Synopsis:

Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) is a South Carolina planter who is still haunted by his notoriously brutal past as a soldier in the French and Indian War. When the American Revolution comes, he chooses not to fight for the Continental Army because he wants to protect his family. But when the British Colonel Tavington threatens their welfare and kills one of his sons, he chooses to enlist. Martin becomes the leader of a makeshift militia, which consists of peasants, slaves, a minister, and assorted other irregulars. During the war Martin and his men discover that they will pay a steep personal price for their rebellion. But thanks to their courage and bravery, they are also destined to pay a pivotal role in turning the tide against the Redcoats.

Sebastian's Rating: B- : yeah i agree with brian... he pretty much explains it all, atleast i enjoyed :) thats the only reason im giving it a B-, but i saw it along time ago so i couldnt describe much about it

Brian's Rating: B : I got this movie for a Christmas present some time ago.  I never had watched it until I got the DVD, then watched it once an shelved it until now.  I never really wanted to watch it again, and it is a movie I would have never bought on my own.  Why is that?  Well, its because I remember it not being as good as "Braveheart".

Lisa picked it out last night, and so I watched it for the first time since I received it as a gift.  I did not remember much about it except that it was not as good as Braveheart, and so I was not expecting much.  I have to say though, it was better than I remembered.

It has some of the same things going for it as Braveheart.  The story is about a fight for independence, freedom, and liberty from the British.  This time, instead of the Scots, it was the American Revolution.

So why is this not as good as Braveheart?  I am not schooled in movie critiquing like some are, but I know the basic measurement of how much it "wows" me.  This simply did not have the same punch as Braveheart.  I am not really sure why, but here are some observations:

1. Braveheart came first.  As always, when a very similar movie is released after a successful movie, it suffers.  This is why no QB could have possibly followed Elway.  Doomed form the start.

2. Some of the sets are bad.  Landscapes of ships at harbor, and other shots of the Atlantic are obviously mocked up.  This does not usually bother me much, but at times it was distracting.

3.  The writing was not as good.  This is probably the biggest reason it falls short.  The movie is littered with very corny scenes that are overdone in order to pull in the female demographic.  I am all for having a little girl cry out for her father to stay, but it was a bit over the top, both in the dialog, and the cheesy background music.  There were a handful of scenes like this where I just rolled my eyes.

Having said all that, the movie is good for the most part.  It tells a good story, and is acted well ('The Joker' has a prominent part).  It is a good portrayal of the loss incurred during war, and while being a fictional character, it remains historically accurate as much as my limited knowledge remembers.

If you have not seen it, its worth a gander.  However I think most would agree that it is not the quality of movie you want to see again, and again.  If you want that, get Braveheart.

Angie's Rating: A : I just had to comment on the comments made about this movie... You can't compare this to Braveheart!  First of all, it's not directed or produced by the same party, the storylines are (similiar) but not the same, and the entire cast is different.  Therefore you cannot compare the two except in vague similiarities in plot and the fact that Mel Gibson plays the lead.  That's it... if anyone hasn't seen the film, keep in mind that it is it's own film. 

comment here to add your review!