In Reply to: PATTON posted by danj on January 2, 2004 at 01:16:25:
I like it as a film, accepting for a while Bradley's POV - it's hard to judge the artistic side of this film separately from the historical content.
Historical reconstruction of Patton himself is weak here: Scott was excellent, but his Patton just wasn't credible. It's a collection of anecdotes on Patton, not the real man. For example, the real Patton aged very quickly though the war (he was 60 in 1945, looking older than his real age - more like 70s). It doesn't happen in the film. The authors had to preserve this human continuity - whatever version of history (Bradley, Monty, Stalin..) they chose.
And I wish the Hammelsburg episode was there... the episode itself worth a whole film - but not in Hollywood, I suppose.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: PATTON - klaus 04:14:30 01/02/04 (9)
- Re: PATTON - danj 23:43:30 01/03/04 (1)
- Scott was also excellent in "Hardcore" and.. - olddude55 06:41:59 01/04/04 (0)
- Re: PATTON - olddude55 07:17:31 01/03/04 (6)
- You can't be serious... - klaus 10:07:52 01/03/04 (5)
- Nope. It's faithful to the book, - olddude55 06:39:06 01/04/04 (4)
- Vehicles - Troy 12:16:45 01/04/04 (3)
- "A Bridge Too Far" got ripped by critics but - olddude55 12:45:58 01/04/04 (2)
- Re: "A Bridge Too Far" got ripped by critics but - klaus 00:47:19 01/05/04 (1)
- I'd call the near total destruction of the British 1st Airborne Division a defeat. - olddude55 03:01:04 01/05/04 (0)