able to trace much of the war while also telling an original story that crossed through events is worth praise. Casting Pacino as a Scottish trapper may not have been the best choice, but regardless, as a Pacino fan I still feel that this is one of his most emotionally satisfying roles and I think it's a shame he was so badly lashed for venturing out into new territory as an actor. I would highly recomend this movie to any history lover or any Al Pacino fan. Once you get beyond his attempt at a Scottish accent Pacino is brilliant and gives a moving performance, including a closing speech that still gives me chills.

I am surprised at the bad press this incredible film received. The suggestion that "The Patriot" was a more accurate reflection of the American Revolution is laughable - talk about pure Hollywood. "Revolution" far surpasses "The Patriot" in both its beauty, realism and emotional depth. This film didn't try to romanticize the war, or make it out to be exciting and noble. The film is stark and harsh. One can't watch it without thinking about just how horrific it could have been to live in those times.
I'm also confused by the arguments about Al Pacino's character being "Scottish." I've seen this film several times and I never had the impression that he was playing anything other than an uneducated man with a poor grasp of pronunciation. I can accept that he might have been speaking with an extremely watered down Irish accent (watered down by being away from the country of origin for many years perhaps), or even a point halfway between the typical North American accent and the English-Irish accent that the former was derived from - a sort of "Proto-American" accent. But what no-one seems to have noticed is that everybody else in the film also had this accent! (Unless you count the Tories and the English). I found Al Pacino's performance highly convincing, and if anything, I think it is some of his best work.
In short, if you want to see a good film about the War of Independence - a film that doesn't try to make it into a box office exercise (e.g, "The Patriot") - I could not recommend "Revolution" highly enough.

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....and lets not forget, without the hindsight of knowledge and understanding a contemporary person has of those past events and occurances. 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.

"Revolution" demythologizes the mystique of the glorious American Revolution, and shows its darker side. Seen through the eyes of illiterate trapper and reluctant continental soldier Tom Dobb (Al Pacino), the cause is at times poorly led and brutal and sometimes extremely unjust.

Dobb unwillingly gets drawn into the fight when his young son enlists without his permission. When he can't get his son out of the army, he joins to watch over him. The Dobb father-son story intersects with the story of a vicious British officer (Donald Sutherland) and his son, and that of Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski), whose pro-independence beliefs put her at odds with her Tory family.

The film spans the early days of the revolution, when the continental army mostly amounted to a disorganized group of poorly trained farmers and others, to the snows of Valley Forge and finally to the surrender at Yorktown. The actors portraying the Dobb son do an excellent job showing his growth from a youngster who romanticizes the idea of fighting for freedom to a mature young man who will help build the young nation. His maturatation, in a sense, parallels the development of the patriot army.

Pacino received much criticism for taking on this role. His emotionally raw performance, however, drastically outweighs any drawbacks to having an Italian portray someone of British heritage. Tom Dobb is one of my favorite Pacino roles.

"The Patriot," which I also enjoyed, gave us the ultimately happy flag-waving Hollywood ending American revolution--albeit with serious brutal before that. "Revolution" starts out grim and, while the cause prevails, does not pretend that all suddenly became right with the world. I suspect it comes closer to reality.

Still waiting for the DVD....

Why this film is so reviled is a complete mystery to me. Its a very gritty and realistic view of the participation of some "ordinary" people in the American Revolution. Its production values are excellent and the acting is fine. What is particularly striking are the nearly identical story lines later used in the Patriot, a truly unintelligent and historically inaccurate film. But instead of the absurd distortions found in the Patriot, this seems to be a much better effort to give us a feel of what life was like in the 1770s. The conflicts faced my the heroine in dealing with her Loyalist family was particularly interesting to me. After reading all of the negative reviews, I watched it again. Perhaps the scarcity of American Revolution films led me to be too kind. But no. I still think its the best fictional treatment ever done on the subject and a fine film by any standard. And certainly a must see for any history buff.

I wrote a review for this film six years ago while I was a college history student. After one more degree, and six more years of study in the history field, I still consider this film the best treatment of the American Revolution.

