Patton

What a colossal bore. Its a film that takes its ideas, mulls over them but just wants to give you a little, not a lot. Patton conceivably was a great man, with great flaws. He was determined, like this film to get his goals achieved. However, unfortunately he was halted by fate, as was this film from any genuine ingenuity. The film's flaws stem mostly from its pace. It drags out a message that could be conveyed in a fraction of the screen time. Yes, he was an aggressive and difficult character, yes he was admirable for his ambition and conviction and yes he was a pompous, overbearing and ultimately hypocritical human. Why does Schaffner have to take so long illustrating this? At first it seemed mature and honest, we see Patton's abrasive nature and obstinacy, his arrogant refusal to submit to the system. Unfortunately then we see the same point reiterated on numerous occasions and through the same initial omniscient viewpoint, we never get any other angle on all this. All that we are treated to is the same perspective that eventually insinuates that Schaffner wanted us to feel sympathy for an egomaniac who loved war, and festered the whole time to his wholehearted dedication to it. Although Scott's performance is truly breathtaking; his presence and charisma really manage to keep us interested to watch the film to the end. He never can diversify the one-sided material he was given. We just get treated to the generic and repetitive view of how Patton was unfairly treated and vilified by his superiors. Objectivity just seems to be flung far away for Patton to roll over in his tank. Good biographies show the many facets of an individual, their strengths and vulnerabilities; strong biographies like 'Raging Bull' concentrate on how the qualities and dysfunctions interweave with those surrounding them and how their morphed personality shapes their future. 'Patton' unravels itself more to be an wholesome tribute to a psychotic and driven madmen,rather than an analytical piece of characterisation. Its glorification of war is offensive and ridiculous, and it wants to invoke pity and empathy for a supposed 'legend' who was really a very apprehensible individual. He is rewarded for being brutal, egotistical - not only on the battlefield but in the audience's eyes as well because of the partiality of the narrative. It chooses to take sides with Patton, to depict his pomposity as an approvable characteristic and to compress his fallible traits as excusable. It avoids a balanced depiction and chooses to become a cheerleader for devotion and loyalty to Patton's type of firebrand patriotism. Pity would have been more forthcoming had Schaffner opted for a more sagacious viewpoint; one that chose to focus more on his skewed values and hone in on them rather than dedicate 3 hours of film to underplaying Patton's zealousness and portraying him as an admirable and amiable fundamentalist. Scott's brilliance rather than Schaffner's incapability are what really gives this film a renowned reputation. It simply comes across as frivolous piece of US patriotism masked as an honest portrayal of an unbalanced, crazy and disastrous humanbeing. The film's ultimate purpose is to evoke empathy and sentimentality for a person who should be lauded for his determination and rebellious nature, and not criticised for his amazingly warped view on life. Because Patton was a victor, he has been canonised as a saint of the American right; which is all this film seems to want to achieve. It eschews real quality through its monotone narrative and dishonest subject matter. Its for romantic rightwingers and nobody else.

The cast of Franklin J. Schaffner's Oscar-sweeper "Patton" consists of hundreds, if not thousands of people, and unquestionably required the acute attention spans of many others, who stood out of sight when the cameras were rolling. But all of their collective efforts seem, to me at least, to amount to next to nothing as the heart, soul, and mindset of this movie - and in fact, the only person who seems to occupy any real space in it - is George C. Scott playing the controversial World War II general. It's one of Mr. Scott's two or three very best performances, and won him an Academy Award, and yet in a bloated film filled with mostly hot air as opposed to passion and information, even Mr. Scott's joyously powerful performance doesn't seem to add up to much. "Patton" clocks in at just under three hours in length, and yet even with so much open space to throw in historical facts, information, and theories about General Patton's infamous career and his actions during the Second World War, the movie does not provide anything that I could not have learned by picking up a book at the local library. As a result, it does not surmount enough interesting stuff to justify its length and monotonous tone. It goes on and on, but really does not have much to say. The best thing in the movie is, again, George C. Scott's magnificent performance. What made Mr. Scott one of the best cinema actors was not only his talent, but the way he enthusiastically embraced every role given to him. As a result, the audience is able to share the fun and excitement that goes into giving a great performance. That is the case here, as well. There are other people in the movie. One of them is Karl Malden, but they might as well just be faces painted on a big mural in the background, for none of them are fleshed out, memorable, or for that matter, very well-portrayed. With the exceptions of Mr. Malden and some of the German actors, a lot of the acting is hammy and wooden. In one of the movie's key moments, Mr. Scott loses his temper with a soldier crying after a heated battle, and whips him with his cap. The performance by the actor playing the soldier is so methodical and so artificial that it really threatens to bring the scene to a screeching halt. Having an amazingly animated performance with a plethora of really stone-faced ones sort of throws the movie off balance. "Patton" is a beautifully-photographed movie, and the battle scenes, sparse as they are, are appropriately riveting. However, in the end, this bloated wanderer of a motion picture is just too self-righteous for its own good. The way it presents General George Patton is like a elementary student writing a report about a historical figure who they honestly could not have cared less about. Passionless and stiff, "Patton" left me feeling completely disinterested about halfway through and clear to the end, wondering what else there was about this figure that was worth all of the hullabaloo. I had to pick up a history book to find out.

