Leaving accuracy and bias aside, there are two kinds of movies based on history. Some are good for entertainment and gives a basic explanation of why and how a event happened, leaving out and changing many details. Others are more sophisticated, trying to give us every detail and every angle on how it happened.
This is a "sophisticated" recreation. The direction is sophisticated. The choice of scenery for each dramatic moment is nothing but perfect, and there are plenty of beautiful stray visuals in between. The acting is sophisticated, understated yet clear and as sharply directed as the subject requires. And the buildings, weapons, uniforms and other costumes are recreated with consistency, leaving nothing off because of budget limitations.
And yet it's strikingly blunt.
It's blunt in it's storyline, relying on "generic basic archetypes" to tell us what happened to the typical soldiers of each side and group, the typical black ex-slave, the typical women, the children etc. It's blunt in it's narrative, using devices like slow-motion in the middle of battles, drawn-out "NOOOOO!!" pleads and sudden changes of music to beat us over the head with something important and tragic happening.
It's blunt in the point it makes, never showing anything to suggest why someone would not pick up the fight-even as Gibson's character himself expresses dislike for it early in the movie, noone could possibly avoid thinking it's just so we can see him change his stand soon. And, it's blunt in it's depiction of the English-American conflict.
"Why do people believe they can justify death?", Gibson's character says nearing the final battle, asking why the English army does what they are doing to the American people. Nothing in the movie gives any explanation to that either. The viewer comes out completely ignorant about the roots of the conflict, why it became violent or even what exactly the rebels were fighting for.
We know nothing about the British Empire or what exactly they want to kill all those innocent people for. The only message one really gets, is that it's okay to go one-against-40 with a troop of highly trained soldiers using nothing but a rifle and a steak knife, if you've seen a mean-eyed officer kill your son in front of the rest of your family. So as a political message, the movie comes off as almost completely impotent - there is nothing in real life, in the current world that this movie can be said to openly take a stand against.
Also, a sudden angle change about two-thirds through with a long, pointless and emotionless wedding scene and low-brow "humour" does further to enchance the pointlessness of this movie.
Yet the visual imprint of the movie is strong and sophisticated, just because of the brilliant images and scenery. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys artful photography as well as excellent battle recreations, but don't expect too much of the plot.
This is a "sophisticated" recreation. The direction is sophisticated. The choice of scenery for each dramatic moment is nothing but perfect, and there are plenty of beautiful stray visuals in between. The acting is sophisticated, understated yet clear and as sharply directed as the subject requires. And the buildings, weapons, uniforms and other costumes are recreated with consistency, leaving nothing off because of budget limitations.
And yet it's strikingly blunt.
It's blunt in it's storyline, relying on "generic basic archetypes" to tell us what happened to the typical soldiers of each side and group, the typical black ex-slave, the typical women, the children etc. It's blunt in it's narrative, using devices like slow-motion in the middle of battles, drawn-out "NOOOOO!!" pleads and sudden changes of music to beat us over the head with something important and tragic happening.
It's blunt in the point it makes, never showing anything to suggest why someone would not pick up the fight-even as Gibson's character himself expresses dislike for it early in the movie, noone could possibly avoid thinking it's just so we can see him change his stand soon. And, it's blunt in it's depiction of the English-American conflict.
"Why do people believe they can justify death?", Gibson's character says nearing the final battle, asking why the English army does what they are doing to the American people. Nothing in the movie gives any explanation to that either. The viewer comes out completely ignorant about the roots of the conflict, why it became violent or even what exactly the rebels were fighting for.
We know nothing about the British Empire or what exactly they want to kill all those innocent people for. The only message one really gets, is that it's okay to go one-against-40 with a troop of highly trained soldiers using nothing but a rifle and a steak knife, if you've seen a mean-eyed officer kill your son in front of the rest of your family. So as a political message, the movie comes off as almost completely impotent - there is nothing in real life, in the current world that this movie can be said to openly take a stand against.
Also, a sudden angle change about two-thirds through with a long, pointless and emotionless wedding scene and low-brow "humour" does further to enchance the pointlessness of this movie.
Yet the visual imprint of the movie is strong and sophisticated, just because of the brilliant images and scenery. I recommend it to anyone who enjoys artful photography as well as excellent battle recreations, but don't expect too much of the plot.