I just saw this movie tonight and I have to say it was a very very very excellent and overall D**n fine movie! Makes me proud to be an American. And on top of that very few (if any, I didnt find anything) nits could be found by me or the friends that went to see it with me. It just goes to show how a movie can be made when they have proffessional advisors who are listened to by TPTB. Very excellently done and the equal of Saving Private Ryan if not its better.

Excellent film, but how realistic is it for Mel Gibson's character (Benjamin Martin) not to have slaves in 18th Century South Carolina?

Actually from what I've read and studied it was not too uncommon for a plantation owner to have "freed" his slaves but use them more as an indentured servant, somewhat like working for a temp agency in america nowadays.
So his neighbors probably thought he was a little bit off but since he was a major war hero they just let it go as his business and not theirs. Unlike a lot of nosy people and agencies nowadays.
Sorry about sounding a bit grumpy but to see what the world has come to nowadays and to know what hope the Founding Fathers had for this nation just depresses and saddens me.

I saw this on Monday, too, and liked it. That guy getting his head blown off by the cannonball... trés cool effect! The only bad thing about it was that it was too quick but that's what it's like in real life. I didn't think the other cannonball rolling on the ground was going fast enough to really take that guys's leg off below the knee, either, but maybe it was. I mean it just looked like someone rolled it like a bocci ball. I've heard that there are several historical inaccuracies in the film, but I can't recall any at the moment.

Maybe I missed something but one thing I noticed that may be a nit and had me a bit confused was when they had a quick scene from 1781, five years after the signing of the declaration, and then a moment later his kids were shown again but none of them had aged or grown taller in that time! Or else the film went back to 1776 without telling us.

I got an email from my mom this weekend. It concerns facts about Independance Day that most people don't know about, so here it is. I figured this was a rather appropriate board to place it on.
===================================
INDEPENDENCE DAY THINGS TO REMEMBER

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

Soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. Nelson quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn't fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government!

Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn't. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

Did anyone else notice this movie was made by the same team as made ID4, Stargate, and Godzilla? It surprised me. I enjoyed it very much.

To MarkN, that's a hoax. The Urban Legends Reference Pages will tell you that. If that URL up there doesn't work, it's www.snopes.com

Anonymous, what do you mean that's a hoax. These men who signed the Declaration gave everything so did those who fought and died for you to have the freedom to say what you will. I have seen these statements before in history books and other collegiate level courses as well as having visited battlefields and talked to re-enactors. Our revolution was a very painful and bloody rebellion from an oppressive government. Our Founding Fathers knew that it would not go over very easy when they put their names at the bottom of that simple,yet powerful, document. But they still signed. It is no hoax that our revolution was fought to throw the yoke of Britain's rule off so that we (the colonies) could decide for ourselves how best to take care of ourselves.
I am saddened and sicked by the way people have forgotten that our freedoms have been paid for by the blood of our Veterens, The sons and daughters and fathers and brothers who choose to stand up for goodness and decency, rather than to sit idly by and kibitz. I forget where I saw this quote but I find it appropriate for you at this time: "Fear not your enemies for they can only kill you, Fear not your friends for they can only betray you. Fear the indifferent who allow the Killers and Betrayers to walk among you."
Remember the 4th is about more than just and excuse to set off fireworks and cookout and get out of going to work (except those who serve and protect). It is about rembering.
PS: Oh yeah and anonymous could you please provide a working link to the file you are talking about? I went to their site and couldn't find it either.

Now that that's out of my system for now:
MarkN: I thought the Cannonball was moving a bit too slow too, but I guess it might have been. Without trying it at home we'll never know.;-) As for the historical innacuracies I'm not real sure about them but I treated this differently than a documentary. I look at this as a sample to get people interested in histoary and look into it for themselves. My son saw U-571 and is now interested in WWII and the naval battles and want's to Learn more about it as they say. But back to the revolution: I thought his kids did age some, especially his youngest. She was a baby about 1 or two at the begining and then closer to six when the action started. Although you a re right in that the older kids didn't change all that much. maybe they have some kinds of guild rules or something about too much makeup on child actors or something.

Yeah, but G'var, kids that young also get growth spurts that within five years would greatly increase their heights. Well, on average, that is. There are full-grown women who aren't even five feet tall but they're just a bit too tall to be called midgets...except by us tall people. *S* If three real life brothers or sisters who looked exactly alike but with a couple years between them all played even one of Mel's sons or daughters then I could buy them being seen as aging that way, but since they couldn't hire any similar-looking real life sibs they had to keep the same kids playing each role.

Anonymous, if that was a hoax, then you wouldn't be here telling me that now, would you? In fact, you and I never would've even been born, or at least not in these bodies that we currently inhabit. Or if we were we'd all be speaking with British accents.

I've also heard it said that this was just basically a Braveheart redux. Well, I'm sure they do have some similarities, but the only that comes to mind right away (cuz it's been awhile since I've seen Braveheart) is that in both Mel plays a fella leading his people in a fight for freedom. I guess the same could also be said for Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, in a way, but it's been awhile since I've seen that one, too.

History books don't tell a lot. For instance, they don't tell about Ben Franklin's, ahem, affinity for women. They don't mention his illigitimate son, born of a prostitute. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attempting to judge the guy, but we love to rose color our history, as if we came out of a Disney film and it doesn't work that way.

History doesn't also state that the Boston "Massacre" occurred because a mob of people surrounded soldiers and began throwing rocks and chunks of ice at their heads. It was only after this that the soldiers panicked and fired their muskets.

I am not trying to say that the American Colonists were not justified in fighting for their freedom, but before we villify any side and believe that our founding fathers were all saints, we should read all of the history books, not just the vanilla ones fed to us in high school.

Alas, I shall now add my fire retardant cloths, and bid you all adeu.

No our founders were not saints, they were real live humans who put everything on the line for the greater good. So our heros tend to get a bit larger than life over time its better than what the Politically correct revisionist historians would like to do. My son's 6th grade history book gives about four paragraphs to George washington and an entire chapter to the indians. The entire revolutionary war was covered in a little bit less than three pages, the war of 1812 one page. Those who forget their history, or get too lazy to learn about it, then you are condemned to repeat it. And as for ol ben he was a legal single adult so what he did with his money when he wasn't inventing everything or getting zapped by lightning.
If the revolutionary war and founding fathers had had to deal with the sensationalist media that we have today then it would have been a very much stranger world (and probably a lot more apathetc and disgusting like our modern world.) The world needs heros and what the founding fathers did is worth it. And besides most of what they did was not as bad as some of the modern president, especially the crook in chief we have right now.

Those history books are exactly what I am talking about (it seems they haven't changed over the years). The native americans get great publicity because it is politically correct to mention how "victimized" they were. Nobody mentions that "Soux" means "Snake" and it was not given to them because they were peace loving wonder-people.
Nobody also likes to mention that while Africans were held as slaves in this country, they were sold to the "White Oppressors" by their own African people. This theme seems to be often forgotten by people screaming about their "victimization."
Less than 15 years ago, agents were consistantly dying to protect this country against communism. Last week, we sent a little boy back to Cuba from where he escaped. So much for all those little nameless stars on the CIA wall, I guess we've changed our mind about communism after all.
My point is that there is no such thing as black and white when dealing with history. Our ancestors were British colonists who knew (at least on a general level) what they were getting themselves into. Most were people leaving serious problems behind to start a new life in a British Colony. Later they claimed to be "victims" of oppression and chose to fight. Well, unlike the French before the French Revolution, the British Colonists were fairly well off. Their tax level was much lower than ours is today (even with inflation). Were they in the right to fight for their freedom? Since they had basically exhausted all diplomatic means, I would say yes. This does not mean, however, that the British were wrong for trying to hold their own colony.
The only reason life "seems" more chaotic and dark than in years past is because, for the first time, we have the techological capability to transmit news from all over the world.
In case it is not obvious, I am kinda sick of hearing this "victim" garbage being spewed from everyone (and/or group) who feels that they aren't getting all the green grass that someone else is perceived to have.

Agreed, basic human nature has not changed too dramatically. But I still say that the modern world is more despicable than it used to be. We are improving our technology without improving us. We have lost something.

I think I may have found a few nits. For one, the green dragoons' (an example would be the hateable fictional colonel from this movie)uniforms were primarily green, not red. I believe this was added to help audiences understand that these were redcoats. I also do not think that America had a designed and sewed flag when these battles were being fought. As for the cannonball being too slow to knock the guy's leg off, maybe, but realize these were very heavy and solid. To MarkN, who enjoyed the man being decapitated by the cannonball: See the movie The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc. It has many such scenes.

I didn't mean that it's a hoax about the American revolution. I didn't mean to say it was a hoax -- slip of the hands or something. Of course I know that many people sacrificed their lives for this country; I just mean that that e-mail has historical innacuracies. Sorry if I was blunt, I was in a bad mood. I didn't mean anything by it, I was just pointing it out for you guys.

I went back to the site and they took it off for some reason; I think it was violating a copyright. But I found another place where you can find information about it:
http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A148070&entry=10163
Now, that's my diary -- my Open Diary, that is. The text I found is too big for the Open Diary to let me post it all at once, so to get to the next parts, just click on the link after the text that says "Next Entry".
I apologize if you took it the wrong way, again.

Anonymous, Apology accepted. We all talk out of the top of our bottoms occasionally. Snopes has the site back up. I concede the point that the email "interpreted" history a bit differently. I apologize for coming down so hard without confirming some of my facts. AS Ronbo always used to say "Trust but verify" Fare thee well.

Something I've been wondering about; Are there any English people reading this who feel insulted by the portrayal of the English in this film? I saw an historian on TV a while back complaining about it, and I think it was cinescape online that had a story about how one man felt that English were always portrayed as the villains in films like this.He also listed films such as Michael Collins and I think Braveheart was another one.I just want to make it clear; I am not English, but I am curious to see what other people's views are.

Hmm, I read in some magazines that British people are mad over it. I can see why; just about every British person is baaaaaaaaaad in that movie.

Well at the time the movie was set in most of the british persons were bad. There are other movies that make the brits look good, but not too good. And besides the brits do plenty of yank bashing on their own.

I think the British getting upset is a little overboard. I mean we bash everyone in the movies, like WWII films. The Germans don't complain about how Nazis are shown. I mean maybe not every Brit is a murderous @ss but some were. Live with it. I mean it isn't an "oh the British are great" movie, it is about our war for indepedence from them, they should expect to be vilified.

The French guy's line at the end, "Vive la Liberté" is awfully out of place for a seeming member of the nobility from pre-revolutionary France. Contrary to the idea presented in this movie, the French helped out in the US Revolution not because of any ideals of republicanism, but because they wanted to annoy the British.

Hey, Cableface,
Speaking as a Brit, I don't think the problem that the UK had with The Patriot was its Brit-bashing per se. Hell, there's a lot of it about, everybody by human nature likes their own, water off a duck's back, etc, etc. No, the problem was (IMHO anyway) that it was a Brit bashing film, yet was released over here with the intention that UK residents would hand over money and make it a hit, in the process being insulted via the silver screen.
It's far fetched, I know, but how would a Spanish film depicting US soldiers in the Spanish American War as murderous, sexually inferior villians go down at the American box office? Would it be a hit? Maybe not, huh.
Now, Braveheart got stick in the UK press for being anti-English, but as an Englishman I felt it was a different deal; it was a good movie, it was an American movie championing a foriegn flag, and it was guaranteed a reasonable reception in at least one country in the UK (guess which one).
Releasing The Patriot in Britain felt uncomfortably like the kind of cultural imperialism that Americans always get unfairly tarnished with by other nation's xenophobes; the notion that you can just diss your allies to their faces and it doesn't matter what they think, since A) you're the most powerful nation on Earth and B) all their bases belong to you. I always ignored that BS whenever it got wheeled out, and yet the release of something so trivial as a film made me momentarily believe it. Scary.

It's far fetched, I know, but how would a Spanish film depicting US soldiers in the Spanish American War as murderous, sexually inferior villians go down at the American box office?

Their have been quite a few films that trash American bahavior durring the Vietnam war. Of course most of them were made by Americans. Also in The Patriot I wouldn't say that it depicted the British in such a bad way as it depicted that one Cournal (sp) as such a bad guy. His men were just following orders, and his CO did tell him to cool it untill he felt it was the last choice.

Here's a problem with this movie that goes under "Short Movie Syndrome." When Martin and Tavington meet at Cornwallis' HQ, Tavington tries to goad him into a fight. Martin could easily have settled his dispute with him on the spot. Being a Colonel in the militia of South Carolina, and an ex-Captain in the British Army (I guess, since he had a red uniform in his trunk), and being the erstwhile owner of a plantation, he was a gentleman. He could challenge Tavington to a duel, and accuse him of cowardice (for shooting an unarmed child) and violating military protocol (shooting unarmed, wounded prisoners in uniform being tended to at a private home, trying to execute a messenger in uniform carrying official dispatches in a marked bag, both big non-no's in the 18th Century). A General,Cornwallis' assistant, and possibly several officers, were nearby and would see him back down. Had they fought a duel the next day, the movie would be over fast, however.

Ghel: Nobody mentions that "Sioux" means "Snake" and it was not given to them because they were peace loving wonder-people.
Luigi Novi: No, it was given to them because those who did so, the Ojibwes, were their ancient enemies, a point you interestingly omitted. The Sioux call themselves Dakotas or Lakotas, which means "allies," or "people," but "Nadouwesioux," the name given to them by the Ojibwes (which was shortened to "Sioux" by the French), means "little snakes," or "enemies." Many of the names by which we know various Native American tribes are actually derogatory names given to them by rival tribes, which were often picked up by European Americans who first learned of the tribe in question second hand by that rival tribe. Your statement "it was not given to them because they were peace loving wonder-people" is a very ignorant statement, one that implies that they were somehow deserving of a racial epithet given to them.

Navajo These people are actually called the Dine. "Navajo," which may mean "thieves" or "takers from the fields," was a derogatory name given to the Dine by the Tewa Pueblo Indians. Dine means "we the people."

Apache The word means "enemies," and was given to them by the Zunis. Related linguistically to the Navajos, the Apaches also call themselves Dine.

Papagos The Tohono O’otam of southern Arizona were given this name, which means "bean eaters" by the nearby Pimas.

Pima This actually means "I don’t know," which was the reply of the Ahkeemult O’odham, or "river people" when asked their name in Spanish by an early explorer.

Anasazi The Navajos referred to the builders of the ancient cliff dwellings at Canyon de Chelly in Arizona with this name, which means "ancient enemies." Because the Anasazi merged with the various pueblo peoples whose descendants now live in Arizona and New Mexico, the name they had for themselves is lost, but most Pueblo Indians prefer to call the Anasazi "ancestral Puebloans."

Eskimos This name was given to the Inuit by the Crees. It means "those who eat raw flesh." Inuit means "we the people."

Ojibwes, sometimes written "Chippewas," call themselves Anishinabes, or "people of the creation."

Mohawk means "cannibal" in Algonquian. They call themselves Kaniengehagas, or "people of the place of flint."

G’Var: Less than 15 years ago, agents were consistantly dying to protect this country against communism. Last week, we sent a little boy back to Cuba from where he escaped.
Luigi Novi: He didn’t escape. He was kidnapped.

A character, played by Mel Gibson, going after the evil English because they killed a member of his family. Just like the first time I saw this, when it was Braveheart.

This movie would make a historian weep.

I mean the British come off as proto-Nazis (You could take Jason Isaac's character, put him in a Nazi SS uniform, and he'd be right at home). The bit where they locked people in the Church and burned them alive. Nothing like that happened in the American Revolution.

Rather this is what the Germans did in World War II, in Oradour-sur-Glane, France in 1944.

We get it, Mel, you hate Britain, for some reason. However, don't go distorting history in your need to feed that hate.

He's in good company given that the Orange thinks they had airplanes during the Revolutionary War and had to be told why someone couldn't just use a mobile phone during the time period of "Little House on the Prairie"...

Orange would probably like this movie.

In all fairness, most conservatives would like this film. Even Never-Trumpers.