mainstay

I saw this film dubbed in English. Fortunately, the theatre staff lowered the admission to compensate for this crime against humanity. In this case, the dubbing made it impossible to take the film seriously. But even if we ignore the horrible voice acting and lip synching problems (which were vaguely reminiscent of the old Godzilla movies I used to see at YMCA daycare when I was little), this movie is still sappy. So maudlin and overdone, in fact, that I would disagree with all the comments praising "Like Water for Chocolate" to be a refreshing change from Hollywood. It seemed like the director compressed the 10 soapiest films Hollywood has ever spawned (including a twisted version of Romeo and Juliet, surprise surprise) into the longest 116 minutes I've ever experienced. (1) Vaguely sentimental, shapeless music with no definite theme pervades the entire film, even in funeral scenes, which (2) there are a lot of. The director randomly kills off characters attempting to get our sympathy. It backfires. I was more or less laughing (when I wasn't half asleep) throughout the entire movie. (3) Soapy plot disguised as a 'true love' movie. Just one example: Pedro professes his undying love for Tita and wish to marry approximately 10 minutes after having met her. This happens multiple times with different characters). While this may be forgivable, a contradiction in the plot ruins the whole love aspect. Namely, the director fails to convey exactly why Tita prefers Pedro (the stupid horny moron) over the (obviously more sympathetic) Dr. Brown. This completely screws over his story and makes a mockery of all the emotion in the film, especially when the director essentially forces this Romeo and Juliet-esq love onto the characters. (4) Which are quite one dimensional characters. We have the evil bad hypocritical tyrannical mother, the irrepressibly fun loving servant, the Casanova letch, the calm friendly doctor... all of which are presented with all of and only these character traits (The evil mother never is shown humanely, the good doctor is without blemishes, etc. etc. &c.) How can this movie be a refreshing change from Hollywood when it has all these elements? This emperor has no clothes.

After I left the theatre, I was wondering why I went to see this movie in the first place; I think I was another victim of a movie trailer that seemed interesting. I'm quite happy I was able to secure student admission (5.50) as opposed to the 7.00 regular price because, in a sense, "The Patriot" was worth about 1/2 of every penny. I got the feeling that Gibson extorted the $15 odd million contract from the producer as a sort of insurance against the movie being a failure. In this case, it was a good idea on his part. I'd hate to see a decent actor's reputation get trashed...like the case of John Travolta and "Battelfield Earth".

the Bad about "The Patriot": (1)It's an inferior remake of Braveheart, set in America. 'Nuff said. (2)Dialogue. They paid Mel Gibson millions to spout cheesy one liners. Not just any one liners, we're talking about one liners of the same calibre of Harrison Ford's "Get off my plane" in Air Force One. One liners like you hear emanating from Bruce Campbell in "Evil Dead 3, Army of Darkness" (ie "Gimme some sugar, baby"). Other characters, like the reverend, have the same problem: "A shepherd has to defend his flock *meaningful pause* and sometimes fight off the wolves". (3)Plot: Sappy and unoriginal. The beginning scenes with the boy getting shot, house burning down, for example, were presented with little emotion; their only purpose was to turn Gibson from pacifist farmer to raging Revolutionary Rambo (hence comes the movie poster shot of Gibson loaded down with lots of muskets). (4)Historical Inaccuracy. Ok, I'm pretty anal about history, just read my review of U-571. On the other hand, I can accept artistic license. But when Hollywood starts rewriting history to puff up the good ol' USA image, it becomes a bit more than artistic license. I mean, the Brits are already up in arms about U-571 and the Patriot! If World War III between Europe and the United States is started by Hollywood, I said it first! ok, on to a few of the inaccuracies: -I seriously doubt that Tarleton massacred a village by burning them in a church or was nearly as brutal as he was portrayed in the film.

-In a similar vein, the Brits were portrayed as pretty bad. I guess the directors were scrounging for 'villains' (when in the Revolutionary war there were none) and decided to just vilify the British. Hey, its easy, fast, and cheap. -Until the advent of rifling in barrels, muskets were not very accurate. Revolutionary warfare was basically portrayed accurately in the film; the problem came up in the scene where Gibson and Sons slaughter 20 red coats with their sniper muskets. Not to mention all the guerrilla warfare where the colonials kill a red coat nearly every second with no casualties.

Good things: -the Battle Scenes were incredible. Bloody, epic, and very very cool. -Good acting by most of the cast, including Gibson et le francais. -Neat-O special effects.

Basically it boils down to entertainment that is severely marred by unoriginal directing and writing (ok, this is the same team who made the American "Godzilla", what should I expect?). Don't see it unless it's a matinee.

Reading many of the previous comments, Mystery Men seems like an excellent litmus test to sift out the humor-impaired from the rest of us who can appreciate quality satire. The former type whine about the cheesy special effects, the comicbookish plot, etc. but completely miss the point that Mystery Men is a very well-wrought parody. Just the tongue in cheek (corporate sponsorship, glasses parody, etc) portrayal of "Captain Amazing" should be enough to tell people HELLO THIS IS A VERY BLACK, VERY COMIC SATIRE. If you just can't appreciate quality humor (eg if you preferred the humor in Austin Powers 2 over the original) you should stay away from this movie. And please refrain from polluting the Mystery Men imdb listing with asinine comments.