It might not fit everyone's tastes, the scenes are often dark and the mythical version of the American Revolution that we've grown to love is toned down a bit in favor of a more gritty potrayel. However this film somehow captures a more satisfying picture of the period than any other film I've seen.

In "Revolution," we see a fact little dwelled upon in most history books: that our war for independence was won with the blood of average and often poor American immigrants. These forgotten patriots deserve just as much credit for winning the war as the aristocratic heroes such as Thomas Jefferson (who sat out the war in Monticello). It is the average, everyday heroes who made this country what it is and I was thrilled to see "Revolution" attempt to show what it might have been like for people not named Jefferson or Franklin to have lived through such a turbulent time.

Although the storytelling is not perfect and the film does hit a few bad keys which break up the feel of the picture (such as the potrayel of the English dandies), it more than makes up for the mistakes. Pacino is wonderful. He draws us into the human drama of a father and son trying to stay afloat in a sea of chaos and breaks our hearts. By the end of the journey we are left with a stirring story of a father and his son; as well as a poignant reflection upon the American miracle.

Unlike The Patriot which was purely made for propaganda purposes, Revolution, follows a much more pragmatic, realistic and in effect more truthful account of events during the American War of Independence (1775-1783). The film brings to the screen two main stories, which are unfolding simultaneously: On the one hand, a father and son trying to survive the turmoil of a country at war with itself, and on the other, the War of Independence and its ripple effects on America in the background. The movie portrays superbly the hardships endured on the battlefield and the war?s effects on society; the corrupt politics, the different attitudes and mentality of New Yorkers during the War, the Loyalists and the Continentals.
It provides therefore, valuable insight into a very important period of American History. Specifically:
In the beginning, we get a taste (though a very light one) of what happened to those that remained loyal to their country, which after all was Britain; they got thrown into the river (the film only shows the best case scenario).
When the redcoats re-capture NY, there are many flag waving Loyalists greeting the troops, not necessarily merchants or aristocrats, but ordinary citizens.
When France declares war on Britain, in 1778, the Continentals cheer that "now the war will be over in two weeks." We know though that the war will not end until 1783, therefore it portrays how naive and gullible people were at the time (by the way, not much has changed).
Moreover, we get to see the double-crossing merchants and politicians that supported whichever side the wind happened to be blowing in, always in search of profit.
Towards the end, with the Revolution over and the victors celebrating in the streets there are already voices that can be heard calling for the expulsion of non-WASP's from America (not a surprise considering the content of the Declaration of Independence: "the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions").
Tom Dobb after the end of the war lines up to receive what he had been promised, however, he is only given 40 out 70 dollars and none of the 150 acres of land.
This is exactly what happened and led briefly to civil war in Massachusetts in 1786 when another war veteran, Daniel Shays also feeling betrayed led 2,000 other war veterans against the MA government, in what will become known as "Shays' Rebellion." The irony here is that Shays and the 2,000 veterans led a revolt against the same government they themselves help set up through the American Revolution and for similar reasons: High taxation, inflation, lies and broken promises etc.
Therefore, the movie successfully sheds light on aspects of American History that some would rather keep hidden under the carpet.
As a result, Revolution is a daring movie, which shatters several misconceptions, deliberate and not, surrounding attitudes towards the War of Independence, and provides for historical truths, which had been suppressed for long years in the name of "patriotism".

Revolution with Al Pacino is a great movie in my opinion. It gave me such a feeling for what it was like during the War for Independance. I've watched it probably 3 times in my lifetime and I really like it. It shows the horrors of war and the pressure our country was under to find people who could fight. All these people who say the movie is no good must be awfully shallow. To them I say go watch some Action/Adventure movies that are totally fake and unrealistic. At least with Revolution you get the realism and the ugly truth about the time period. I would recommend this movie to any history buff who is interested in the Revolutionary war or colonial times.

Revolution is photographed very well with tremendous sound effects...too bad it won't make it to DVD because of these nasty reviews.

