Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation | Release Date: February 18, 1970
8.2
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 79 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
71
Mixed:
6
Negative:
2
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
1
CalibMcBoltsMay 30, 2016
I decided to watch 'Patton', the all-time favorite film of James
Berardinelli, someone i respect a lot, and someone who has a very
profound taste in films, which i like, i always love reading his reviews. Me, as usual going in to any
I decided to watch 'Patton', the all-time favorite film of James
Berardinelli, someone i respect a lot, and someone who has a very
profound taste in films, which i like, i always love reading his
reviews.

Me, as usual going in to any movie with high hopes and high
expectation, since it is the #1 film of someone i respect, but boy, o
boy was i disappointed. This is a lifeless, patriotic, American piece
of propaganda. In a very, very negative way. It has no redeeming
qualities, and every battle scene you get showed, you don't care about
who gets bombed and gets shot at by infantry, because everyone that
gets killed in the battle scenes are faceless puppets, something an
emotionally driven war picture needs.

The whole movie is about George S. Patton, an eccentric and
controversial American war general with a short fuse, you might think
that will result in some fantastic scenes. No, not really. The whole
movie is really about how great Americans are, and how great this
maniacal war general is, showing manly decisions, epic battles (battles
that have no gravitas at all), how great he handles everything, etc,
etc. Each scene in 'Patton' could've easily been cut 2 to 4 minutes,
resulting in a dragging and overlong movie with an unneeded runtime of
172 minutes.

All in all, i still gave 'Patton' a 1/10 because George C. Scott
undeniably gives a powerhouse performance, and i respect Franklin J.
Schaffner a lot, attempting to make a memorable war picture.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
smiyamotNov 29, 2015
The Allies won WW2 but we don't know that much about the details. This movie fleshes out one of the more famous (the M-48 tank is called the Patton) generals. He's egotistical, tactless, and probably got a lot of soldiers killed. But in aThe Allies won WW2 but we don't know that much about the details. This movie fleshes out one of the more famous (the M-48 tank is called the Patton) generals. He's egotistical, tactless, and probably got a lot of soldiers killed. But in a war to decide who was going to rule the world, he was our "go to" guy. I've seen a few documentaries about 1944; the mood of the people was turning anti-war; kind of like the Vietnam protests. We might have made peace with Nazi Germany and the Japanese empire rather than getting their surrender. What would the world look like now? I don't have many DVDs but this one is in my collection. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
ryancarroll88Aug 26, 2010
George C. Scott's portrayal of the WWII General George Patton is a sight to behold, and it's really his performance that drives the whole movie - not at all a bad thing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
rodericrinehartAug 14, 2010
Patton was a despicable, gritty, SOB that helped America defeat the Nazis. Scott absolutely nails the performance and shows the many sides of this complicated man.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EnzoP.Jul 27, 2009
Patton is based on General Patton toughness, cruelness and leadership. George C. Scott the man who plays Patton is astonishing, he gives a performance of a lifetime, not shocked he won the oscar for best actor. Also Karl Malden plays really Patton is based on General Patton toughness, cruelness and leadership. George C. Scott the man who plays Patton is astonishing, he gives a performance of a lifetime, not shocked he won the oscar for best actor. Also Karl Malden plays really good great acting throughout the movie. But the problem about the film is that when you make a really long film it has to be highly entertaining or you will just get bored and fall asleep.So that is what really backfired throughout this movie. That is why I did not like it as much as the critics. The only time I thought it was highly entertaining was in the last six minutes. In the first hour I would of gave it a five. Then in the next hour I would of gave it a six. Then finally in the last hour I decided to give this film a seven. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RickJMay 9, 2008
I saw this for the first time this weekend. Excellent movie with top notch acting. It definitely makes me want to research more into the North Africa campaign during WW II.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MithyusApr 1, 2007
The myth of Patton is brilliantly presented, and while it develops controversal ideals, those are shown in the most human of the ways.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RirenJan 10, 2007
A movie that is guaranteed to grow less popular as the years pass and all things war become less acceptable - a positive notion for society, but an unfortunate one for film. Scott delivers the performance of a lifetime, fully embracing the A movie that is guaranteed to grow less popular as the years pass and all things war become less acceptable - a positive notion for society, but an unfortunate one for film. Scott delivers the performance of a lifetime, fully embracing the geniune and outrageous character of General George S. Patton. Much like GANDHI, PATTON focuses very little of the childhood or development phases of its title character, instead thrusting us towards a truly memorable and perplexing human. This story is very thoughtful and driven by dialogue, without much in the way of baseness or bloody action; indeed there is more screentime devoted to the fatigue and damage done by war than to battle. Again like GANDHI, this film avoids criticizing its focal character, and tries to make its audience sympathize with whatever flaws or shortcomings it reveals about him. Really, the only difference between these two biopics (which are quite possibly the two best biographical films in the English language) is their main character's compulsion towards an end; Gandhi driven for peace, and Patton lusting for war. Do not expect PATTON to flinch; to its final scenes, it will not concede that the insensitivity and battle-pride of its main character are wrong. The best it will do is thankfully suggest that people such as Patton are a rare and increasingly unnecessary breed. The score is moving, the settings feel startlingly authentic (especially in contrast to contemporary film's green screen fetish), and the direction is unwaveringly thoughtful. This is a war movie for people who think, and thinking people need to see this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DougT.Dec 7, 2005
One of the finest actor's portrayal of a historical personality committed to film since Maria Falconetti in "The Passion of Joan of Arc." Similar to "Lawrence of Arabia", and at least that good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
J.RyanG.May 29, 2005
We have to be careful with movies that follow their lead character like a puppy dog. Either we must learn about human nature by seeing the internal workings of the character, or we must learn from his perspective about the world around him. We have to be careful with movies that follow their lead character like a puppy dog. Either we must learn about human nature by seeing the internal workings of the character, or we must learn from his perspective about the world around him. Here we do more of the second than the first, though there is not always a healthy balance. It is interesting to see a rather frank and modern look at the way a political figure (in this case, of the military variety) operates with, against, and under the pressuring phenomenon of public approval. George C. Scott is ordinarily brilliant and intense, but see "The Hospital" for a slightly better sampling of his talent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaysonApr 8, 2005
Even more boring than The Longest Day. It made me feel like the first passengers of the demented ship from Horizon. I wanted to tear my eyes out for my own protection.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
DavidB.Mar 9, 2005
An apparently unbiased WWII movie, with uneven pacing, perhaps. Had any actor other than Mr. Scott been casted we wouldn't be discussing this movie here. Definately a personality vignette rather than a war movie. It left me wanting more An apparently unbiased WWII movie, with uneven pacing, perhaps. Had any actor other than Mr. Scott been casted we wouldn't be discussing this movie here. Definately a personality vignette rather than a war movie. It left me wanting more footage of the early years of Patton. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful