Automotive Holiday Deals Books Gift Guide Books Gift Guide Shop Men's Athletic Shoes Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Indie for the Holidays egg_2015 Fire TV Stick Beauty Deals Martha Stewart American Made Amazon Gift Card Offer minions minions minions  Amazon Echo Starting at $84.99 Kindle Black Friday Deals Shop Now Tikes

Format: Amazon Instant VideoChange
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

394 of 414 people found the following review helpful
on May 12, 2006
My review for the original version of "The Patriot" can be found under its respective title. This review is merely for those who may already own the movie and are wondering if it's worth buying a second time around for an additional 10 minutes of footage. For those who have never bought this title, then I can say emphatically to choose this version. For those who already own it . . . well . . . I suppose you'll need to read on and decide.

First of all (thank goodness), the extra 10 minutes of footage are not merely tacked on as "Deleted Scenes" at the end of the movie. In fact, it would be nearly impossible to do so since some of the extra footage is not found in separate scenes, but rather additional footage of already established scenes. In these situations, the extra footage may be as long as an additional minute or as little as a few seconds. How do I know? Well, for one, I'm a high school history teacher and show it every year during our unit on the Revolutionary War. Given that I teach five classes a day of the same subject, I'd say I've gotten quite familiar with the movie.

Now, one particular extension of a scene is quite riveting in that Benjamin Martin's youngest children get their first taste of the horrors of war prior to the death of Thomas. This comes just before the evening when Gabriel stumbles home after being wounded in a nearby battle. Something (the viewer is unaware) catches the attention of the Martin children and they stride over to a nearby creek/river to investigate. What they discover are the bodies of several soldiers floating downstream. Martin then comes over and ushers the children back into the house.

Another noteworthy scene extension is found in the "ambush" scene following the death of Thomas--you know, the famous "aim small, miss small" scene. Well, in the original edited version of the film we soon observe the infamous Tavington interviewing a dying witness of the event in a battlefield tent hospital. It is in this scene that the witness compares who we know as Benjamin Martin to a ghost. The problem is, as far as we knew, there were no survivors. We had to accept at face value that perhaps one must have escaped. In this version of the film we now know the facts! You see, after Martin does his bloody hack job on a would-be escapee, the camera pans in on one particular Redcoat as he lays wounded in a nearby swamp. We then get a peek at what he sees through his one dying eye: an eerie glimpse of Martin flitting through the dim light of the heavily-wooded forest. Then the camera focuses again on the bloodied face of this dying witness. It is not long thereafter that we discover that this poor chap actually survives (he's the one in the hospital tent).

One particular scene left off the original is the burial of Thomas. Although the scene is short, it nevertheless reiterates that Benjamin Martin has a tender, loving side (remember, a few scenes before he was hacking and slashing away at every Redcoat in sight).

Of particular note are the additional scenes involving Cornwallis and Tavington. Here, the viewer witnesses Cornwallis scolding Tavington in the presence of other officers --- the viewer should be delighted to see the arrogant and villainous Tavington being humiliated in front of others. In the scene, Cornwallis sarcastically remarks that Tavington has earned himself the nickname "The Butcher." This scene is important in that it helps establish and underscore the motive Tavington has for eliminating "The Ghost," Benjamin Martin. Further dialogue between the two is found later in the movie as well.

In short, the additional footage is not just added fluff. Indeed, the additional footage adds substance to every scene where it was originally found. Now, if the original version is a perennial favorite of yours, then by all means go out and get it. If, on the other hand, you may only watch it once in a blue moon then you could probably live without it.
2323 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
66 of 73 people found the following review helpful
TOP 1000 REVIEWERon September 28, 2009
There are a plethora of reviews of the movie, but my review is mostly a comparison of the BD vs DVD version. I won't discuss its historical accuracy.

The DVD version was good, but the BD version is the best version for home viewing.

Audio has wider imaging that takes viewers into the movie, rather than a distant observer: cannon and musket salvos fly from left to right, tools and objects ring with clang of old metal alloys or wood. Unlike Master & Commander, the dialog channel is good and is not drowned out by sound effects.

The BD transfer is bright and sharp, so background elements have far more detail. The BD version is a revolution in clarity. The texture of clothing, woods, equipment, and fields of soldiers in battle formation are rendered well and appear more real than CGI cartoons. By now, BD veterans are used to the ultra detail shown on actors faces: down to EACH stubble on faces, and pores on their skin. Unlike Troy, its clear many of the props and sets appear life like and made of 'real stuff' versus stucco or papier mache. Also, actor's makeup is less obvious if not invisible, compared to other DVD to BD transfers. While controversy may exists in the historical depiction of the story's facts, few dispute the costumes, sets, dialog and mannerisms typical of revolutionary period USA, maybe since the Smithsonian Institute were the historical consultants on the film.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
61 of 70 people found the following review helpful
on September 25, 2007
As the dreaded format war continues (Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD) I find myself on the Blu-Ray side of the fence because of my purchase of the PS3. I'll be honest, without having purchased the PS3 I would not have adopted either format and would have been content with standard DVD movies.

But now that I have a Blu-Ray player and a 1080p HDTV, I have been hooked and want more. I have been careful in my selection of Blu-Ray Titles, picking up only movies I have yet to watch or great movies that I want to see in HD.

The Patriot did not disappoint. The colors of the movie jump out of the screen and when you can see the fibers flying off of the British soldiers uniforms into the wind as they wait for battle, you know you are watching a great HiDef movie.

Most of the extended scenes do not add to the story and you will understand why they were cut out in the first place.

I've been disappointed in some of the Blu-ray discs I've purchased in the past month, especially when my purchases are the second or third time I will have bought that movie. (VHS, DVD, DVD SE/CE/DC)

But I must say that The Patriot is well worth seeing on Blu-Ray.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
20 of 25 people found the following review helpful
on September 13, 2004
I'll risk getting raised eyebrows from fellow cinephiles and history buffs, but "The Patriot" is one of my favorite films. It's a film that could have been a brilliant, go-down-in-history epic if not for confining itself to studio-ism, clichés, and historical inaccuracies where it could have done more.

The story of a South Carolinian family during the infamously violent and vicious Southern campaign of the American Revolution, the film is the saga of the Martin family caught in the midst of a historical shift. The film takes complicated themes that were played out constantly during the war but are often hard to grasp or forgotten today and vividly brings them to life: neighbors killing each other, families torn apart, atrocities, the use of militia, and the cost of a war that is played out on the homefront. The violence is used to numb and shock you. In the film's goriest scene (and one of it's best) we see Benjamin (Gibson) and his two young sons chase down a British squadron after tragedy befalls his family. With pure hatred and barbarity, and using the advantage of a forest he and his sons know as their home and which the British find only a foreign jungle, he slays and reduces the squadron to one man. He chases down a soldier and hacks him to pieces in a creek as his sons watch in horror. It's the sight of a grieving man trying to bring order back into his life with tactics he and militiamen around the South of both loyalties were adept at, and were readily used to wage war upon each other. This is what the film does masterfully, it renders an image of savage violence and atrocity inflicted upon a colonial population and how it affected the individuals involved.

The fact that they kill off as many characters as they do is risky, but true to the brutality and unpredictability of life and history, and gives the film the air of a true tragedy because of how much we become attached to these people (which is one reason why I have a problem with the ending). Unfortunately, the acts committed, like the film's two most emotionally gut-wrenching scenes of the burning of a church with people inside and the skirmish that follows (all breathtakingly photographed against a slate gray sky and beautiful autumn colors which only heightens the tragedy of it all), plus the massacres, torchings, and killing of prisoners, are shown as a strictly British versus American problem, where in reality the colonists were by and large the ones fighting each other in this manner. It was portrayed as far too black-and-white a dilemma, where the actual history would have been more complex and interesting. I find this frusterating because the film had already taken so many chances, such as having young boys deeply involved in the violence, harsh and tainted characters, that it would have been easy to have gone one step further. And they got the British uniforms wrong to boot. At least we get Jason Isaac's riveting and seductive performance as Tavington.

The drama of the film, where it may contain some stock scenarios, mediocre dialogue and characters, is equally witty, poignant, and effective thanks to the acting and directing. The fight scenes never bore. There are many moments where the camera finds the perfect place to watch Gabriel, without an ounce of treacle, wave goodbye to his fiancee (Heath Ledger turns in a lovely, sensitive, and entirely convincing performance as a young revolutionary/big brother but without acting like a starched shirt collar); to watch Benjamin bark an order or hug his daughter (Mel plays a great daddy), for Tavington to say something piercing, for someone to die. It's moments like these that create utterly normal, real people in the midst of turmoil.

This film brought me to another time and place amidst the trials of a breathing, aching family. It recreates the feel of the time so tangibly, it picks you up and plunks you right into the middle of a humid, violent place where tensions are heightened and you're constantly looking over your back to see if your family is safe, to check your loyalties. Despite some unfortunate writing - the useless aunt, whitewashing over slavery, the whole last 20 minutes of mindless explosions and revisionism which are a weird and painful shift from the brutal,visceral tone of the rest of the film - you get to know a lot of the characters on a very personal level and we begin to understand the fine lines between freedom and loyalty, taking risks or managing the threat, priorities and principles. When Benjamin doesn't want to support a war because of his family or see his sons go to fight you feel how desperate he is,but you also understand Gabriel's youthful idealism and urgency and his love for his wife (although she's fairly annoying) and his cause. We see how feelings for family, country, one's past, and enemy intermingle and how it becomes one big tangled confused smashed gory mess.

The film is probably one of the best looking films out there, with stunning cinematography showcasing gorgeous Spanish moss, multicolored skies, mist, twilight, swamps. Cinematography - and production design - use the natural landscape and the period as a living part of the film's setting and just pulls us into it, help create that world, and serve to enhance much of the dramatic material. Top it off with John Williams' score which evokes the Revolution and the era and the human drama of it all.

Although "The Patriot" isn't as masterful as it easily could have been, it's still a film worth seeing for everything it does well, which is a lot. Despite problems, this is how history should be treated, as a vivid, emotional, palpable story - a story - about people that is as thrilling and gut-wrenching as it was, and not merely a dry academic lesson. I would love to see other films pick up where "The Patriot" left off, take the initiative to continue and build upon what this film did so beautifully and to succeed where it didn't. Film can treat us to a different and similar world where we can attempt to understand the thrills and the woes, the joys and sorrows of the time and fate of those who lived their lives out before us.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful
VINE VOICEon May 19, 2001
This movie had so much potential to give a balanced perspective of the emotional depths and divisions which marked our Revolutionary War. Unfortunately with mel Gibson at the helm, all we get is a silly Brave Heart set in the American Revolution. This is too bad, as the sets and costumes are quite well done, but all is for naught as we have all the mel gibson cliches of showing the British too be either arrogant buffoons, or nasty, petty killers. The revenge element in todays movies seems to be a Hollywood vehicle to dumb down historical content for the American viewer. This is unfortunate as i believe the American public could handle a more complex film and plot, but Hollywood does not think we can, so we get the same contrived stuff served up to us over and over again. The battle scenes, while impressive, are exaggerated. The numbers involved are too large. The Southern battles were fought with a few thousand on each side, and the Americans generally outnumbered the British and usually lost! Cornwallis was not the silly parody we see here, but one of the few daring and aggressive generals the British had. Washington rightly feared him because of the defeats he had administered to him several times. And the travasty of Lord Tavington burning innocent colonials in their church is a take off on the Nazi's in WW2! It has no place in this period! Such scenes like this show how immature and inbalanced the movie producers were in this film. Tavington is a corruption of Banastere Tarleton, the hard-ridding Britsih dragoon officer, who was controversial in some of his actions, but not a cold-blooded maniac-nazi that we have here, and of course mel has to get him in the end! Mel Gibson steals the historical roles of several American leaders, providing even more distortion in this film. I would say view this movie for fun and entertainment, and nothing more, its a like a cartoon in many respects. I think the American viewers deserve a better effort than this!
55 commentsWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
41 of 55 people found the following review helpful
on September 25, 2000
Okay, I don't know why all the negative criticism about this movie. First, let me tell folks that this is a movie you should look at without expecting it to totally change your life or your outlook on it. It is not a history lesson; it is based loosely on some facts, but basically it is fiction with the backdrop of the American Revolution, and how great that was, and so is this movie. Mel Gibson was excellent. There were other people in the movie who also played their roles superbly. It is a brutally real story of war in people's own backyards and towns, and focuses on one man's struggle to protect his family from the horrors of the war around them. Whoever says this movie blows has expected way too much from a movie like this, and expects a movie to just dramatically alter their feelings. Don't listen to the criticism; see the movie for yourselves, and then decide based on the storyline itself, not its historical inaccuracies. And all props go out to director Roland Emmerich!
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on January 7, 2004
What a waste.
This avg story with a predictable progression and ending. It follows a "formula" of revenge and saving the girl. It is a pale substitute for true stories left untold about the war in the Carolina's. It's not that I hated the movie, it's that I moan at the lost chance to tell really facinating true stories. Hollywood found a way to make something interesting and earth shaking into something vanilla and predictable.
Just a few of the true stories of the war in the region are...

The Rise (despite the eventually dramatic fall) of Cornwallis vs. the Hero of Saratoga (and the "goat" of Camden) Horatio Gates. Too much plot twist and suspense?
Later, Cornwallis in a desperate chase of Nat Green's army burned all his baggage durning the chase thru NC that ended in a river of blood at Guilford courthouse. Here he intentionally shot his own troops in the back with cannon fire in an attempt to turn the tide of the battle. It worked...but he lost over 25% of his army in the effort. Too much adventure and gore?
The Notorious Banastre Tarleton vs. The stunningly heroic Daniel Morgan at Cowpens. BEFORE the battle Morgan was a real hero that is bigger than any fiction portrayed by the patriot. In the French Indian war Morgan was sentenced to 500 lashes after he punched out the lights of a Brithis Officer. He survived and later bragged that he only got 499 whips and "owed the king a lashing". He became an officer in the revolution and was shot thru the head and neck, lost half his teeth, and continued to fight in the revolution ... and there is MORE! Too much "die hard" toughness?
The Over-The-Mountain-Men vs Patrick Ferguson and the tories at Kings Mountain. Men poured out the the back country to fight against Ferguson who insulted their masculinity. They chased him down, killed him in battle, and Ferguson's body was found with at least 7 bullet holes. Too much action?
etc, etc, etc....
The true historical facts are so full of action, adventure, suspense, cruelty, glory, defeat, gore, risk, and victory that this "less interesting" fiction make the real history of the war in the Carolina's look boring.
The truth is BY FAR more compelling than this fiction.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on November 1, 2005
For most people, the American Revolution is a remote, enshrined event. There are the set pieces of Lexington, Concord, Paul Revere's ride, Valley Forge and so on.

But the war in the southern colonies was a far more vicious, partisan affair. The Loyalists - colonists remaining loyal to the British crown were numerous and many formed up military units. One battle, King's Mountain, was fought entirely between Americans, Loyalists and Patriots. "The Patriot" is a fictionalized account of events that occurred during this period. Mel Gibson is a farmer, reluctantly brought into the conflict to save his son from execution as a spy by a very nasty British Colonel, based on the real life Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton, otherwise known as "The Butcher". Their conflict is a portrait of the war itself, compete with ambushes, burinings, and other atrocities.

The battle scenes, particulary Cowpens, accurately depict 18th century rules of engagement, and the costumes are authentic, right down to the buttons. The role of the French, whose alliance was crucial to winning the war is well represented. However, this is an entertainment, not a documentary and that is readily apparent. Mel Gibson is impossibly clever, noble and brave, and the fact of slavery is sanitized to the point of absurdity. Still, this movie does shed light on a unique time in American history, and is certainly worth seeing.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
on June 10, 2012
THE PATRIOT (2000) Directed by Roland Emmerich. Script by Robert Rodat. Score by John Williams.

Starring Mel Gibson, Jason Isaacs, Heath Ledger, Chris Cooper, Rene Auberjonois, Peter Woodward and Tom Wilkinson as General Lord Charles Cornwallis.

This..the story of the American Revolution in South Carolina told through various fictional amalgams of real personages along with real persons and events was a masterpiece when it was first released and time........and the extended cut available on DVD has only confirmed its status.

Rather like GETTYSBURG inspired its own cast and behind the camera creative teams, so did this film...since except for Isaac, Woodward, Auberjonois and Gibson, no one before or since this film have impressed me tremendously............and the film IS endlessly brilliant and inspired. From Gibson's sublime performance as Benjamin Martin...a man tortured by his bloody past in the French and Indian War and, except when fighting, is incredibly unsure of himself to the beautiful cinematography(the film is simply beautiful to look at at times), there is not a single false moment nor a concession to modern degraded sensibilities. The film goes effortlessly from tremendous battle sequences to a tearjerking moment of a father having to leave his daughter to go off to war. Jason Isaacs as the fictionalized version of Banestre Tarleton knocked my socks off in 2000 with his Classic Hollywood style Basil Rathbone/George Sanders villainy and that impression has not diminished. Isaacs well deserved his later roles in everything from BLACK HAWK DOWN to his definitive Captain Hook in PETER PAN.

The history---though condensed in sections(the battles of Cowpens and Guilford Courthouse are combined) is generally excellent with casual references to everything from Kips Bay to Horatio Gates. John Williams....for a change..produced a fine score that can be listened on its own merits without visuals. The dialogue is actual dialogue, rather than mindless catch phrases, with true meaning and emotional import. Historical issues and military tactics are actually discussed. Characters actualy live and breath rather than just exist to provide body count money shots. When someone dies here, the viewer feels it. The viewer understands what is at stake in this war and feels sadness at the defeats and pride for his/her country as she rises to greatest and victory.

Simply put. I love this film to death. Somehow it snuck out of Hollywood when no one was looking and is one of the greatest films of the 21 st century as well as being that incredibly rare bird....a film about the American Revolution......a rarer good film about the American Revolution and of the handfull of truly great films about the American Revolution.

One of the very few films made after 1980 that is as good as something made before 1965. One of the very few films made after 1980 that I do not automatically have to treat like a special child since it is, after all, a modern film and it can't help itself.

A masterpiece of epic filmmaking. A practical throwback to the 50s/60s era of the genre.

Sit down and show this to the

Enlightening. Ennobling. Entertaining. The reason film is called an Art form.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful
on January 31, 2001
I was surprised by The Patriot in that it was more entertaining than I had expected. I was not; however, disappointed in Hollywood's typical, inaccurate story-telling.
Others have spouted the "who cares--it's only a movie" line. They miss the point. Many of the uneducated masses will consider this movie accurate--it is not. The Brits were not nearly as brutal as depicted in the film--no, they never herded townspeople in a church and then burned it to the ground. The slavery aspect was also poorly represented. Yes, free slaves often worked for a family as depicted in the movie, but this wasn't very common.
But at least Hollywood veered away from it's anti-gun rights agenda and actually showed children using muskets and shooting at the Brits (although the incredible accuracy they demonstrated illustrated Hollywood's ignorance of 18th century arms, sigh). As a side note--the predictable media uproar over this scene was pretty amusing. What! Children using guns instead of just blankly standing by while the Brits try to kill their father! Oh the HORROR!!
Still, the film was better than I had expected it to be, but it is still a renter. It works as mindless entertainment, but it's historical statement is blatently unsophisticated.
11 commentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
Customers who viewed this also viewed
Glory by Matthew Broderick


Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.