MovieChat Forums > Patton (1970) Discussion > Mediocre

Mediocre

posted 10 years ago by Starcraft_rules
7 replies | jump to latest

Ignoring the largely inaccurate portrayal of warfare, Patton's writing is paper thin. George C. Scott is cool, but he has the only character that has some dimentions to it, rest of the cast are just tools. There are literally no soldier characters and Patton rarely interacts with them in the film.
As a war film it's also a failure as it gives no details on battles, it's just Patton driving through every time.
I also think cinematography was somewhat unnimpressive given it's 70mm. You can notice when people holding the camera really struggling under its weight.

[–] Hotrodder 10 years ago

I agree, I think it's way over-rated. The battle scenes aren't very good. George C. Scott's performance is fine but you never get the idea he has a life outside being a general.

Trust me. I know what I'm doing.

[–] porfle 10 years ago

I think it's way accurately-rated. It's no accident that the film is so highly regarded and that Scott's performance is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest in the history of cinema.

[–] jwpeel-1 10 years ago

You obviously know nothing about writing or drama. The movie is about Patton so of course the others are there as support for him and for storytelling reasons. That doesn't make them.o paper.thin at all. They moved the story along. With your mind of reasoning, Death of a Salesman is mediocre because it revolves around Willy Loman.

Watch it again.

[–] sambuca62 9 years ago

First, I think many bio-pics do themselves a disservice when they try to encapsulate so many aspects of a person's life. This film is solely about Patton's World War Two achievements and tribulations. They could have layered in his relationship with his wife Bessie. His affair with a young family friend and so on. All this would have diluted the main focus of the story.

Second and perhaps most importantly, you have to consider the movie's era. Americans were extremely proud of their role in the world and their sacrifice and efforts in World War Two and the ensuing Cold War. Patton was already considered a hero in many homes before the movie as he was in mine. The movie only furthered his hero status in the U.S. Patton's outspoken prognosis of the Soviets was only confirmed over the next decades. This film was a hero vehicle and Americans loved it.

What you said of the battle scenes, while exactly true, could have been said of any movie made prior to 1975. Rightly or wrongly, movies of this era glossed over the battle details while focusing on telling a story. Several 1970s war movies that went into battle specifics were epic failures for the exact reason they did not tell a story very well. As far as the violence of war, it was almost always toned down on the screen in this period.

While your criticisms are fair, you will never convince me that George C. Scott's performance was not absolutely incredible. His performance is what moviegoers were talking about in 1970.

[–] MadTom 9 years ago

First, I think many bio-pics do themselves a disservice when they try to encapsulate so many aspects of a person's life. This film is solely about Patton's World War Two achievements and tribulations. They could have layered in his relationship with his wife Bessie. His affair with a young family friend and so on. All this would have diluted the main focus of the story.

Minor nitpick in that his wife's name was Beatrice. She was played by Eva Marie Saint in the 1985 Made-for-TV sequel The Last Days of Patton. Georgie's affair was actually with Beatrice's niece, which made it kind of creepy, especially since the niece still called him "Uncle Georgie" while admitting they were having the affair. All this was addressed in the sequel, which IMHO, should have never been made. They took one of the most colorful figures of the 20th Century and made a movie about what was probably the most boring six months of his life. (He may well have eventually died of boredom anyway if he hadn't had the car accident!)

What I'd like to see is a prequel, or better yet a miniseries, covering his life from the 1912 Olympics through the 1916 Mexican Border War and his leading the first US Army tank unit in World War One.

[–] greendahlias 9 years ago

Actually,Patton was produced when antiwar sentiment in the USA was at its height. Films such as MASH and Catch-22 which had a cynical view of American involvement in foreign wars were more representative of the era.

I never tire of this admirable film, especially Scott's towering performance. Whenever it's aired, like tonight on TCM, I intend on watching a scene or two and end up watching the whole thing.

[–] Ghenghy 9 years ago

You're an idiot, you know that?