"The Patriot"

[Adam Helmer]

Last night I was suspended between Heaven and Earth for three hours because I watched Mel Gibson give the British the nasty end of guerrilla warfare during the Revolutionary War in the South.

I did have my trusty .50 caliber flinter handy as I watched the movie. If others saw the film, I think many will agree that it had much historical accuracy. I did not understand why British Calvaryman Tarleton was called "Colonel Tavington"?

My readings indicate the Tory versus American turmoil was most vicious in the South. Thankfully, we had Greene and Morgan in the South after Gates pulled foot. Re-enact if you can because history is a living thing,

Adam

[Gil Martin]

The Patriot could have been Mel Gibson's greatest film, even greater than Braveheart. It was not for various reasons. Mostly, it did not follow historical fact. The film was a poor and improper blending of the battles of Cowpens and Kings Mountain but did not reflect either one. Where is the world was Fort Wilderness and the French and Indian War battle that they prattled about so much during the dialog? The film should have followed historical facts and it would have been spectacular. All the best...
Gil

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I did not understand why British Calvaryman Tarleton was called "Colonel Tavington"?

The Patriot could have been Mel Gibson's greatest film, even greater than Braveheart. It was not for various reasons. Mostly, it did not follow historical fact. The film was a poor and improper blending of the battles of Cowpens and Kings Mountain but did not reflect either one. Where is the world was Fort Wilderness and the French and Indian War battle that they prattled about so much during the dialog? The film should have followed historical facts and it would have been spectacular

The film didn't follow historical fact because it is, well....a 'film'. Movies that follow historical facts are usually called documentaries, and subsequently do NOT do well at the box office! I understand what you fellows are saying, but be thankful that at least the folks in Hollywierd are trying to get [IMG]some[/IMG] historical accuracy in thier films nowadays......they could have had the armies shooting caplocks!!!! .....and nobody but us traditional muzzleloaders would have noticed (or cared! )
All in all, I think that the Hollywood set designers and costumers are paying more attention in trying to "get it right"......I just saw "Kingdom of Heaven" and the costumes/weapons/gear seemed more 'authentic', for the most part, than what I remember from previous films. Same with movies such as 'gladiator', ect.
My 2 cents, for what it's worth.............................

[Adam Helmer]

Mr. 16 gauge,

You should be a film consultant. I liked seeing all the flintlocks in the movie. Revolutionaly War cannon balls were solid shot and not the high explosive stuff portrayed in the movie. I think HE came about in the Civil War.

I agree that we do see more historically accurate equipment in recent movies. I also agree that many viewers would not know the difference. In the movie "Blue Max" (WWI) the British troops had No.1 MkIII .303 caliber rifles while the German troops in the trenches had No.4 MkIs that did not see production until the 1930s.

Adam

[Jack]

Don't know how many of you have seen the D.W. Griffith classic film "Birth Of A Nation".
It isn't shown very much because it is an extremely racist film that glorifies the KKK. It was filmed in 1927, I believe.
Anyway, there are a few scenes in there of Civil War Confederate troops. They are shown using Trap Door Springfields......
In 1927, one call to Bannerman would have gotten Griffiths the correct Civil War armament.