Benutzerrezensionen

RELEASED IN 1970 and directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, "Patton" stars George C. Scott as the charismatic general during his WWII campaigns in North Africa and Sicily, as well as France & Germany following the Normandy invasion. After the invasion of Sicily, Patton was reprimanded for slapping a cowardly soldier suffering battle fatigue (in real life it was two soldiers on separate occasions in the course of eight days in August, 1943). The fiery general was removed from command for eleven months while his junior in age and rank, Omar Bradley (Karl Malden), was selected to command the First United States Army for the invasion of Normandy.

Meanwhile, Patton was assigned to London as a decoy to deceive the Germans in a sham operation called Fortitude. The ruse was successful because the German High Command respected Patton more than any other Allied commander and deemed him crucial to any plan to invade mainland Europe. Immediately following the successful invasion, he was put in command of the Third Army in the final Allied thrust against Germany where the headstrong general, once again, proved his mettle as his forces favored speed and aggressive offensive action.

Patton was an interesting character who maintained a flashy larger-than-life image in order to encourage his troops; and he didn't hesitate to get his hands dirty with them. While other officers tried to blend-in with the troops on the battlefield, Patton brazenly displayed his rank insignia. He was a romantic who valued bravery and tenacity above all. All this is effectively conveyed in this ambitious war flick. It's interesting to observe the North African and European theaters of the war from the standpoint of the Allied generals, mostly Patton and Bradley, rather than the typical perspective of the infantry.

THE FILM WAS WRITTEN by Francis Ford Coppola with additional material from Edmund H. North (based on the factual accounts of Ladislas Farago & Omar N. Bradley). It runs 172 minutes and was shot in Spain, Algeria, Morocco, Crete and England, with the opening speech filmed at Bob Hope Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles.

GRADE: A-

PATTON was truly a shock to the system when it was released. The United States was still in the thick of the Vietnam war, and the country was extremely polarized between the hawks and the doves. Then along comes Patton, with a portrayal of a rebellious General who was always being put in his place by the establishment - even though he was, of course, a major establishment figure (generals aren't usually the most liberal or progressive types). Eisenhower (unseen) and the media are portrayed as unsympathetic to the maverick Patton, who is so single-minded in his determination to defeat the Germans you have to root for him, despite his boorish behavior.

And that is why Patton works - you have an unambiguous war against and unambiguous evil - Nazi Germany. Whereas Vietnam might have been a tough conflict for even its supporters to explain, World War Two was quite simple - we were the good guys, and they WERE the bad guys. And so you COULD root for the US Army and Patton without feeling a tinge of guilt.

Also superb in the film is everyman Karl Malden as General Omar Bradley, providing the stable and workmanlike leader (and one who rises quicker in the ranks due to it) to Patton's egomaniac.

And Yes, George C. Scott delivers a career-defining performance that is one for the books. Could Brando or Telly Savalas have pulled off the role as well? I don't think so - it was just tailor made for Scott.

My only complaint with this film is several of the battle scenes play way too long. The first one in N. Africa, especially, is tension-less muddle. Due to the narrative focus on the affairs of the generals the battles are not very good and after are hard to follow. This is exceedingly minor in context because of not only the fog of war but history is what history is. I mention this because despite this issue I rather like this film, despite Patton (the man) being a brute and authoritarian. He was not a 20th century man. That says more about him than the 20th century.

The screenplay is, easily, the best part of the film. By the use of sarcasm and pointed barbs the film manages to place Patton the man in the proper context and despite Patton the man being pro-war make an anti-war film; it is really a very clever piece of writing that allows both hawks and doves to be really engaged with the storyline (which largely handles the history well). Best of all, this use of irony and sarcasm allows the film to show Patton as a complex, paradoxical and hypocritical figure. Patton the man loved the smell of battle but couldn't understand why fine young men had to die in war. He is a man who read his Bible every goddamn day. It is a sight to behold the mess and contradictions Patton lived by. And the screenplay effortlessly keeps the viewer orientated of what is happening in the war.

Scott is of course tailored made for the role and he gives his best career performance. Malden is also really engaging. The technical aspects give the film its proper weight. This is an exemplar of what a biopic can be.

Not much can be said of this movie that already hasn't been said. It captures the war, the man, and the conflict of the two. I thought the movie was very nicely tied together and I thought the reflections of Patton on the past was very necessary. Patton believed in reincarnation so in looking back at historical battles you can see how Patton developed his strategy. He was a student of great leaders and commanders and the movie developed that thought really well. The movie presented the characters, the actual war history, and the Germans extremely well and it is no wonder this movie received the awards it did. After watching this movie over and over again, I'm convinced that no one could have played Patton any better than George C. Scott. You can tell from the movie that he put everything he had into the character. My father-in-law was an officer under Patton in the 3rd. Army and has said over and again how realistic the movie is. I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for an excellent re-telling of WWII history.

Oliver Stone has said this film glorifies war, i disagree, what it does is show a man {Patton} who gloried in war, the war is shown through his perspective,and to Patton war is glorious and he revels in it.The performance of George c scott as Patton is brilliant, it shows a complex and demanding character riddled with contradictions ,who believes he was born to be a leader of men,the supporting cast is very good particularly karl Malden who plays general Bradley a calm experienced soldier with no dreams of glory, the perfect foil to the maverick Patton, the combat scenes are well shot and are never more than is necessary to support the narrative,the film rises above being very good to excellence due to George c Scotts intuitive grasp of the character.

The best comment on this film was made by my father. This was the last movie he saw in a theater. He had served under Patton in WW2 and said that Scott had nailed Patton's character and mannerisms so perfectly that halfway through the opening speech, he expected Scott/Patton to look down and say, "$@%#$@, Sears, get a haircut - your hair's too &#%#$%@ long!"

A few years ago, I had the pleasure of reading "The Patton Papers," a collection of Gen. Patton's diary entries and letters edited by Martin Blumenson. Having seen the movie, I think that no actor has ever better captured the spirit of a man better than George C. Scott, nor has any movie better portrayed that spirit than PATTON.

Patton was a man who lived for war. World War II was the high point and culmination of his life. He didn't fight for any principles, he didn't fight to defend freedom or democracy or any abstract idea; he fought because he loved fighting. In his diaries you can read of his fear of flunking out of West Point; the prospect terrified him because he was certain that he would never be good at anything except being a general or a leader of a country.

As a leader of men, he was exceptional. His speech at the beginning of the movie is vintage Patton, an almost exact reproduction of a speech Patton actually gave to Third Army. It's tough, and no-nonsense; Patton lets you know in no uncertain terms that he is here to win, to destroy the enemy, and by God you'd better be too. I don't know if Patton actually directed traffic on the roads as he is shown doing in the movie, but it was a very Pattonish thing to do. Patton did on at least one occasion get out of his staff car and join a squad of G.I.'s in heaving a vehicle out of the mud. Try to imagine Montgomery doing that; the very thought is hilarious!

Patton's character explains his treatment of his men. To those who had been wounded fighting for him he was always kind and considerate. But to those whose minds could not stand the horrible strain that war imposed on them, he was merciless; he could not comprehend the fact that other people didn't share his love of violence for violence' sake. PATTON shows this aspect of his character very well.

Karl Malden's Omar Bradley is shown in an almost father-like role; he sees and recognizes Patton's immense talents as a general, and uses them in spite of Patton's natural ability to antagonize everybody around him. Not shown in the movie is Patton's unloveable characteristic of turning on his subordinates once they surpassed him in their careers. Patton had nothing but good to say about Bradley, until Bradley was promoted over Patton's head, whereupon Patton savaged Bradley in his diary. Patton did the same to Eisenhower.

A general can have no higher compliment than the fear and respect of his adversaries, and as PATTON demonstrates, Patton was more feared by the Germans than any other Allied general, at least on the Western front. As one German officer observes all too prophetically, "the absence of war will destroy him [Patton]." And although mankind's single greatest stroke of good fortune in the 20th century was that Russia and America never came to blows, it is still hard not to feel sorry for Patton as he desperately seeks his superiors' approval to carry the war on eastward into the Soviet Union - anything, just to have a war to fight. Patton is like an addict to a destructive drug.

Hollywood has rarely given us such a textured and human portrait of a great man: cruel, often foolish in his relations with others, rude, and psychopathically attached to violence, but brave, dedicated, and loyal. Certainly those who, like myself, have Jewish blood, or who were otherwise marked for death by the Nazi state, all owe him a great debt of gratitude for his pivotal role in destroying that state. And yet, had he been born German, Patton would surely have fought just as devotedly for the Nazi side. I'm glad he wasn't.

Rating: **** out of ****.

It really doesn't get any better than this one, for realism, casting, set, costumes, scenery..........and all based on a true story. I can see why Scott won Best Actor and the film won BEST MOVIE. Epic movie in all aspects. Every person should watch this movie...... to see what the troops of England and the USA went through during WWII. My father fought in the Ardens during the Battle of the Bulge and he said the scene when Patton was marching up to get the 101st, with the heavy snow in the trees and the 88's blasting the tops of the trees off, took him right back to the heavy fighting where he was severely wounded. It was that realistic. "Patton" is one of my favorite WWII movies and a possible stopping point if it comes up in my "Recommendations" when surfing. This has a little bit of everything going for it, including great acting (Carl Malden and George C. Scott), historically accurate feel, a good bit of drama, and even some humor. "Patton" is one of the best and most honored war films of all time. (8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, 1970.)

Coming from the height of the Vietnam War, this very optimistic- spirited light-feeling war movie comes to feel somewhat out of place. At the time it came out, it might have been seen as a welcome retread to the gung-ho jingoistic war movies of the 50's and 60's with squeaky-clean heroism from the G.I.'s and sneering incompetence from the Germans. Also, the depictions of the battles in this movie, while often spectacular, feel pretty inaccurate and simplified for anyone who bothered to read a little more than the 9th-grade general-ed history books. It's almost as though the film just isn't interested so much in the war. The war is just a backdrop for the showcase of this complicated man.

It's of another time, an era from before when history got complicated and we started really re-evaluating things... who the heroes of the war were and what really makes a man a 'hero'. How interesting is it to show people who never waver in confidence in the face of battle and never seem to fail? How responsible was Patton for the collapse of the 3rd Reich compared to the vast scale of the warfare waged by the Russians on the Eastern Front, not to mention the many who served above and below him? Was he just a cog in the machine or a truly extraordinary individual? This movie tells us the latter, but doesn't really tell us why or how beyond just all the other officers around him behaving like comparative imbeciles.

That said, the film is wonderfully acted. George C. Scott was the perfect choice for the role and as long as the film focuses on him and his complicated relationship with the media, his fellow generals and allies, it works well. It just feels awfully dumbed-down to me in its depiction of the actual battles. PATTON may be a step up from THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE in terms of how well it technically pulls everything off, but just about on-par with it in terms of giving history credit where credit is due.

Scott's Patton was way too heavy-handed. Patton was nothing if not lighthearted and depended upon his staff far more than displayed in the film. Karl Malden needed more than his gimmick of chewing on a piece of straw for his Bradley portrayal - he does NOT resemble Omar Bradley. A total miscast, the result of Hollywood's continual illusion that any good actor can portray any personality faithfully. Of course, Hollywood script writers seldom are very familiar with the historical figures they create on film, or what they did. The major problem with this film's script was its absurd portrayal of Patton as a "tank expert." He certainly was not that. Innumerable examples from the war prove without any doubt that Patton completely misunderstood the purpose of armor in WWII. The most glaring (and well known) example was his rejection of the M26 Pershing tank in favor of the horrible Sherman they had used up until the Tidworth Downs conference in England prior to Normandy. His brainless decision (based on obsolete Army theories of armored warfare)was vehemently opposed by every armor commander who had had experience with the Shermans in Sicily and North Africa. Everyone except Patton was well aware of the severe deficiencies of the Sherman tank, but Patton's rank and obstinateness prevailed. That I rank as the most disastrous decision made by any US commander in WWII - it lengthened the war and killed many thousands of those unfortunate enough to be selected to be a member of a Sherman tank crew. After the invasion, when it became readily apparent just how inferior the Sherman was, a growing scandal was hushed up by the governments of both Britain and the US. Despite the fact that Patton's rejection of the vastly superior Pershing was easily the most significant and far reaching decision he ever made, the film doesn't even mention the fact. This totally destroys the credibility of this film. Typical Hollywood history - things are portrayed the way some scriptwriter wishes they had happened. Buy hey, that's Hollywood.

. . . and it's not even about the war. There's no wall to wall action. In fact, World War II is merely the setting – a backdrop so to speak – and the battles are all downplayed in favor of giving the audience a glimpse into the brilliance (or insanity) of the historically significant character, Patton. From the script on up, everything plays out wonderfully to bring the famous general to life on screen, and after watching George C. Scott deliver his Oscar-worthy performance, I find it hard to believe there were a number of actors on the list above his name.

