Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

An Exercise In Nonsense

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This biopic of the overbearing, brilliant General has a great cast, and a great director. Highlighting most of the highs and Lows of Patton's career, even with some flaws (like the tanks), it's still worth watching. While Scott dominates the screen as Patton, keep an eye on Karl Malden as Bradley - he steals every scene he's in. Worth all the accolades it received.

Sound: Excellent environmental sound. Great use of the fanfare orchestral theme. 85/100 Technical: Very good use of montage editing emphasizing character. Excellent reenactment of the war. High quality cinematography. 90/100 Narrative: Great use of the opening monologue to set up our protagonist. Presented the historical facts well, the inaccuracies seemed minor. I have read "A Soldiers Story" by Omar Bradley and found the film made the tension between Patton and Bradley not as strong as is really was but is still was there in the film. The story arcs well; we see Patton rise, fall, rise again and retire. Good use of companion story from the German perspective also. 90/100 Acting/Character: High quality portrayal of Patton and Bradley. We see some of the tension between Patton and Bradley but more is placed between Patton and Montgomery. 95/100 Did I enjoy it: Yes, a great deal. I was kept attentive with what Patton was going to say or do next. 100/100 Artistic merit: The opening monologue is the most iconic piece of this film; added to a well crafted film give it it's power 85/100 Total score 90.8/100

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.

Music by Jerry Goldsmith? It will be awesome! As suggested in film class, this is a war movie, but shouldn't be taken that way if you're seeing this film for the first time. George C Scott is incredible throughout the film, and as Patton was a bugger and a pain to so many people around his circle, you really start to fall on his side of the argument when you see the portrayal by Scott. There are actually some decent battle scenes, but that's not what the film was made to show, and it's not what Schaffer was looking to exploit for the narrative. the aspect ratio was enormous! I cant imagine the lenses used for this film, and there are some great wide-angle shots of North Africa and European country sides that are phenomenal. As mentioned in the first line, the music by Goldsmith is stellar, and I wonder if Jerry Goldsmith can take fair to bad movies and just make them great with his original scores!