Patton I'm sure was an interesting guy. Hell maybe even more interesting than me. I'll even be as bold to say he might have accomplished more in his time than me too. But that doesn't mean I want to see a movie on the guy! The only reason I had to watch it was it was on my to do list. It was only on my to do list because it won best picture. Which makes me now wonder why the hell? The movie isn't as much about Patton as it is an anti war movie. Anti war not only in its message but anti war in the fact that its just a bad war movie. What war? The movie spends to much time looking at Patton. Given the title that can be forgiven. To a point! Given my now greater understanding of the man I'm sure he would prefer a movie about him to be more about war. Hell I bet his favorite all time war cinematic experience would be watching Band of Brothers. If you want a war experience watch Band of Brothers. If you want a nansy pansy depiction of what was really a tough man watch Patton. Thanks Coppala for giving your soft feminine touch to Patton. Scott was amazing as Patton though BTW.

PATTON was truly a shock to the system when it was released. The United States was still in the thick of the Vietnam war, and the country was extremely polarized between the hawks and the doves. Then along comes Patton, with a portrayal of a rebellious General who was always being put in his place by the establishment - even though he was, of course, a major establishment figure (generals aren't usually the most liberal or progressive types). Eisenhower (unseen) and the media are portrayed as unsympathetic to the maverick Patton, who is so single-minded in his determination to defeat the Germans you have to root for him, despite his boorish behavior. And that is why Patton works - you have an unambiguous war against and unambiguous evil - Nazi Germany. Whereas Vietnam might have been a tough conflict for even its supporters to explain, World War Two was quite simple - we were the good guys, and they WERE the bad guys. And so you COULD root for the US Army and Patton without feeling a tinge of guilt. Also superb in the film is everyman Karl Malden as General Omar Bradley, providing the stable and workmanlike leader (and one who rises quicker in the ranks due to it) to Patton's egomaniac. And Yes, George C. Scott delivers a career-defining performance that is one for the books. Could Brando or Telly Savalas have pulled off the role as well? I don't think so - it was just tailor made for Scott.

Scott's Patton was way too heavy-handed. Patton was nothing if not lighthearted and depended upon his staff far more than displayed in the film. Karl Malden needed more than his gimmick of chewing on a piece of straw for his Bradley portrayal - he does NOT resemble Omar Bradley. A total miscast, the result of Hollywood's continual illusion that any good actor can portray any personality faithfully. Of course, Hollywood script writers seldom are very familiar with the historical figures they create on film, or what they did. The major problem with this film's script was its absurd portrayal of Patton as a "tank expert." He certainly was not that. Innumerable examples from the war prove without any doubt that Patton completely misunderstood the purpose of armor in WWII. The most glaring (and well known) example was his rejection of the M26 Pershing tank in favor of the horrible Sherman they had used up until the Tidworth Downs conference in England prior to Normandy. His brainless decision (based on obsolete Army theories of armored warfare)was vehemently opposed by every armor commander who had had experience with the Shermans in Sicily and North Africa. Everyone except Patton was well aware of the severe deficiencies of the Sherman tank, but Patton's rank and obstinateness prevailed. That I rank as the most disastrous decision made by any US commander in WWII - it lengthened the war and killed many thousands of those unfortunate enough to be selected to be a member of a Sherman tank crew. After the invasion, when it became readily apparent just how inferior the Sherman was, a growing scandal was hushed up by the governments of both Britain and the US. Despite the fact that Patton's rejection of the vastly superior Pershing was easily the most significant and far reaching decision he ever made, the film doesn't even mention the fact. This totally destroys the credibility of this film. Typical Hollywood history - things are portrayed the way some scriptwriter wishes they had happened. Buy hey, that's Hollywood.

I am a fan of both General Patton and the movie that captured a portion of his duty in WWII. It exposes Patton's incredible strengths and vulnerabilities. George C. Scott gives one of his best performances. It leaves the viewer with the impression that Patton unnecessarily risked GI lives to "make a bigger splash" with his peers and the media. Statistics show that his aggressive "hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass" strategy actually resulted in lower casualties. Watched in conjunction with "The Big Red One" and "Saving Private Ryan" gives one an initial sense of the horror and sacrifice in the European Theatre. As a mini-biography, as an introduction to WWII, as a lesson in leadership under tremendous adversity or just for pure inspiration, Patton is one of the great films of my lifetime.

I saw this the same night I saw THE HURRICANE a movie that claims to be a bio-pic on Rubin Carter but which is nothing more than total fabrication . PATTON is an entirely different kettle of fish and while not being entirely accurate ( I'll come to that later ) does at least have many accurate points Undoubtedly the best aspect of the movie is George C Scott who is physically almost identical to George Patton . He captures the arrogant mannerisms of the American general very well and few and far between are movies where a performance like this dominates a movie . Ironically this is a case of where an Oscar for best actor was fully deserved and yet the recipient turned down the honour . There's also obviously a lot of thought gone into the screenplay as to where to begin and end the story . Do you start when Patton was a child and find out what motivated him to be a soldier ? Do you start when he fought in the American Expidionary force in France 1917-18 ? Do you finish the story with his death ? I think that writers Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H North have got the settings right with starting the story with the immediate aftermath of The Kasserine Pass and finishing the story while Patton was still alive . The screenplay itself is somewhat knowingly ironic as Patton spouts " America has never and will never lose a war " while it was becoming obvious in 1970 there was no way the US were going to be victors in Vietnam . It was a well known fact that Patton despised Monty and much of Patton's motives were of beating Montgomery as much as the Germans and this might have led to needless deaths of men under Patton's command . The screenplay while not exactly spelling this out does hint that his dislike of Monty led to Patton's reckless streak and the audience are left to make up their own mind on this issue . It was also well known that Patton wanted to throw back the Soviets from Eastern Europe ( Monty also had a hatred of communism but was far less vocal about it ) and there are conspiracy theories that the car accident that killed Patton wasn't an accident at all . Thankfully the screenwriters and producers have absolutely no time for any conspiracy theories of any kind While being a good movie PATTON fails to be great one simply because niggling little faults creep into the movie like historical inaccuracies . In the aftermath the Germans discuss the battle of Kasserine Pass where " The Americans were led by the British general Anderson " Who was Anderson ? The Americans who were badly defeated at the battle were led by American general Lloyd Fredendall without doubt the worst allied general of the war and it was this that led to Patton being appointed to his post . Rommel is portrayed as having the utmost respect for Patton and his American troops but in reality this wasn't actually the case . Throughout the war Erwin Rommel had contempt for American equipment ( With good reason since German Panther and Tiger tanks were far superior to the American built Shermans and the same applied to preceding equipment ) and servicemen and counted Monty as his arch nemesis not Patton . Also as with most American war movies made round about this time the tank battles fought between Americans and Germans seem to be composed of both sides using American tanks built in the 1950s All in all a bio-pic that while being better than many others isn't flawless but like I said if you want to see how NOT to make a bio-pic watch THE HURRICANE

source: Patton

Patton

There are certain professions that allow you to break the law and, generally speaking, allow you to get away with it. If, for example, you have a desire to kill, the military is the place to be, or perhaps the police. In the past the church has fronted for any number of despicable activities. That's by no means suggesting anything but a very tiny minority pursue such roles but if you needed an example, General Psycho certainly ticks a few too many boxes for comfort. That's all down to a truly outstanding performance by George C. Scott, who convinces with considerable success the selfish and deluded tyranny of a natural born psychotic killer in the battlefield theatres of his dreams.