George C. Scott's performance of Patton is one I consider the greatest given of any war film. Patton is a champion for freedom while sometimes equally as much of a tyrant as the ones he's trying to put down, he's a monster and a hero, and neither he nor the filmmakers give a damn about political correctness. I found the character to be an overly harsh prick, myself, but in some strange way, very likeable and sympathetic, and when watching the movie again I don't look at the screen and say, `Hey, there's George C. Scott.' Instead it's, `Hey, there's Patton.' Not very many film characters have a personality strong enough to overtake the actor playing them. I appreciate that depth and that degree of realism, this attention to detail on the parts of Scott and Schaffner.

Schaffner surprised me by somehow managing to capture my interest on a subject matter I'd ordinarily write off as too silly (Planet of the Apes); two years later, he applied that same technical know how, craft, and intelligent storytelling towards a film whose subject appeals to me from the get go, and once again I'm impressed. There are some great war films out today; however, Schaffner's take pursued the most unique perspective in all realms, and captured my imagination with such ease . . . I can't help but come back to it over other war films.

And I have to comment on the score, which is not only one of my favorite Goldsmith scores but also one of my favorite war-film scores. Jerry Goldsmith matched point for point the brilliance of Franklin Schaffner's vision, the depth of George C. Scott's performance, and somehow managed to captured the essence of both musically. A good music score is one that tells the story of the film in its own unique voice. Goldsmith's score has such a prominent voice in the experience of Patton, that to remove it would be the equivalent of removing Schaffner's direction or George C. Scott.

Lastly, how accurate is the film? Not a clue, and even if it is completely false, I don't care. I've never been about writing history papers based on cinema experiences. All I know for certain is that Patton is a very entertaining and well balanced movie that holds up very well thirty years later, and it's a film that can be admired for its craft.

I am a retired history teacher and am insufferable to be with if you are watching a historical picture. I tend to notice all the mistakes--making "Pocahontas", "The Sound of Music" and "Midway" (as examples) films you would hate to watch with me. I cannot help but should out 'these films are FILLED with glaring errors--what's WRONG with these people?!?!'--and you will no doubt hate me for it! But, "Patton" is a rare example where I won't complain. Sure, many of the tanks are NOT WWII vintage and a few facts here and there aren't exactly correct. BUT, the sheer force of George C. Scott's portrayal make the film riveting from start to finish. A truly exceptional film and a film which CLEARLY earned Scott the Oscar he ultimately refused! See this film but do NOT see the sequel that was made for TV a decade or so later--it is simply awful and pointless!

It's a splendidly done movie. Scott's performance is powerful. He does everything but reach out, grab you by the shirt, and shout in your face. Karl Malden is likable and full of common sense, but he is the only person in the movie whom we can grasp as a character -- except for Scott himself. Scott is as good at his job as Patton was, and in fact the quality of his performance is less volatile than Patton's own, with virtually no weak spots.

That's part of the problem. Patton himself. I suppose that like most people he had a "good" side -- loving family, played with his dog, collected stamps and whatnot. But as good and aggressive a general as he was, he wasn't a particularly likable guy. It's easy to demand that everyone in your command have shoes as shiny as yours -- especially when you've got some black PFC doing your shining for you.

The movie is noticeably slanted. Patton's weakness, like Coriolanus's, is ambition. Sometimes it's played for laughs. He carried the stars of a Lieutenant General around with him until word of his promotion comes down, then immediately has them pinned on. But only three times is his meanness illustrated without tongue in cheek. (1) During a conversation with Bradley he reveals that he's disobeyed orders by sending his army on a mission to beat Montgomery in taking Sicily. He calls the attack "a reconnaissance in force". He receives an order to get his troops back where they belong and tells his aide to send the message back because it's garbled. "A simple old soldier," Bradly comments disapprovingly. (2) He orders General Truscott to stage some amphibious landings which will help him take Messina before Montgomery. Truscott complains that they're not prepared to do that without heavy casualties. Patton lies down and threatens to fire Truscott and get someone else to do the job. (3) While visiting a hospital and presenting the wounded with decorations he comes across a soldier whose nerves are shot and who is weeping, and Patton slaps him twice and sends him back to the front.

His mean streak went beyond those incidents. He used to practice his arrogant, threatening scowl in front of the mirror. Whether or not it improved the GI's morale to wear neckties in combat is, at best, arguable. (What would Patton make of the Israeli army?) But the simple historical fact is that the movie pitches even these "mean" incidents at the audience like softballs. He didn't just slap a soldier who was feeling sorry for himself, which is the picture the film presents. He slapped two soldiers on separate occasions, one suffering from combat fatigue (which is no joke) and the other from malaria and other illnesses. Patton also enjoyed an intimate relationship with his niece, a Red Cross donut girl, who accompanied him in England and France, much to his wife's displeasure.

Those slapping incidents cost Patton a bit in the way of professional esteem but it didn't cost any lives. And it didn't cause him any remorse. Even in his "apology," he claims he was trying to "shame a coward." What DID cost lives was Patton's cobbling together a small task force to liberate a POW camp in Germany shortly before the war's end, when such a dangerous move was no longer necessary. "Task Force Baum" was recognized by its leaders for the lost cause it was, a plunge deep into enemy territory without any backup. There were 53 vehicles and 294 men. All the vehicles were destroyed or captured. Twenty-five of the men were killed, 32 wounded, and almost all the rest captured. The purpose of the mission, it was tacitly agreed, was to rescue Patton's son-in-law.

His fitful harshness towards his troops is usually justified in the movie, even if it looks excessive. The soldier-slapping scene is preceded by one in which Patton kneels in the hospital, whispers something to a soldier whose face is covered by bandages, and lovingly places a medal on his chest. Next thing he encounters: Tim Considine, fully dressed, sitting up, and sobbing with self pity. Earlier, when Patton asks a cook why he's not wearing sidearms, the cook laughs genially and replies, "Sidearms? Why, hell, General, I'm a cook!" I missed the part where cooks learn to laugh in the face of orders from a general, but it gives Patton a chance to tear everybody a new one.

Everyone paid for Patton's ambition and vanity, even those not under his command. The gasoline and other supplies he diverted to his own forces during the run through France helped him alright, but they were also needed elsewhere.

The movie's subtitle is "Salute to a Rebel." Very stylish for 1970 audiences, but the material is presented in such a way as to leave us with a lingering admiration for Patton's genius and bullheadedness. What kind of "rebel" was he? He was more of an authoritarian Arschloch than anybody else in his greater vicinity.

What the writers, the director, and George C. Scott have given us, to paraphrase someone else, is not a warts-and-all portrait but the suggestion that there is something heroic about a wart.

I gave the movie high marks because it's as well done as it is -- disregarding its relationship to Patton himself. I didn't mind so much that the wrong tanks were used and that the production could only find two Heinkel 111s in flying condition. The location shooting is great, the cinematography crisp and unimpeachable, the score one of Goldsmith's best, and Scott's performance deserved whatever awards it got.

Question: when is it okay for Hollywood to make up harmless anecdotes about a real-life subject? Answer: when you've got the character down so good you can say with assurance what he would have done given the chance. This is the movie bio to end all movie bios, a perennial on my all-time top ten list, with a career performance by Scott that defined Patton as much as Patton ever did. The film takes us from Africa through Sicily to the climatic run across France towards Germany, along the way exploring the general's complex and textured character. Picks and chooses among the real general's most notable moments, passing on his celebrated potty break on the crossing of the Rhine into Germany and his ill-fated attempt to relieve a POW camp. I suspect the portrayal is a tad overdone but forgivably so - Darren McGavin's later portrayal of Patton as a whiny weasel was much further from the mark. Supporting cast-mates Malden as Bradley and Bates as Mongomery are spot-on. I can't speak for you, but this movie is long and I'd still stick around to see more of George in action.

This is a long but interesting character study of a real-life person: General George S. Patton, who also was a real "character." Gen. Patton was one of the most famous military men of World War II, a super gung-ho leader who admittedly had an intense passion for battle.

How much of this story is fact and how much is fiction, I don't know. Knowing Hollywood and knowing when this was made - during the heyday of the anti-war (Vietnam) movement - I have my suspicions, but for the sake of the review, I will assume all of this is true.Whatever political bias a filmmaker might have, Patton made for a good movie subject anyway and the story is interesting all the way, thanks to the acting of George C. Scott, who was astounding as Patton and gives one of the more memorable performances ever by an actor.

Not only is Scott's acting superb, the widescreen photography is also good. Thank goodness DVDs came out so films like this could be seen in the aspect in which they were filmed. I can't imagine viewing this on formatted-to-TV images. I think much of this movie was filmed in Spain.

I think the filmmakers also did a nice job of not overdoing the action scenes. When overdone, violence can get boring. The explosions and machine-gun fire was realistic, especially for a film that is now 36 years old.

Going back to what's true and what isn't, if it was then Patton was a poor excuse for a Christian, which he claims to be here. For one thing, Christians don't believe in re-incarnation at Patton claims he did in the film. There are other comments, too, which shed a poor light on his "religion," something Hollywood loves to point out.

Nonetheless, if you enjoy character studies, this is one of the best. Patton's opening 6-minute speech before this huge American flag is a famous scene in movie history. That, and the rest of his performance and this movie in general, is one you won't forget.

I saw this movie when it was first released and, despite, the appalling historical distortions and artistic "interpretations", enjoyed it. There is no doubt that film's success and popularity came, almost entirely, from the outstanding performance by George C Scott: he was, and is, the movie. Without Scott, 'Patton' would have been just another war movie - and not a very good one at that. From an historical point of view, the movie treated Patton very favorably indeed, not surprising since the screenplay came largely from Ladislas Farrago's hagiography "Patton, Ordeal & Triumph" which almost deifies Patton - later histories and biographies are more honest, more accurate and reveal the seamier side of the Patton story including the fact that he was far from the gifted general that the movie would have one believe. Regretfully, Scott was unable to reprise his triumphal portrayal in "Patton" when he, unwisely, made "The Last Days of Patton" in 1986 - in some ways that disaster detracts from his original performance. "Patton" hasn't aged well. Thirty-five years down the track the use of the Spanish Army (and its equipment) as extras, poor continuity and patriotic hyperbole - which, no doubt, was stirring in 1970 when the US military was getting an ignoble beating in Vietnam - now grate, severely, on the viewer's nerves. Nevertheless, the movie is still worth watching for, what is probably, George C Scotts greatest movie role.

I am a fan of both General Patton and the movie that captured a portion of his duty in WWII. It exposes Patton's incredible strengths and vulnerabilities. George C. Scott gives one of his best performances. It leaves the viewer with the impression that Patton unnecessarily risked GI lives to "make a bigger splash" with his peers and the media. Statistics show that his aggressive "hold 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the ass" strategy actually resulted in lower casualties. Watched in conjunction with "The Big Red One" and "Saving Private Ryan" gives one an initial sense of the horror and sacrifice in the European Theatre. As a mini-biography, as an introduction to WWII, as a lesson in leadership under tremendous adversity or just for pure inspiration, Patton is one of the great films of my lifetime.

In his unforgettable opening statement, George C. Scott (as George S. Patton) stands in front of a giant US flag and asserts all "real Americans" love war and the sting of battle. Americans not only want to "shoot the enemy," he declares, we also want to "cut out their living guts" and use those guts to grease our tanks. According to Patton (via writer Francis Ford Coppola), the United States never lost a war… and never will. They thought that in 1970. And, they were wrong. Although this film takes place during World War II, it feels like 1970. They include some newsreels, but there are too few 1940s pop culture references and everyone except Mr. Scott looks costumed...

No matter what the setting of a film is intended to be, it will first tend to reflect the time in which it was made. Most films fail to convincingly transport their audiences. Styles and sounds popular in different eras often take viewers to the wrong place and time. This is the case with "Patton". The General's opening speech could be taken as a plea to remain steadfast and support US President Richard Nixon's war escalations in Southeast Asia. The US reluctantly took this advice, but lost the war. That being said, "Patton" is a spectacular-looking production, and the riveting team of actor George C. Scott and director Franklin J. Schaffner surpasses the misguided and protracted spectacle.

******* Patton (2/4/70) Franklin J. Schaffner ~ George C. Scott, Karl Malden, Michael Bates, Edward Binns

To quote German Capt. Oskar Steiger as he admires and then destroys a photo of General George S. Patton, along with all other documents at the end of the war before retreating.

I was only twelve when this film came out, so I was not so interested in the news in detail at the time. But this film indeed is a brilliant anachronism if you think about it. A film that seems to be glorifying war at the peak of anti-war sentiment in the United States concerning the Vietnam War. And yet it was a commercial and critical success and won the Best Picture Oscar.

To this day I wonder why? For sure it is a great piece of cinema. Just look at what had to be a confusing first scene to the then middle aged veterans of the second world war who bought a ticket. With an oversized American flag as a backdrop, George C. Scott as the titular Patton gives a profanity laced speech on winning, war, and Americans that tells you exactly who Patton is. Fun fact: Francis Ford Coppola wrote this scene and was fired because the suits at Fox thought it was a stupid introduction. Somehow the speech was kept in the movie and Coppola ended up winning an Oscar for best original screenplay.

After watching this film several times and asking myself - "but what does it mean?" I feel that Patton the film doesn't seem to have any real interest in being a veiled metaphor so much as it just wants to tell the story of a really weird, really interesting guy who just happened to be at the right place and the right time in history. It's not called "Blood and Guts: An American General". It's just called "Patton". It's just about him. He's a guy who knows who he is and his weaknesses and has no use for politics. And that is ironic if you realize that Nixon watched this film repeatedly trying to figure out how to deal with the Vietnam War and kept a biography of Patton at his bedside.

I love it because it is a great character study with a brilliant performance by Scott. And that rousing score makes me want to stand up and salute. I'd recommend it. It is a timeless piece of movie making about when we Americans were truly on the right side of history.

Patton is the compelling story of the titular American WWII general, bolstered by an excellent performance by George C. Scott. The infamous introduction to the film sets the scene and demonstrates Patton's leadership skills and desire to fight and win over all odds. His actions in the scenes that follow also reveal more of his character - determined but short-sighted - as he gradually succumbs to the mental traps of glory and inserting himself into the grandiose sense of military history he has envisioned around him. The interactions with others, the Nazis' reconnaissance and the toll on the soldiers hammer home the impact of his mindset, as he his brilliances toes the line between comedy and sheer terror. Throughout the rest of World War II, he eventually discredits and proves himself in equal measure in his conduct. It's an ambiguous portrayal of a general that emphasises his good-hearted nature and how this can go too far, depicted on an epic scale that unfortunately can drag out at times.

The cast of Franklin J. Schaffner's Oscar-sweeper "Patton" consists of hundreds, if not thousands of people, and unquestionably required the acute attention spans of many others, who stood out of sight when the cameras were rolling. But all of their collective efforts seem, to me at least, to amount to next to nothing as the heart, soul, and mindset of this movie - and in fact, the only person who seems to occupy any real space in it - is George C. Scott playing the controversial World War II general. It's one of Mr. Scott's two or three very best performances, and won him an Academy Award, and yet in a bloated film filled with mostly hot air as opposed to passion and information, even Mr. Scott's joyously powerful performance doesn't seem to add up to much.

"Patton" clocks in at just under three hours in length, and yet even with so much open space to throw in historical facts, information, and theories about General Patton's infamous career and his actions during the Second World War, the movie does not provide anything that I could not have learned by picking up a book at the local library. As a result, it does not surmount enough interesting stuff to justify its length and monotonous tone. It goes on and on, but really does not have much to say.

The best thing in the movie is, again, George C. Scott's magnificent performance. What made Mr. Scott one of the best cinema actors was not only his talent, but the way he enthusiastically embraced every role given to him. As a result, the audience is able to share the fun and excitement that goes into giving a great performance. That is the case here, as well. There are other people in the movie. One of them is Karl Malden, but they might as well just be faces painted on a big mural in the background, for none of them are fleshed out, memorable, or for that matter, very well-portrayed. With the exceptions of Mr. Malden and some of the German actors, a lot of the acting is hammy and wooden. In one of the movie's key moments, Mr. Scott loses his temper with a soldier crying after a heated battle, and whips him with his cap. The performance by the actor playing the soldier is so methodical and so artificial that it really threatens to bring the scene to a screeching halt. Having an amazingly animated performance with a plethora of really stone-faced ones sort of throws the movie off balance.

"Patton" is a beautifully-photographed movie, and the battle scenes, sparse as they are, are appropriately riveting. However, in the end, this bloated wanderer of a motion picture is just too self-righteous for its own good. The way it presents General George Patton is like a elementary student writing a report about a historical figure who they honestly could not have cared less about. Passionless and stiff, "Patton" left me feeling completely disinterested about halfway through and clear to the end, wondering what else there was about this figure that was worth all of the hullabaloo. I had to pick up a history book to find out.