The Patriot 2000 123movies

Watch: The Patriot 2000 123movies, Full Movie Online – It is 1776 in colonial South Carolina. Benjamin Martin, a French-Indian war hero who is haunted by his past, now wants nothing more than to live peacefully on his small plantation, and wants no part of a war with the most powerful nation in the world, Great Britain. Meanwhile, his two eldest sons, Gabriel and Thomas, can’t wait to enlist in the newly formed “Continental Army.” When South Carolina decides to join the rebellion against England, Gabriel immediately signs up to fight…without his father’s permission. But when Colonel William Tavington, British dragoon, infamous for his brutal tactics, comes and burns the Martin Plantation to the ground, tragedy strikes. Benjamin quickly finds himself torn between protecting his family, and seeking revenge along with being a part of the birth of a new, young, and ambitious nation..
Plot: After proving himself on the field of battle in the French and Indian War, Benjamin Martin wants nothing more to do with such things, preferring the simple life of a farmer. But when his son Gabriel enlists in the army to defend their new nation, America, against the British, Benjamin reluctantly returns to his old life to protect his son.
Smart Tags: #american_revolution #18th_century #british_empire #british_army #british_redcoat #hero #standoff #father_son_relationship #george_washington_character #explosion #enemy #weapon #rifle #war_crime #pistol #burning_church #building_on_fire #death #shot_to_death #dragoon #bloody_body_of_a_child

Find Alternative – The Patriot 2000, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	7.2/10 Votes: 276,203
	62% | RottenTomatoes
	63/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 3289 Popularity: 25.802 | TMDB

Reviews:

Heroes and Villains
“The Patriot”, the story of an American farmer who fights in the War of Independence, is sometimes used, together with “Braveheart”, as evidence of a supposed anti-British prejudice on the part of Mel Gibson. This is perhaps unfair to Gibson, who has gone on record as supporting the ties between Australia and the British monarchy (hardly the stance of a Brit-hating bigot). Although “Braveheart”, which he produced and directed, was very much Gibson’s own pet project, he was neither the producer, director or scriptwriter of “The Patriot”. Indeed, he was not even first choice to play the lead. The producers originally wanted Harrison Ford who turned the part down, reportedly because he felt that the script turned the American Revolution into the story of one man’s quest for revenge.

Because of its anti-British stance, the film was badly received in Britain. One newspaper accused it of blackening the character of the British officer Banastre Tarleton who served as the inspiration for the villainous Colonel Tavington. One commentator went so far as to say that it was the sort of film that the Nazis might have made about the American Revolution had they won World War II. Unlike some of my fellow-countrymen, I was not too worried about this aspect of the film. The total death toll in the American War of Independence was remarkably low, not only by modern standards but even by the standards of other wars of this era, such as the Napoleonic War. Nevertheless, in every war ever fought there have been crimes on both sides, and the War of Independence was no exception. (The rebels could be as ruthless as the British, but none of their atrocities are shown in this film). Some of the deeds attributed to Tavington may be fictitious, such as the church-burning scene, but in real life Tarleton had a well-deserved reputation for brutality, and was not only loathed by the American colonists but also distrusted by his own side. In the film the British commander Lord Cornwallis is shown as outwardly gentlemanly and honourable, but prepared secretly to countenance Tavington’s methods. In reality, Cornwallis wanted to have Tarleton court-martialled; Tarleton was only saved by his influential connections.

I did, however, have some reservations about the way these events were portrayed. It was originally intended to make the film about Francis Marion, a real-life figure. Unfortunately Marion, although undoubtedly courageous and a skilled guerrilla leader, was also a slave-owner (as any landowner of substance in 1770s South Carolina would have been) and was therefore deemed unworthy to be the hero of a modern blockbuster (even though a TV series about him was made in the fifties). His exploits, therefore, are credited to a fictitious “Benjamin Martin”. The slavery issue could have been avoided by moving the action to, say, New England, but instead the film gives us a wholly unrealistic picture of race relations in the period. The black workers on Martin’s land are all free men, and black and white live together in harmony, with black soldiers willingly fighting alongside whites in the Continental Army. This sort of dishonest, idealised portrayal of slavery was at one time common in films like “Gone with the Wind”, but I thought that it had died out with the growth of the Civil Rights movement.

(Incidentally, a reason why so many Southerners supported the revolutionaries was that slavery had been declared illegal in Britain itself in 1771 and they feared that the British Parliament would eventually legislate to ban it in the colonies. Needless to say, there is no mention of this attitude in the film. In later life Tarleton became MP for Liverpool, and a vehement defender of slavery. In this, if in nothing else, he and Marion had something in common).

My other reservation about the film’s political stance is similar to Ford’s. The film probably concentrated so heavily on British brutality because it is difficult to interest a modern audience, even an American audience, in the actual reasons why the war was fought. It is easy to make out an intellectual case for the principle of “no taxation without representation”, which had been part of British constitutional thought since at least the Civil War in the 1640s. It is much less easy to justify the spilling of blood in defence of that principle, and Martin, scarred by his experiences in the French and Indian Wars, is originally shown as a pacifist, unwilling to fight or to support the Declaration of Independence which he believes will lead to war. His son Gabriel, however, joins the Continental Army, but is wrongly accused of being a spy and threatened with execution. Tavington, believing Martin to be a rebel sympathiser, burns down his home and murders another son, Thomas. Martin is forced to take up arms to defend his family and then forms a guerrilla band which he leads against the British. Despite the title of the film, however, Martin is not really motivated by patriotism; he seems less a patriot than a pacifist who has abandoned his principles in order to seek revenge.

The film is attractively photographed, although I felt that it sometimes showed a sanitised, prettified version of eighteenth-century life. In some ways it reminded me of “The Last Samurai”, another visually attractive epic flawed by a dishonest approach to history and by excessive length, although I would rate it slightly higher, largely because Gibson makes a more commanding and impressive epic hero than does Tom Cruise. From the viewpoint of anyone without patriotic preconceptions, it can be seen simply as an exciting (if overlong) adventure film- my wife, who is not British by birth, was cheering on Martin and booing Tavington. Nevertheless, its approach to history never gets beyond a simplified story of heroes and villains. 6/10

Absolute rubbish
Utter bilge disguised as history lesson which plays as such a typical example of a latter-day auto-pilot Mel Gibson career effort that one could go down a checklist. Over the top violence? Check. Gibson cast as a one-dimensional character who endures a ridiculous amount of physical turmoil? Check. Cartoony villains? Check. Death(s) of major supporting character(s) to give Gibson’s lead a motivated vendetta? Check. The depiction of the British army is so laughable that it seems impossible they could have ever amassed an empire at all much less won any hard fought battles. Gibson is typically and unmemorably cast as a French-Indian War veteran and widowed father of a gigantic brood (no doubt Mrs. Martin expired from prolonged stays in the delivery room). He hopes to avoid any conflict in the forthcoming Revolutionary War, but when his family is targeted and threatened by Snidely Whiplash (oops, I mean Jason Isaacs channeling Snidely Whiplash), naturally a macho man has to do what a man has to do. The late Heath Ledger is on hand as Gibson’s eldest son Gabriel. He looks pretty in Revolutionary War outfits, but there is little more to the role than that. Trivia claims that screenwriter Robert Rodat penned 17 drafts before settling on the current version. He should have penned at least another 17 more because the final version is trash. The film has all of the depth of a puddle. The British are all evil and stupid, Gibson is some unholy combo of Rambo and George Washington, and to say that the film takes liberty with facts is an understatement of massive proportions. One scene involves the British army locking unarmed women, children and old people in a church (including a major supporting character) and setting it ablaze murdering all inside. Try as I might, I have researched this and cannot locate so much as one recorded incident of such a thing being perpetrated by the British army in the Revolutionary War. The film’s most laughable moment features Joely Richardson, as Gibson’s sister-in-law and token love interest, being placed in charge of caring for his underage brood. When the British arrive at her home to take them prisoner, she literally sneaks them out under an entire platoon’s nose by hiding under tables and behind bushes, etc. My description fails to do the lunacy justice – I thought perhaps I had wandered in to a children’s fantasy-adventure for a moment. Total garbage – I suggest fans of this film pick up a book and read about the Revolutionary War – it would really be eye-opening for them.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 2 hr 45 min (165 min), 2 hr 55 min (175 min) (extended), 2 hr 22 min (142 min) (workprint)
Budget 110000000
Revenue 215294342
Status Released
Rated R
Genre Action, Drama, History
Director Roland Emmerich
Writer Robert Rodat
Actors Mel Gibson, Heath Ledger, Joely Richardson
Country United States, Germany
Awards Nominated for 3 Oscars. 9 wins & 21 nominations total
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix DTS, Dolby Digital, SDDS, Dolby Atmos
Aspect Ratio 2.39 : 1
Camera Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo Lenses, Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Lenses, Panavision Panaflex Platinum, Panavision Primo Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), USA (prints)
Film Length (9 reels), 4,614 m (Spain)
Negative Format 35 mm (Eastman EXR 100T 5248, Kodak Vision 200T 5274)
Cinematographic Process Super 35
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic)