The Patriot - History Buffs Reaction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- See the original video - • History Buffs: The Pat...
Tour and meetup announcement video - • Upcoming Tours and Mee...
See my new channel Stories of the Great War here - / @storiesofthegreatwar
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - www.facebook.c...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.c...
Apple - podcasts.apple...
#history #reaction
I love history buffs old intro
their original intro is still my favorite
Same, shame he removed it.
Same, the painting transition to live action with the music build up is so good
Anyone know if this is an original made for the channel or something I could get somewhere else ?
@@hubertboisvertboucher2071 the song is called Paladio, I don't remember the artist, but it's in the description of his old videos
10:30 "The new aristocracy will be ... landowners!" Lolwut!? What did they think the old aristocracy were?? 😂
I think what they’re trying to get at is in a specifically American context. So the idea is that the Thirteen Colonies were built by common, poor, decent, hardworking men and women while the aristocrats only came over later. So after the war, they’re going to seize up all the land and turn North America into a new version of England, where the rich profit off the labour of the hardworking commoners. And the Patriots, fighting for that common man, resist this to make America a country of equality and opportunity.
That’s the fairest interpretation of this scene that I can muster at any rate. 😂
Idk it’s actually funny that I saw people commenting recently about “ending the royal family “ (British). Saying it’s “outdated”.
Except… it’s not. The names have changed, not much else. The politicians are the aristocracy and the corporations are the royalty. We are still the “commoners” and serfs .
bitcoin traders
I'm sure plenty of the aristocracy in Britain owned country houses on modest lots. They weren't doing much with the physical land, their wealth coming not from the land but from the overseas Empire, from commerce and the rise of the industrial revolution.
@@Edax_Royeaux You're thinking about bourgeoisie. The aristocracy was always about land.
Might I suggest Midway (2019) by History Buffs as your next reaction to his channel.
Now, as for the film. Fun FICTIONAL movie for Mel Gibson and Jason Isaacs, but I'm right beside Brandon F (another history YTuber) into historical blasphmeny of The Patriot. 😂
Brandon F. Is good. He gets boiling mad at the dumb staging of the ambush scene. Portraying well trained and constantly drilled professional soldiers like Keystone Kops was egregious.
Nick's rant on Apocalypto is LEGENDARY
"The new aristocracy will be landowners."
You mean... exactly like the old one?
11:30 say what you will about the Patriot, the rendition of "The British Grenadiers" at the opening of the Battle of Camden absolutely smacks.
Im british and i will say one good thing about this film, the battle of camden scene is done so well
It looks amazing, the setup, music, the action and the camera, all 10/10.
Sadly it did not go down like that, it wasnt fought on a grassy plane, both sides were in very bad shape after marching without sleep or food, the Continentals put up a valiant effort and almost broke through british line, and some lines fought to the last man. It was mainly the patriot militia routing so early that allowed the Brits to win, but it was by no means as easy as the movie depicts, ESPECIALLY this "great insight" that "going muzzle to muzzle with redcoats" is stupid. Thats literally how the americans won the war and many battles.
@@aquilaFUN Yup, the Americans were essentially the "Viet-Cong" of the this war.
A lot of the battle scenes are done incredibly well. The costuming is a treat to the eye and much of this was filmed in the same states where it all takes place. The movie is entertainment though. Sadly too many people are ignorant of history but THAT isn't something this movie created. Exploited maybe but not created...
@@anthonyanderson9303 They really weren't. The idea of the American War of Independence being like Britain's Vietnam is very ahistorical and just part of the militia myth.
@@thecynicaloptimist1884 the Revolutionary War is the most painfully misunderstood event in American history as it's become more myth than historical event
I think my favorite of his was Master and Commander. But I love that movie. You should check out that video. And that picture was Kublai Khan, not his grandfather.
Just a heads up, Saving Private Ryan is fiction, but also not completely made up. There was a real mission to send home a soldier who lost his brothers.
I have to apologise to the British (and to Hollywood) for my german countryman - director Roland Emmerich! The scene with the burning of the church was very nasty, The german newsmagazine "Der Spiegel" wrote about it when the picture was released, pointing out exactly what History Buff is saying here. It is a famous atrocity made by Germans in WW2. So I get why a british audience does not like the movie. It's comparing the Redcoats to the Waffen-SS... very painful to watch!
They hate that scene but make no mention of the French Officers monologue about the murder of his wife and children at the hands of the British, by burning them alive...
Not do they find themselves squeamish about the experiences Mel Gibson's character has during the French and Indian War (when he fought in the British army)
It's a movie and working fiction. The Brits need to relax and accept they weren't nice to everybody and that's how they became an Empire.
@@ScottCovert Right; it's a work of fiction. And that's ok.
But this was not my point. I know that in Britain they are very much aware about the problematic parts of their history (not everone I guess, but I am generalizing - as I did above). My point was that this particular scene refers to a well-documented war crime committed by the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich" during it's march to Normandy on June 10th 1944 in the french village of Oradour sur Glane. (You can look it up under "Oradour-sur-Glane massacre" in Wikipedia: The village was burned down, the people - civilians - were shot and 452 women and children were locked in a church which was then set on fire. Today the place is a memorial.) For me as a german this is very concerning, because it smells like "Verharmlosung von NS-Verbrechen" (trivialization of NS-crimes) which is a crime in my country by itself now. So my point was that a german director (Roland Emmerich) in Hollywood is doing something that would be a big problem in his home country. And so I can understand the reaction in Britain to this movie.
Nevertheless you are right: every country's history has it's dark chapters.
And yes: I think many British and Germans liked the movie anyway because it's entertaining.
If you ever pass through South Carolina, you should go tour all of the sites. So much history here.
I'm hoping to do an on-site series on the Revolutionary War battles down there at some point.
The Patriot is to the Revolutionary War genre what Missing in Action is to Vietnam. Fun to watch, but like you said not meant to be a historically accurate movie but rather entertaining.
Ha, I mean I agree Nick gets a little over the top, but I agree with all the criticisms. The Patriot would have been way better if it was less over the top. It doesn't need to be 100% based on history, but could have at least been a little realistic. Like you said about Saving Private Ryan, it's fictional, but gets away with it because it's at least authentic. Of course Master and Commander being the crown jewel of such a thing
The old 'Historical fiction vs fictional history' thing.
Yay for Donal Logue in Gettysburg and this one!
Great breakdown on the nuances of this period, this period is so important to the history of the US it should be mandatory to know about the reality of taxation and that the majority wanted to remain British subjects. The entire agenda of taking lands west of the Ohio country was completely on the American colonies and it was the British military that stopped them.
I'm American, and I've never liked this movie, but man, that history buffs guy needs to take a chill pill. His voice was breaking.
Im glad you found History Buffs, been watching for years the chanel is so good.
You think Nick did not like this... you should see Brandon F's oppinion on it. Shall we say not a fan.
A massacre similar to the one in the movie happened in bulgaria in the town of batak. Where around 5000 people were killed.
17:31 He also played Odo in Star Trek Deep Space Nine
Not sure if somebody has already said this but in regard to Charleston looking the same today as in the movie that scene at the start was shot on Tradd Street and Meeting Street and was hardly altered besides throwing dirt on the street. 80 percent of those buildings sit today as they do in the scene, and they placed people in front of fire hydrants and parking meters to hide modern amenities 😆 Charleston is one of the few cities in America (yes city not small town) that actually make you feel like you've stepped back in time.
You should check out his braveheart review. Pronably one of the ones that came close to breaking him.
Ummm actually... that guy in the first painting was Joaquin Phoenix.
If I may suggest another History Buffs review to do, maybe do his thrashing of the two Elizabeth movies. As someone with an interest in English monarchy, I feel you would have a lot to say.
My parents viewed this movie as a documentary and my dad is still convinced that the British did the church massacre in real life.
I disagree Mr. Chris. This guy can get upset about his own flag getting punched in the face like this. Try not to forget that you’re using his post here. I don’t think you should be able to trot on inside of his video, use it for your own channel, and complain about his emotional state while doing so. I like your channel, btw. He wasn’t that upset anyways, but HEY! If I’ve actually got your attention! I wish you’d figure out a way to commentate on actual book chapters of any books you believe to help essential to authentic historical comprehension! And as a plus you’d be able to promote your own book this way! Keep up the great work, Mr. Chris!
I think Mel Gibsons has clear anti English sentiments just look at Braveheart and this film. Oooh please react to his Braveheart review!
Yeah, some people in this comment section try to pin this on Nick, but he clearly has a point. It's hardly a coincidence that Gibson made two movies which very much antagonized the British as onedimentional oppressive monsters in a short span of time is it?
This reminds me how Brandon F. despises this movie so much.
To be fair it is the typical Hollywood artistic license movie.
Will we get a reaction to Putin's "history lesson" during the Tucker Carlson interview?
It is so cool you are going to Waterloo. As an absolutely HUGE Napoleonic wars nerd that is a dream trip for me. I have always wanted to stay a night inside Hougoumont Farm.
Love your videos ! Hi from chile
The Swamp Fox show with Leslie Nelson "Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox, tail on his hat
Nobody knows where the Swamp Fox is at"
Swamp Fox, Swamp Fox, hiding in the glen
He runs away to fight again
I like to think Braveheart, The Patriot and Independence Day all take place in a shared alternate movie universe.
Add Gladiator to that list 😎
@@ScottCovert lol yeah that's a solid one for the group
No Chris, it is very anti British (well English) aft'er all this is Mel "Braveheart Gibson. i get the kid being angry, but the movie is ridiculously OTT in it's bias. It is as nuanced as a block of wood.. It seems to take an Australian to be so rabidly an American patriot or a ludicous recreation of a Scottish lord.
I mean, our country was literally founded in Anti-British sentiments so why wouldn't a movie set during that time period not reflect the animosity we had with them?
Even a historically accurate portrayal would do little to make the British look good during that time.
Have you read the Declaration of Independence and the Abuses of King George III?
@@ScottCovert Have I read the Declaration of Independence? No, why would I, it is not my independence. As for the abuses of King George what were they? He spoke in defence of the colonists and arued with his own Ministers at a time when Britain had (rguably) it's most grossly incompeten government ever. He only went "hardlne" on the matter (see the famous document( after Masachussetts entered into outright rebellion. Fun fact when george was 9 he lived through the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, During that he saw his grandfather almost flee the throne. He would have seen his parents panic and prepare to flee. He was probably too young to understand the politics but he would absolutely remember the terror he felt and saw aroung him. His disgust at Rebellion is very understandable He also welcomed signatory John Adams to England in the aftermath.
My question is, why do people expect this movie to be historically accurate when it's clearly a work of fiction set in a historical time period?
They could have put this script in the Star Wars Universe and it would end up being the same viewing experience.
I remember when this came out when I was 12 and it's still one of my favorite movies.
As for the controversy of the church burning scene. It's a plot device to test the loyalties of the American Loyalist, who said earlier in the movie "traitors deserve to die a traitors death".
It's also what sets off the militia into going harder at the British in later scenes.
I find it interesting that that scene generates more discomfort is British viewers than the scene when the French Officer describes the British doing the exact same thing to his family, and that's why he is training the milita.
Arson/Murder of Americans: how dare they insinuate we were like the Nazis!
Arson/Murder of the French: well it was a war and that's what happens. Unfortunate really.
Never watch this movie as a historically accurate retelling of the Revolution and you will enjoy it every time.
It's a movie people!
History Buffs gets upset anytime he watches a movie where Britain are the bad guys
Nick feels about Mel Gibson like you feel about Razor Rants....
Although I see alot of his points, at the time the movie came out Mel Gibson was on the History Channel he stated that at the end of the day he's just trying to entertain people.
Honestly, watch Brandon F.'s series going into detail about this god-awful bit of film.
He now has about twice as long a review as the movie it. Its chocked full of information and sourced material.
This! :)
I think this was genuinely one of the first times where I've very firmly sided against VTH.
I think Mr. Hodges didn't go far enough. I think that, if you are going to do a historical movie, you have to stay based in reality and have a duty to show the truth of the situation.
Mel Gibson's Film is crap I still hear coming from the mouths of Conservatives, namely those wearing Red Hats. I spend my time studying to be on the Frontlines of this historical degradation. The amount of people who use this film to retrench their own positions is astounding.
I have to say as an American who's watch both The Patriot and Zulu, neither film makes the British Empire look good, irrespective of historical accuracy.
When was in Germany a few years ago I tried to go to Waterloo. Unfortunately being in a deployment we were not allowed to go to France or parts of Belgium for safety reasons…
Love listening to the "fair" historian being patriotically partisan. Damn I'm glad hypocrisy is still alive and well! Keep up the good work!
You must be new here. I’m about as pro British in my sentiments on the Revolution as any American you’re likely to encounter.
@VloggingThroughHistory that's fair, the comment was made very early in the video and was shaped by emotion. The comment was both unfair and untrue. Please accept my apology. I really do enjoy and appreciate your work.
He definitely got a little carried away and heated with this one. Don't let it dissuade you from his other content.
I highly recommend his video on the movie Thirteen Days, probably one of his best.
26:23 Well can we be sure he wasn't? Apart from that: A movie can have an effect that's very different from the intention, and that effect can be very misleading. (I'm not saying this movie was a mistake. I think it's trash though. ;) )
There was never any intention other than to get Americans amped about Freedom. Pure entertainment and we love it.
@@ScottCovertyeah, probably
If anything, The Patriot was my introduction to not only American History but also to anything world history and warfare topics. True that the movie isn't historically accurate, but it fueled enough curiosity in me to read more and study more about it and to eventually setting out facts from fiction. It's like a "Wow so this actually happened instead of that", moment where instead of disappointment, I've felt wonder and further interest to know more. Did that make me hate the movie for being inaccurate? No sir.
It's like hating your parents for making you believe that Santa was real. But oh well, everyone has their own way of taking these movies, I suppose.
Still love history buffs regardless.
I hope everyone who hates on the patriot keeps those same historical standards for gladiator
My sister and I call all blankets "horse blankets" because of this movie, and of course we say it like Cornwallis "give me the horse blanket"
It's not an attempt "to rewrite history." It's an attempt to entertain the audience. Only foolish people think movies like The Patriot are quasi-documentaries.
If we made an accurate retelling of this war, the British would probably hate that more than this 😅
Can you make a video about Col. Tye of the British military?
If all Banastre Tarleton did in this movie was stand in the background and breathe it would be impossible, not to hate him, because of course he's played by Jason Isaac... enough said. Though who knew if Banastre Tarleton joined the navy then he'd be known as the moon slayer.
29:13 Not trying to excuse any of the wrongs that were done against Native Americans but I would like to say that while they were horrible and inexcusable they were a drop in the bucket compared to the damages diseases did against them.
I would push back on any equivalence with Saving Private Ryan though, that film went through a lot more effort to be authentic.
Uncle built the church they burned
Have you ever reviewed Disney’s Swamp Fox?
My favorite single clip from this movie to watch out of context is the line “tell me about… Ohio.”
Our host will, and gladly!
Dun dun dun!!! All movies need to include that line, along with a dramatic music sting
As an Ohioan I’ve always found that line particularly funny.
"Tell you about Ohio?.... ok... seemingly everybody from Ohio will eventually move to Charlotte, North Carolina, and complain about the housing prices and traffic they helped cause to spike with other carpetbagging Yankees moving south"
It reminds me of a line from the movie , where Evil says something like “Tell me about computers”.