This is the underside of the American Revolution...a side NEVER portrayed in this manner and marks another perfect "New Yorker" part for Al Pacino. In fact, City Hall and Devil's Advocate are probably two more movies that need a second look because Al Pacino shines like the brilliant start that he is. In Revolution...Pacino has to play down to this part because he is, in a sense, an anti-hero.

Revolution has a disorganized feel to it...something probably more accurate than not concerning the course and execution of the Revolutionary War since that war was fought mostly by American irregulars...exactly what Pacino plays in this movie. Since the Revolutionary War was like a low grade virus of small engagements punctuated by some classic/traditional battles, this move should be a MUST SEE for students in order to get an idea of the less-than-glorious-but-still-effective aspect of how we began as a country.

This is supposed to be a "movie" not a documentary..a movie that is trying to speculate on the grittier realities of that day and age.

An added bonus is a great performance by the great Donald Sutherland.

Period movies that have gotten trashed over the years include Restoration and Barry Lyndon. Nobody gave Restoration a fair chance..a movie that takes on greater meaning because the character of actor Robert Downey Jr. and all his real life personal demons are mirrored in this movie. Restoration just came out on DVD and it has a soundtrack and life affirming theme that are monumental!!! Yet it got trashed.

Barry Lyndon is what I consider a companion movie to Revolution because it follows another less-than-heroic citizen into 18th century European battles that expose again the over extended nature of the British Empire. Ryan O'Neil's acting was panned and it kept a lot of people away from a fantastic film (Stanley Kubrick)and I think the same thing is going on with these heartless reviews about Revolution. In fact, Barry Lyndon has one of the finest soundtracks ever put on film with most scenes filmed with such elegant care...that if they were prints...they would hang in the finest art galleries in the world. Fortunately, Barry Lyndon with its great tongue-in-cheek narration throughout the film is available on DVD!!!!

Heck, throw in the Madness of King George to this as well as Kenneth Barnagh's Henry V and Lady Jane and the masterful Danton....great period movies in which Revolution clearly stands as a cinema equal on all levels.

Revolution...Restoration...Barry Lyndon...anti-heroic movies done with great care. Maybe it doesn't match the historic precision of the great, great Ted Turner movie Gettysburg but Revolution should be given a better chance. It is a free country because of the brave and scared people like those who Al Pacino represents in this movie. Resist the doom mongers out there...at least rent this movie before adding it permanently to your collection. Revolution muddles along in a dark way for a purpose. Pacino masterfully subdues his style to accomodate this purpose. Judge this movie for yourself.....you won't be disappointed.

This was never a perfect movie, but it presents a complelling portrait of the Rev War. Here we have an attempt by the director and Al Pacino to try and correct some of the editing mistakes that were made upon the original movies release in 1985. It seems the production was somehow rushed and the result was a somewhat confused affair. Here some order has been attempted by having Al Pacino narrate the film as it goes along. This is an innovation that was only hinted at in the original. The result provides a clearer idea who Dodd was and a little about his background.

The ad for the DVD cover is a little mis-leading in that it claims this is a director's cut with over 40 mins of film added. This is simply not so. The only addition is a discussion between the director and Al Pacino discussing how they wanted to address the problems of the film. Some minor cuts have been made in the film from the original. The most signicficant change appears to be the end where the Dodd character does not reunite with the girl. This is a big change from the original and does alter the feel of the movie in that regard.

I like the fact that this film is out on DVD now, but I am disappointed that there wasn't any extra footage added to it. This is a bit misleading to the buyer. Still, I have always regarded this movie as portraying one of the best battle scenes ever done of the Rev War. The Battle of Brooklyn scene, while far bloodier than the original action, conveys the majesty and horror of 18th century combat in a way no other film has ever done. The action of the rest of the movie is anti-clamatic in comparison, but does attempt to show a progression of events during the Rev War and how it might have affected ordinary people caught up in it. The Donald Sutherland character as the British Sgt-Maj is truly awesome.

Still an imperfect epic, but with some attempt to clean it up a bit. Nice that its out on DVD and worth adding for those who like a gritty period work, and an unconventional role for Al Pacino who was surprisingly compelling. One can see that it was a role he relished and that the film is still special to him.