Patton (1970)

I wanted to but couldn't!

Admirable film.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Coming from the height of the Vietnam War, this very optimistic- spirited light-feeling war movie comes to feel somewhat out of place. At the time it came out, it might have been seen as a welcome retread to the gung-ho jingoistic war movies of the 50's and 60's with squeaky-clean heroism from the G.I.'s and sneering incompetence from the Germans. Also, the depictions of the battles in this movie, while often spectacular, feel pretty inaccurate and simplified for anyone who bothered to read a little more than the 9th-grade general-ed history books. It's almost as though the film just isn't interested so much in the war. The war is just a backdrop for the showcase of this complicated man.It's of another time, an era from before when history got complicated and we started really re-evaluating things... who the heroes of the war were and what really makes a man a 'hero'. How interesting is it to show people who never waver in confidence in the face of battle and never seem to fail? How responsible was Patton for the collapse of the 3rd Reich compared to the vast scale of the warfare waged by the Russians on the Eastern Front, not to mention the many who served above and below him? Was he just a cog in the machine or a truly extraordinary individual? This movie tells us the latter, but doesn't really tell us why or how beyond just all the other officers around him behaving like comparative imbeciles.That said, the film is wonderfully acted. George C. Scott was the perfect choice for the role and as long as the film focuses on him and his complicated relationship with the media, his fellow generals and allies, it works well. It just feels awfully dumbed-down to me in its depiction of the actual battles. PATTON may be a step up from THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE in terms of how well it technically pulls everything off, but just about on-par with it in terms of giving history credit where credit is due.

"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."Director Franklin Schaffner won the Best Director Oscar on his only nomination for this Best Picture Oscar winner, which brought home four more Oscars including Adapted Screenplay Writing (shared by Francis Ford Coppola). George C. Scott was the first Best Actor to refuse his award for his autobiographical portrayal of the famous General, AFI's #29 hero. Added to the National Film Registry in 2003. #89 on AFI's 100 Greatest Movies list.The film opens with the famous scene of the titled General (Scott) standing before a building sized American flag and giving a speech. It then takes "us" back through the officer's World War II career: his early successes in Africa where he defeats the famous German tank commander ("Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book"), his supposed rivalry with a British Field Marshall ("Monty") as they race for glory retaking Europe back from the Nazis, and even jealousy for fellow American General Omar Bradley (Karl Malden), on who's book "A Soldier's Story" the film is based.It tells of the mutual "love" between the tough officer and his men, as well as the incident which caused him to become a political pawn of the press. Perhaps the only missed beat in the entire film is its weak ending.

a fascinating portrait. brutal. honest. almost cruel. and one of the greatest roles of George C. Scott. ambition of an American general who has the profound conscience of his duty. a hero out of ordinary recipes. and a war who gives to him all the opportunities to conquest honor, a name and fame. and, sure, to be himself. after decades, it is a great movie. impressive scene by scene. because George C. Scott is not alone in the fight with his character. because the war is reduced to the aura of a vulnerable man looking not exactly the glory but the right way to remain himself. so, a special film. seductive. terrible. delicate. powerful.

Again, there are good and bad war movies. This one is rather poor. Seems to be, all the elements of a great war movie are here - stellar cast, great camera work, excellent and meticulous approach to details and superb music. Why does it then fall flat? The mere idea is nothing new - a bio of a great war general, this time, Patton, throughout his ordeals and victories in Africa and then Italy and then France. Yeah, but no. The false tone is set up at the very first, long, laughable and totally unnecessary speech scene that does all the wrong service and only makes the tonality of the film pretentious and suddenly comic. Battle scenes - there are several. But a very sloppy montage and abrupt character add to a bigger misery. Even the man himself seems to be all at odds with the whole thing. The worst is yet to come with typically awful depiction of Russians. More to say here is only to induce laughter. So silly the whole scene is. The best is all of a sudden is a very delicate and deeper take on Germans - Jodl, Rommel, Steiger are all very decent and highly deliverable antagonists with their hopes and falls. That does not save these unimaginably long 3 hours of a plodding mess from a yawning boredom.