As a "History Buffs" longtime subscriber, I really like when he gets worked up a little bit. As a latin american, I like the passion he shows in learning and portraying history. That said, there are other episodes when he is more calmed and composed, and still manages to deliver. Anyways, good video!
Nick is a brit, so I kind of give him a bit of a pass because he is seen his people be villanized while the other side is basically angels. I mean, if we saw a movie that portrayed us latin americans (one too) as evil while the americans were good set in the cold war we would flip out fast too.
And as a fellow latin american, I wish you luck in our attempts to finally escape from Latin America
@@javieraravena5345 I've got myself worked up in the same way for "Napoleon" too and I'am not British or French. Just love the truth.
As I have said over and over again that the same people whining about the border have conveniently forgotten that our intelligence services and government have destabilized their countries because they thought someone elected legitimately *MIGHT* not be as friendly to US businesses… sorry, “government”.
So we arm, train, and fund rebels. Or we have a DEA that is happy to drop banned pesticides on small villages based on a “source” (in which tens of millions are paid to these “CIs” who have a successful prosecution rate of 2%.. but they get millions and protection). So they give BS info but based on that they drop these chemicals and ruin their way of life, leaving them with nothing.
I dont like it. Its always cringe
Yeah I agree. My skin always crawls a little whenever I hear people telling others to calm down. Sometimes it's valid if the person is clearly hysterical, other times it's just very condescending. Unfortunately this instance comes across to me as the latter. It's invalidating of another person's emotion and passion for a topic. I realized that I personally always enjoyed Nick getting worked up, but when someone passionately makes a case, I'm also more interested and invested in that topic. Not saying every sentence has to be yelled, but when used sparingly, it's a good thing.
The revelation that Charles O'Hara is the only general with the distinction of having surrendered to both Washington and Bonaparte is just 🤌
I feel as tho Americans view the film as pro-American whilst us Brits view it as anti-British. Also I have legit had someone online say to me that they believed the church burning scene in this was based on history so Hollywood films definitely do influence certain people
the british and european armies were far more ciivilised than the way they are portrayed here throughout most of the 18th century ie the fontonoy incident . . It comes across as nationally libellous . all tarleton did was kill 150 soldiers afdter they surrended.
Now i see how the Iranians felt when that cool action movie 300 came out hah. But movies are an effective way of portraying people from all sides of life for sure.
deepens if the persians comitted atrocities . The british army had a reputation for being civilised because the upper classes had so much influence throughout most of the 18th century@@Sparrows1121
@@billfurlong5954 All he did was kill 150 people who surrendered? How the fuck do you just brush off a detail like that? That is a literal war crime, and its far from the only thing he ever did. You don't get called "butcher ban" for no reason.
@@princeofgreece9054 this is very misleading. The killing of surrendered soldiers occurred during the Battle of Waxhaws. The British attacked and the Americans surrendered so the British slowed a little and someone shot Tarletons horse and trapped him under it. Tarleton’s men seeing it as an act of deceit to fake surrender and kill their commander, then began to kill the Americans all whilst Tarleton was trapped under his horse. So it only occurred because of a stupid patriot shooting after his fellow men had surrendered and Tarleton never gave any such order as he was trapped and most of his own men believed him to be dead
I can’t believe this is how I found out Tom Wilkinson passed away. 😢 R.I.P to one of the greats.
Same
Me too?!
As someone who is neither American or British, there were parts of the movie that were just too on the nose and made me roll my eyes. The scene with Cornwallis' dogs suddenly liking Benjamin more than their owner who by all acounts treated them well and choosing to abandon him made me roll my eyes. Also the coincidence that the main character was a guy from South Carolina(the first state to join the confederacy) who had free black workers and was also oposed to slavery in the 1770s is just a really forced coincidence to make the main character more likable, this comes up when the British were offering freedom to those who fought for them.
@@Cookiesr9565 the part of the dogs is not so much about history but from a cinematic perspective. The whole "the main character is so cool and awesome that even his oponent's dogs love him more than their owner who cared for them for years" scene, is just cringey. It didn't add any flavour it was just a cringey scene to diferentiate between the awesomeness of the protagonist and the loser oponent, in this case Cornwalis that just fell flat. You didn't need to make a bad atempt at sarcasm.
@@masterplokoon8803 Yea it just screamed "let's do everything we can to let the audience know who the good guys and bad guys are" when any fan of history knows it's never that simple. Fact is, the entire 1st world was racist back then, even if they weren't for slavery, that doesn't mean they were exactly fair to black people. At least they did show white American troops being racist (although that changed quickly by the end of the film). And the whole idea of them earning their freedom after the war of course was a bunch of bullshit.
Those dogs were the real traitors of the movie 🐕
@@amalgam777 Rofl
Whitewashing that the American revolutionaries were not idealistic angels of justice is common in American media.
It’s our national creation myth.
I love that intro, especially the transition between the painting and the cavalry charge from Waterloo
The regiment charging are the Royal Scots Greys one of the oldest British regiments their unofficial motto is ‘second to none’ 😊
That was pretty badass.
I wish i knew why he changed it. The old one is so badass
@@texasarbiter8454 I believe it's because Escala's Palladio (the theme music in the old intro) was a highly copyrighted music. Plus, Nick wanted an intro he felt was more his. So he, imo, he massively downgraded.
You wanna see Nick rip into a Mel Gibson movie? Watch the History Buffs review of Braveheart.
Or Apocalypto. Dude doesn't like Mel Gibson
Yeah Braveheart isn't historical fiction it's fictional history. 😂 Clearly Mel hates the English.
@@marcushertz4434 Gibson also doesn't try to use real history in any of those movies. Braveheart would have been dressed just as well as the English and the Battle of Stamford Bridge would have had troops wearing the same type of clothing, armor and weapons. That tends to be Nick's biggest issues, after storytelling.
Mel Gibson didn't direct or write the Patriot. He was just an actor. Can't pin that one on him.
@@VloggingThroughHistory No obviously not, but it sure seemed like he was picking projects that were anti-British. Then again, he also directed The Passion of the Christ. I think a lot of people don't know or forget that Mel is American-born, although later moved to Australia, was educated and started acting there.
17:45 yup, René Auberjonois, maybe best known as Odo from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, although I was first introduced to him in Police Academy V. And yes, Napoléon sister married into the Murat family and further down the line a female Murat married an Auberjonois and their son was René Auberjonois, the actor. RIP.
I've always liked Rene Auberjonois as an actor. He did do a good job as Odo on DS9. He has been in many productions. My first exposure to him was as Clayton in the TV series Benson. And he was Father Mulcahey in the original MASH movie. Great actor, may he rest in peace.
I first was introduced to Rene through the character of Clayton Endicott III on the show Benson. He was riotously funny there in the same way he was believably serious as Odo or the Rev in this movie. The man had a ton of range.
Just to add to the Auberjonois love, he's also the chef in the animated The Little Mermaid, and sings the song, "Les Poissons".
@@ashleighelizabeth5916yeah that’s right and I also like how in the patriot he used his iconic Odo voice. And what’s interesting is it’s not his normal voice because I’ve heard him at interviews and his normal voice sounds way different. He just likes using it a lot for roles.
He was also the voice of Mr. House in New Vegas, a character based on Howard Hughes if he'd hooked his brain into a computer to survive a nuclear holocaust lol
5:59 Not a VTH video without Chris’s family tree!
Take a shot!
As an american that at a young age watched the patriot and took its portrayals very seriously i appreicated nicks review educating me more on the subject necause sadly school doesnt do a good job of it either, as a lover of history now as someone "older" i relate to nick being so angry when history is needlessly changed or ignored to make a movie excellent review and reaction to the review :)
The laughs in British meme might be the only good thing out of this movie
That tell me about Ohio thing could really be a meme too.
Did this movie offend you?
@@ScottCovert Murica fuck yeah!
As a Brit, I have to say that I too take this movie personally. The reason is that I have many American friends and they mostly believe this movie to be a good representation of what happened. They think I'm mad when I try to explain the real history
Exactly
Its more wild to me that you and your American friends talk about a random battle in the revolutionary war lol. Don't take it personally, it's an over the top film.
@@SpartanArmy117 what a strange comment.
@@chrislyne377 I'm confused on why that's strange. I'm in discord channels with multiple people who live overseas and I've never had a single conversation about the Revolutionary War, much less The Patriot lol. And my last sentence is just saying its a silly film meant to foster pride in the nation, you shouldn't take it personally.
@@SpartanArmy117 I'm sure you and your friends talk about things that I and my friends don't. I don't find this to be 'wild' but completely normal that different people like and talk about different things.
I have explained why I find the film to be annoying to me and nothing you have said has changed that. You don't take it seriously and that's fine, but many Americans do.
You keep commenting on how angry he’s getting. That’s kind of Nick’s thing. He gets worked up. That’s why I watch lol
"Calm yourself down a little bit Nick" 😂😂😂
Reminds me of the big lebowski quote "you're not wrong - you're just a fucking asshole".
I mean... Nick has a bloody good point
@@jordanhooper1527American hypocrisy about “freedom” coming from slave owners was well recognized at the time.
@@jordanhooper1527LLLLLLLLLLL you blew a 13 colony lead. Your country is now smaller than most of our states. Lololololol
I kept finding that reaction hilarious. American Midwesterners have no idea how to deal with an angry Brit.
This movie may not claim to be historcally accurate, but people who dont know about history will accept it as it.
People also think Days of Thunder was real racing.
Go ask every woman you know, "Who fought in the Revolutionary War"
@@clydefrog203 casual sexism...
I did. She answered "the union and the a-holes"
@TheBuddel lol well I can't tell if she meant the British or the Confederates. Seriously tho ask women what years all our major wars took place, you're in for a real treat.
@@clydefrog203 why do the years random American wars started matter?
When did the war of roses start?
When did the 100 year war start?
When did the Crimean war start?
Doesn't matter.
Now stop announcing your unpleasantness to everyone
Jason Issacs is like Alan Rickman. He is perfect for playing bad guys. It is too bad he did not reprise his role as The Grand Inquisitor in live action.
I saw Jason Isaacs play a captains role in one of the Star Trek series (Strange New Worlds, I think). Actually not a bad guy here, and I almost didn't recognize him at first. But you are right, he nails those bad guy roles to a T. He has the look and the voice.
@@robertwillhite9077 He’s an intruder from the Mirror Universe in STD. Not SNW.
Honestly, lack of Jason Isaacs brought the show down a few notches. The guy they got for GI is a good actor but I did not like him in the role.
he is awesome playing general Zhukov in the death of stalin.
I don’t think the problem with the scene where the boy is telling Mel Gibson that he’s glad he killed redcoats is a problem because the boy isn’t remorseful because, of course, it’s reasonable that he would be coming from that culture and time.
The problem is that the movie not only doesn’t question it, but seemingly excuses and even justifies it. The takeaway from the scene isn’t that war is a horror that has scarred a young boy into becoming a vicious killer when he and his brother should still just be boys, the takeaway is that what he did was a good thing and he shouldn’t have any remorse or regret about it. There’s a few places where the movie does posit the question of “Maybe Americans are le bad too?” but it quickly reverts back to the overall point that the British are monsters who deserve what’s coming to them.
You don’t need to have Gibson’s character be some deep philosopher who understands the cyclical nature of violence, it makes sense he would be brutal towards the British soldiers given what he’s lost. But just a moment where he looks at his son like “No, you shouldn’t be taking as much joy from doing this as you are,” that would be enough to make the scene complex enough to show that the boy is understandable in what he’s feeling without justifying that bloodlust at the same time.
I don't think the boy took joy from it at all. It's not as if he was being all giddy and happy go lucky when he said it. Simple fact is, they killed his brother and he wasn't going to be remorseful over their deaths. Would you be remorseful over someone who killed your family member and then you subsequently killed them?
@@anthonyanderson9303That’s different from actively being “glad,” in his words, about it.
And as I said, at length, no, I don’t blame the kid for his feelings or reaction. I blame the film for not offering any deeper introspection or analysis of those feelings and even though it’s understandable, to what extent they’re right.
@@Longshanks1690 Well I think the film does offer that introspection through the main character and his constant remorse for his actions during the French and Indian War. That point is pounded home throughout the film and how is sins have caught up to him so to speak.
I don’t think it portrays it as good or that he gets joy out of it, but more justified. And I don’t have a problem with the latter bc until one is in said situation, it’s quite easy for us to act morally superior. All soldiers need reason to fight (otherwise are we not saying they’re all morally bankrupt for killing people). And wanting to take vengeance to those he considers “responsible” for his brother’s death makes sense to me. Seeing your brother be murdered would force you to grow up quicker regardless if there’s a war on or not.
I think this scene is still supposed to be somewhat shocking that he is ok with killing them though. The fact Mel Gibson’s character at first tries to make him feel better is proof of that since clearly he thinks he should be feeling remorse. When he’s not, it’s left up to the audience to interpret.
But seeing your sibling gunned down by a soldier of some army would obviously alter one’s perspective. And while you say different time and culture, I think the feeling of wanting vengeance for a family member’s murder is still very much around, especially during war in which rules seem to often go out the window which we are still seeing today in certain areas of the world.
I disagree with this characterization of the movie's intention. Right after this scene, Mel Gibson goes to comfort the other son, and the son rolls over in bed to avoid his father. Additionally, the oldest son played by Heath Ledger emulates his father's revenge later in the movie and is killed for it.
The movie makes a big deal out of the atrocities committed by Mel Gibson and the Americans. It opens with a qoute from later in the movie where Mel Gibson says he has long feared his sins would revisit him and the cost is more than he can bear. He is praised several times for his massacre during the French & Indian War but he is personally ashamed of his actions, so much so that he only spoke of it once with his late wife and never with his children. He is also called out for it a couple times.
The movie is 100% American patriotism, but Mel Gibsons character is an extremely reluctant and flawed protagonist and his brutality is condemned by the overall film.
I think Nick is more offended by Mel Gibson than the way the Brits were portrayed in The Patriot. I completely agree with Nick about the church scene though. It's just so inflammatory (no pun intended), that it completely distorts real history and his point that some people watching the movie it will accepted it as fact.
1) Who is watching this movie for historical accuracy?
2) why are people offended by that scene but not the French Officers monologue about the Brits murdering his family by burning them alive in a sea battle?
It's not inflammatory once you remember an earlier scene when the American Loyalist says to Col. Tavington, "traitors deserve to die a traitor's death". Burning the church is Tavington's way of testing the Loyalist's sentiments (it was he who threw the first torch).
It's just good storytelling.
Small side note: I met Jason Isaacs at a comic con in Michigan (Motor City Comic Con), and he was an absolute delight. He was a true gentleman, shook hands with and had a smile for everyone meeting him for pictures (as I did), and was laughing and joking with everyone meeting him for autographs.
Love hearing that!
Yeah, its great when an actor can make you just Despise them, but then you see thrm normally or in a comedy...smashing it.
Biff, from Back2the Future is hilarious and often hosts Comic Con related things.
At least, I thought.
They showed this to me in my 5th grade class when we were studying the AWI. Mainstream education believes this movie to be historically accurate enough to be played in public schools as part of curriculum. This is a propaganda piece sure but the public at large does not recognize that.
Exactly
I remember watching it in 5th grade, and being very confused. I loved history specifically the American Revolution and spent hours talking to my dad about it. I remember clearly asking him what was that movie
I think ultimately the reason history buff goes hard at the movie is that it feels like one of those super jingoistic, you're either with us or against us, types of media that was popular after 9/11. Despite the fact it was released in 2000 it really feels like a film that would be made in in 2003 as a way to get people to support invading iraq.
And we Americans love it 🇺🇲
Movies are allowed to be fun you know.
If you think he hates "The Patriot", you should check out what Brandon F. has to say about it.
Is that the British guy who doesn't understand how fictional stories work?
Blazing Saddles is more historically accurate
Blazing Saddles is certainly more accurate about racism.
Maybe you could do "The Crossing" starring Jeff Daniels. Also "Ike: Countdown to D-Day"
That movie about Ike is really really good.
As I recall, South Carolina was rather fond of slavery…
He has a valid point, see the patriot was screen around the world, so cultures that barely know about the U.S history and British history assumed this was true, just like with braveheart and apocalypto.
This has to be one of the most moot points I’ve ever heard. So it’s dangerous because people abroad would use a non historical movie as their case for non historical facts? That’s ridiculously absurd.
@@TheLeadGexactly lol. Every historical fiction ever could be classified as “dangerous” in that way. It’s not the filmmakers’ fault if some ignorant people decide to base their understanding of war on a single Mel Gibson movie.
This is all so stupid. It's literally called The Patriot. It's an over the top fable about the American revolution. I swear America is the only country\culture that isn't allowed to do this stuff.
@@SpartanArmy117 Suuuuuure lol, US Propaganda is pretty widespread and accepted in Hollywood movies. From more obvious stuff like War movies, to action flicks like Transformers, paid by the US Army as a recruiting video.
And in regards to who is not allowed to be patriotic: Hi from Germany btw. 😜
@@HDreameryes, the movie is Pro-American, so what?
Do people complain about Saving Private Ryan because there was no actual mission during WW2 to save a Private Ryan?
They do not because it's a movie meant to inspire and entertain. Movies are allowed to do that.
Even as a kid, I was like "Wait, he's a plantation owner in South Carolina, but has all these black people working as freed men?" That never made sense to me, even when I was, like, seven years old.
Yeah I guess they figured it would be hard to root for a slave owning hero (though Americans lionize George Washington). I mean economically it doesn’t make sense. How does Gibson compete With other farners when he’s paying his workers and his competitors aren’t?
The movie is a work of fiction so you have to look at Benjamin Martin, his family, and his plantation as an allegory of a more idealized America.
It's not like they ignore slavery or racism in the movie. It's just not coming from the Martins.
The Patriot is essentially the American's Braveheart... Hell it's the same star in the lead. Braveheart was more about entertainment than accuracy, the same as the Patriot.
One of the silliest lines I've ever heard, and the moment I knew I could never take The Patriot seriously:
Benjamin Martin : May I sit with you?
Charlotte : It's a free country. Or at least it will be.
oh this is going to be fun.. i've watched history buffs for years.. and yes he does rip into this movie pretty harshly but well deserved to a degree
edit: his old intro was fire
I must say your response at 29:15 was kinda funny, considering that was how British people probably felt during the entire movie.
Except the movie was more unfair
Exactly
The one picture you didn’t mention in the history buffs intro was the famous painting of the Royal Scots Greys at Waterloo.
I’m a proud son of a former Grey and an administrator on the Royal Scots Greys group.
Second to none 😊
As always I thoroughly enjoyed your reaction to the original video 👍
The Scot Greys got wreaked harder at Waterloo than the Light Brigade in the valley of death. Interesting how differently we view the Greys and the Light Brigade.
@@Edax_Royeaux Tennyson didn’t write a poem about the Royal Scots Greys is my guess.
@@Edax_Royeauxthey broke all 17,000 men of D’Erlon’s Corps before the French counter charged, so overall it was well timed and a massive success on balance
@@charliereader3462 The Scots Greys practically wiped themselves out to scatter D'Erlon's Corps for an hour before they reformed. I'm not sure "massive success" would be the right word to describe that. The Greys charging artillery from the front with blown horses and then getting flanked by lancers and cuirassiers was pretty disastrous and it would have been disastrous for any calvary unit that this happened to.
@@Edax_Royeaux I agree, what happened to the Greys was very bad, and it was a costly victory. Another example of British cavalry ‘galloping at everything’. And yes D’Erlon’s Corps reformed after the chaos (though they had suffered massive casualties). However before the charge took place the British line was beginning to find itself under severe pressure from D’Erlon’s Corps and had the Union Brigade not broken the French infantry attack then they may very well have overwhelmed the allied line through sheer numbers.
The historic figure that the British cavalry officer is based upon, Banastre Tarleton was a supporter of the slave trade till it was abolished by the British.
I’m just saying as someone who’s high school history teacher made them watch this movie and then rewinded it at the part where the cannonball takes the dude’s head off multiple times I do think there are some people who watch this movie and take it as factual
As a Brit, I was more annoyed by Nick constantly saying "BriDDish" than how shit the film is.
It's always interesting to see different youtubers takes on the Patriot. Brandon F is so passionate in his hatred of the film.
Imagine having a work of fiction upset you because it has good storytelling.
Jefferson included the abolition of slavery in the Declaration of Independence but was forced to take it out to get the southern states to join in the fight for independence. The same goes for the Constitution. Concessions had to be made to get the three fourth of the states needed to ratify it. And the slave states made it clear that if slavery was abolished, they would not ratify it and, in fact, the United States could have died at birth!
While I do understand the entertainment value in such movies, the fact they are based on real historical events is giving them a kind of a obligation.
I think that these kind of movie, by law, should have image at the start saying 'while this movie is based on true historical events most (or some) of the scenes and characters in it are fictional'.
Because, taking from my example, if I watch this movie and nothing afterwards tells me otherwise I will take the events happening in it as real. When I watched 'Patriot' as a kid I really thought that British burned a church full of civilians, something I found out was not true until I started studying history later on in life. How many more millions that were shown this took it as true and never discovered that it did not happen but believe it to be true to this day? Shaping now only their view of history but also political views toward certain countries/people today?
This is why historical movies need to take responsibility for this, becasue sure as hell the schools will not try to correct the damage done by them.
A lot of them do have those disclaimers. Based on a true story, based on historical figures and the like are quite common at the beginning of historical works of fictions. Anybody who sets about trying to learn history only by watching movies doesn't really have an interest in learning history in the first place and no amount of disclaimers or warnings is going to address that problem with such people.
@@ashleighelizabeth5916I think that ignores the point that the OP was getting at. Yes, we should be more cautious and must question what we watch as true or accurate however there is so many films especially in the 90s-2000s where accuracy was put on the back burner to entertainment so thoroughly that it did lead to casual viewers forming ignorant opinions on historical facts. Especially when you have children who are much more easily influenced (I didn’t learn until much later the church burning never happened and took a lot of what the Patriot portrayed as fact or close to fact). Lastly, what’s understated is that films like this are inherently Nationalist Propaganda: it’s meant to paint us as absolute good and our enemies (this case the Brits) as bad-which can be dangerous as many did feel that the film had to more non-fiction than a loosely based story on American history.
It's a damn movie made by Hollywood. It's not a documentary or anything like that. Jesus Christ you people take this shit too seriously.
I watched this movie when I was twelve and not once did I take it as a historical retelling of the Revolution.
That was over 20 years ago.
Also - the church is just Jallianwala Bagh set in the Revolutionary War.
Thank you! The British may not have burned a church during the Revolution, but scorched earth warfare was not unheard of back then and there is a monologue in the movie about the British doing the same thing to the French.
History buffs master and commander overview is amazing :) I would recommend checking that out!
U571 from 1990 was also a great movie for great pile of dung on history. So much so the British Government complained to the Americans
I agree with you that not all historical movies need to be accurate, but they DO need to be authentic, otherwise what's the point other than propaganda? You can watch Saving Private Ryan and you will finish it with a better understanding of WW2 even though the specific story told is fictional. Heck even the Death of Stalin in its absurdity manages to be authentic with the motivations of the characters. However with the Patriot you finish it with a factually incorrect and misleading understanding of the Era.
I personally share a lot of his anger for this film because I was unironically shown this movie in an 8th grade US history class with my teacher claiming it was accurate. I didn't know any better, and the movie presented itself like any other historical film, so I just accepted that the British were awful until probably late high school or early college. I think it is naive to think that your average Joe will watch this movie and assume it is false just because the movie doesn't explicitly claim to be true.
Exactly so
You don't need to watch the Patriot to understand how awful the British were back then.
You just need to read the Declaration of Independence for historical accuracy.
The Patriot is about as historically accurate as Inglorious Bastards...
Saving Private Ryan was also a work of fiction, yet people live its themes of patriotism.
It's also highly inaccurate because they had the Jewish character talking trash to the Nazis in spite of not even being aware of the Holocaust happening at that time.
He’s upset because even fictional movies based on true events owe some obligation to the truth. This movie whitewashes all of the unsavory parts of the reality of the war, and upscales the British acts to levels comparable to the Wehrmacht. That’s just propaganda for a nationalist aim.
Did you miss the part in the movie when the Frenchmen describes the murder of his wife and daughters as being "burned alive".
Everybody seems to miss that monologue.
Additionally, the church burning scene is a call back to an earlier scene with an American Loyalist who declared that "traitors deserve to die a traitor's death"
That scene is pivotal because it shows how cruel Tavington is willing to be, how true the Loyalists sentiments are, and also drives home why the American men in that area should join the militia (they weren't sure about it before).
If The Patriot was a Star Wars movie, that scene would be viewed as brilliant storytelling.
This movie literally has the main character have PTSD over cutting off people's fingers and shipping them to to their enemies during a different war. What do you mean, it whitewashes the unsavory parts? Coming to terms with the horrors of war is a theme throughout.
It's just a movie, enjoy it for what it is.
Trust me, Zulu doesn't make the British come across as heroes, even though it's accurate.
Jason Isaac's is the best. I love to hate him. When he is a villain he just has the most punchable face. When he is not a villain I love him as well. Amazing actor.
The cast in this movie is unreal. I love and agree how entertaining this movie is despite the inaccuracies. The British portrayal in this is also so comically over the top and camp and I love it. So damn entertaining.
21:40 Couldn't agree more that Jason Isaacs was fantastic in Harry Potter. It was a bit weird seeing him as Malfoy considering he's playing a child, but regardless he killed it.
This comment is underappreciated.
Playing a child? You might be confusing Lucius Malfoy with Draco Malfoy
@@gigatank1854 That's the joke 🤪Go to the time stamp
@@lovelyhatter Sorry! That went right over my head 😅