Patton (1970)

What a waste of my time!!!

Too many fans seem to be blown away

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Best movie of this year hands down!

Patton starts with a big opening scene with the backdrop of a huge American flag as General Patton (George C Scott) gives an inspirational monologue to the audience. What a way to start the movie.Patton was a much decorated warrior who loved the theatre of war, he believed in reincarnation as he said he was involved in some of the greatest battles of the past, an egoist who could inspire men to battle.Patton also had problem following orders himself, he was self absorbed, deluded, often getting into trouble especially when he slapped a battle fatigued soldier recovering in a hospital which troubled his subsequent career.Franklin J Schaffner's film won seven Oscars including best Picture. It is an epic film at times has a cast of thousands in the desert. It is a movie that was inspired by Lawrence of Arabia. It is a film about war but we do not see many battles. There is a sequence where Patton's base is being bombed by a warplane and he goes outside to shoot at it with his pistols. Another later sequence we see of Patton advancing in France but it is just him driving through on his jeep.There are no side plots of heroic soldiers in close up battles. The film is about Patton and his many contradictions. It stands out because of Scott's performance, big and brash. He dominates the film only Karl Malden gets a whiff to be memorable, the British soldiers are portrayed as stiff bores.The film was regarded as anti-war. It is not. There is a moment in this film when Patton exclaims 'I love it, God help me, I do love it. I love it more than my life.' The script was co-written by Francis Coppola, these lines would be later riffed by him for Apocalypse Now for Colonel Kilgore. Like Kilgore, Patton would walk to the battlefield knowing he will not die. As soldiers in his command remarked in real life, 'our blood, his glory.' The film is beautifully shot for the big screen but it is a bloated epic clocking at nearly three hours long and at times it comes across as stodgy.

This 20th Century Fox production, should have won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the year, which it did for 1970, among other awards, such as Best Actor, which Scott earned. One was able to sense well what the real Patton, "Old Blood and Guts" was really like. Patton was a man who himself stated that he read the Bible every day as he told a priest; (of course, the strong expletive he used as his adjective for the word "day" is not fit, I believe, to be placed in this review.) He didn't mind spitting out dirty words at the beginning when he was talking to his men, a man who loved war so much that generals under him began to hate him, a fact depicted in the movie. One memorable scene was the one in which he slapped hard the head of the boy too scared to fight. (Tim Considine, famed for playing Spin on the serial "Spin and Marty" on, in turn, the "Mickey Mouse Club" of the middle '50's played the part of the scared soldier.) I wonder if George S. Patton was any meaner than George C. Scott. After all, in many of his movies Scott is so mean himself. Karl Malden played one of his best roles ever in his career as General Omar Bradley. The main setting in North Africa was drawing in its own right. Yes, the movie depicted so clearly Patton and his war situation well. An outstanding production.

The film Patton was made during the film drought of the 70's and it suffers from that. Yes few good films came from this time period for the same reasons this is as bad as it is. To begin with, there are so many factual and anachronisms in the film it is mind boggling how the director took a good look at the cut and said "Yep, that's the best I can do." for example, the tanks used for the film were either the M,41,46,47,or 48. Ironically, these tanks were known as the Walker (M41) and Patton (M46,47 and 48). Also, they all debuted following WW2, and in respect of the Walker, not until midway through the Korean War. Another major problem is the directing aspect. Continuity errors and other goofs abound, unacceptable and unprofessional. In total, IMDb holds a total of 81 goofs and errors, there are probably more in there somewhere, I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were. However, by dislike of this film is not limited to the factual and historical errors, my being a college history student, this would be enough for me to black-ball it. Patton also has quite wooden acting, almost canned bits by Bradley (Malden) when he first meets Patton in the HQ. The sole exception to the is Patton (Scott). But even he on occasion has a pause or two were likely him trying to remember his lines and not dramatic. The worst part of this it is not a true biographical specimen like it is touted as. The biggest slight on history is it does not detail the untimely death of Patton. If you want or need a biographical account of Patton for something like an assignment, steer clear. If you are a historian, steer clear. If you are a WW2 movie fan, consider it. If you have no idea what WW2 is and want to learn something about it, read a history book, Killing Patton is a good example. I think that this should be remade with modern practices and standards, it would be quite good. I think Harrison Ford would be good for Old Blood and Guts if he gained five pounds.

As someone who is planning on enlisting in the armed forces I wanted to get an understanding on just who Patton was. Sure I could see any sort of documentary that talks about him but it wouldn't have had that same impact I felt after seeing this movie. George C. Scott does an amazing job of portraying Patton as who he is. A man that loves the smells and tastes of war. Each scene is as memorable as the last. The opening scene in particular where Patton gives his speech is one where I feel I am in the audience actually listening to. I feel a part of the drama and the action. If you are a World War 2 or history buff you're doing yourself a disservice by not seeing this film. Cause god dam was it good.