Patton (1970) User Reviews

Fascinating portrait of the Allies' greatest general

[Danimal-7 · 9/10 · 8 September 1999]

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 ****.

"Old Blood and Guts" valued courage and resolve above all

[Wuchakk · 8/10 · 30 October 2017]

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-

Viewed in Context

[the_mad_mckenna · 9/10 · 29 February 2004]

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.

The Classic War Movie

[nabor7 · 10/10 · 24 June 2004]

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.

A film about the man not the war

[kevin-caprani · 20 April 2003]

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.

Outstanding work by George Scott

[Clothahump · 10/10 · 20 March 1999]

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 great war film

[arthurclay · 10/10 · 4 May 2005]

And the best performance from an Actor in history. George C. Scott is General Patton, the greatest General of World War II and the most controversial. Scott gives the performance of a lifetime if Patton watched this film he couldn't tell the difference himself. Scott portrays him the way he was, not the way he should be or the way we would like him to be. Patton is Patton, tough, resilient, fearless, sarcastic, angry, witty, cultured, charming, bull-headed, uncompromising, temperamental, and more patriotic than Uncle Sam on the 4th of July. The speech at the beginning with him in front of the American flag sets the tone. It's his way or the highway. And Patton is driving. His antics tick off the high command and rankle his subordinates but they all can't argue with his success. Karl Malden is his good friend and at times adversary General Bradley who is as resourceful as Patton is eccentric and they make a great pair. Every time Patton has a victory he screws it up by way of his gargantuan mouth. But he keeps going. When disaster strikes he always manages to pull defeat out of his rear and strike a blow for the 2nd Corps or the 3rd Army or whatever army he's commanding. His soldiers love him, his soldiers hate him, but his soldiers fight for him regardless because they know he's the best. Patton's rise is like Patton's fall, momentous. His last line is the most telling of all. "They remind us that glory, like everything else, is fleeting." Glory may be fleeting but this movie won't be. Perhaps the best war movie in history.

Epic hagiography

[rmax304823 · 9/10 · 12 February 2005]

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.

A Strange Combinition Of Good And Bad

[Theo Robertson · 7/10 · 25 May 2005]

I saw this the same night I saw THE HURRICANE a movie that claims to be a bio-pic on Rubin Carter but which is nothing more than total fabrication . PATTON is an entirely different kettle of fish and while not being entirely accurate ( I'll come to that later ) does at least have many accurate points

Undoubtedly the best aspect of the movie is George C Scott who is physically almost identical to George Patton . He captures the arrogant mannerisms of the American general very well and few and far between are movies where a performance like this dominates a movie . Ironically this is a case of where an Oscar for best actor was fully deserved and yet the recipient turned down the honour . There's also obviously a lot of thought gone into the screenplay as to where to begin and end the story . Do you start when Patton was a child and find out what motivated him to be a soldier ? Do you start when he fought in the American Expidionary force in France 1917-18 ? Do you finish the story with his death ? I think that writers Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H North have got the settings right with starting the story with the immediate aftermath of The Kasserine Pass and finishing the story while Patton was still alive . The screenplay itself is somewhat knowingly ironic as Patton spouts " America has never and will never lose a war " while it was becoming obvious in 1970 there was no way the US were going to be victors in Vietnam . It was a well known fact that Patton despised Monty and much of Patton's motives were of beating Montgomery as much as the Germans and this might have led to needless deaths of men under Patton's command . The screenplay while not exactly spelling this out does hint that his dislike of Monty led to Patton's reckless streak and the audience are left to make up their own mind on this issue . It was also well known that Patton wanted to throw back the Soviets from Eastern Europe ( Monty also had a hatred of communism but was far less vocal about it ) and there are conspiracy theories that the car accident that killed Patton wasn't an accident at all . Thankfully the screenwriters and producers have absolutely no time for any conspiracy theories of any kind

While being a good movie PATTON fails to be great one simply because niggling little faults creep into the movie like historical inaccuracies . In the aftermath the Germans discuss the battle of Kasserine Pass where " The Americans were led by the British general Anderson " Who was Anderson ? The Americans who were badly defeated at the battle were led by American general Lloyd Fredendall without doubt the worst allied general of the war and it was this that led to Patton being appointed to his post . Rommel is portrayed as having the utmost respect for Patton and his American troops but in reality this wasn't actually the case . Throughout the war Erwin Rommel had contempt for American equipment ( With good reason since German Panther and Tiger tanks were far superior to the American built Shermans and the same applied to preceding equipment ) and servicemen and counted Monty as his arch nemesis not Patton . Also as with most American war movies made round about this time the tank battles fought between Americans and Germans seem to be composed of both sides using American tanks built in the 1950s

All in all a bio-pic that while being better than many others isn't flawless but like I said if you want to see how NOT to make a bio-pic watch THE HURRICANE

A fine epic about a "pure warrior."

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 10/10 · 21 October 2002]

The war epic was revived with Franklin Schaffner's admirable 'Patton.' Schaffner's control of his film is impressive, and the various campaign sequences are strikingly photographed through an audaciously wide lens...

George C. Scott was commonly referred to as a 'character actor' in view of his remarkably extensive range... Oddly for a character actor, Scott was almost always the same person on screen vigorous to the point of pugnacity, acting with his chin the way other actors do with their eyes-yet revealing, in his own eyes, unsuspected depths of humor and intelligence...

Now few actors have ever been so convincing in such a powerful and colorful character... Only Peter 0'Toole's eccentric T.E. Lawrence comes immediately to mind... Both, he and Scott, create their characters out of complementary contradictions... Lawrence detests the savagery of war but embraces it... Patton cannot separate the conduct of war from his own personal glorification, and both actors are given large canvases upon which to work...

Screenwriters Francis Ford Coppola and Edmund H. North and director Franklin J. Schaffner introduce a 16th-century warrior lost in contemporary times... He is a brilliant and military historian, with a hazardous speech...

Magnificently uniformed, and wearing his ivory-handled pistol, George S. Patton steps up, against a backdrop of the Stars and Stripes, before an unseen gathering of soldiers defining himself in unambiguous terms as a man who revels in war... The scene is cut to a close shot of two scorpions crawling across the body of a dead soldier at the Kasserine Pass, Tunisia... The camera then pulls back to reveal a harsh look at American casualties with dozens of Arabs busily stripping more bodies...

The American Army has just suffered its first defeat at the hands of the Germans... Patton's first job is to restore the morale and discipline of the dispirited troops of his new command... His experience with tanks led General Dwight Eisenhower to place him in charge of one of the three task forces invading North Africa in 1943...

According to his theory of war, Patton would drive all the way to Palermo on the northern coast of Sicily, slicing the island in half... But his finest moment comes during the massive German counteroffensive in the Ardennes... By the time the Germans feared him above all other Allied generals...

Schaffner turns to the Germans for comments on Patton's abilities... They expect him to lead a major invasion... When he was sent to Corsica, the Germans were convinced he would lead an invasion of southern France... When he was sent to Cairo, they feared for an invasion through the Balkans...

Patton is seen reprimanded by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for indiscreet political statements... As an able tactician who promotes himself to three-star general before it's officially approved by the U.S. Senate, Patton proves himself as the most effective American field commander of the European war... Behind his audacity lay an imaginative planning and a shrewd judgment... Patton knows that loyalty to a leader would inspire his men to take on objectives against all odds... His strict discipline, toughness, and disregard of classic military rules, contributed to his advance across France and Germany...

The modest and conscientious Omar Bradley, commander of the U.S. 12th Army Group, who had served under Patton in Africa and Sicily as a deputy commander, found Patton to be a superb combat general, but hotheaded, profane, and unpredictable... Bradley ends now as Patton's superior... It was soon apparent that the two make a superb team... Patton's dash and drive in the field is a perfect complement to Bradley's careful planning...

With the help of Bradley, Patton prepares to re-engage German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel... After he defeats Rommel's 10th Panzer Division at El Guettar thanks to his analysis of Rommel's published strategies, he shouts one of the greatest lines in war films: "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!" At the same time, his rivalry with his Field Marshal Montgomery (hero of El Alamein) becomes more intense... Patton was motivated by a pride to reach his target before his British colleague, sometimes not for the purpose of the Allies...

Karl Malden has the film's only other significant leading role, as the most capable, yet unpretentious general... Malden could be deduced from the number of major directors with whom he has worked... These include Cukor, Hathaway, Kazan, King, Preminger, Milestone, Vidor, Hitchcock, Brooks, Mulligan, Daves, Brando, Frankenheimer, Ford, Quine and Schaffner... In his best and most personal work he has succeeded in exploring depths of moral ambiguity rare in commercial cinema...

Schaffner illuminates various sides of Patton's remarkable personality, presenting a dashing extrovert and attractive general, with a compassionate side...

Touring an evacuation hospital in Sicily, Patton slaps an enlisted soldier twice calling him a 'yellow,' and threatens to shoot him, before two men forcibly remove him from the tent... The incident occurs because Patton's views of bravery and cowardice are so severely limited... The fighting general who has the imagination to write poetry and to believe that he has been reincarnated, in ancient Greece, at Carthage, and Moscow, cannot conceive of a psychological wound that he cannot see... The incident occurred after he prays at the bedside of one man severely injured... Patton whispers some words in his ear which the audience doesn't hear, then lays a medal on his pillow and gives him a gentle touch on his head... The portrait is so compelling that it's easy to overlook Patton's own final words in the film, "All glory is fleeting."

Franklin J. Schaffner's motion picture reveals an effective portrait of three men: Patton, Bradley, and the unseen Dwight Eisenhower... The film is a fine epic about 'a pure warrior, and a magnificent anachronism,' who loved war...

The Academy Awards saluted 'Patton' capturing eight Oscars, including best picture, best director, best actor (Scott declined his well deserved Oscar), best screenplay, best editing, and best production design...

Good character study, though a somewhat childish view of World War II

[Aylmer · 7/10 · 6 October 2017]

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.

great movie

[renegadeviking-271-528568 · 8/10 · 8 August 2017]

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.)

An American film for Americans - what a surprise 7 Oscars!

[rennets66 · 6/10 · 26 August 2013]

Although I think George C Scott is a great actor, I do not understand why this film won 7 Oscars when several superb historic war films also produced in 1970 received little acclaim.

This is yet another of the almost limitless American films post WW2 which glorifies one of their famous generals. True it shows his vanity and cruelty as well, but as a military historian myself I really wonder why such average war scenes rated so highly? For example Patton's triumph after Kasserine is portrayed in almost laughable battles-scenes. We have modern M60 tanks (ironically the "Patton") with black crosses on the side pretending to be German tanks and German infantry marching in Napoleonic dense columns towards the US Army. Its incredibly bad even by the standard of the time (and Gen Bradley was the military adviser?).

I do like the acting in the film. I think George C Scott is great and well deserves the accolades. But I do wonder why the outstanding films "Waterloo" and "Cromwell" shown also in 1970 did not receive wide acclaim, despite being in my opinion some of the best films ever put on film. Waterloo is probably the most impressive cinematic representation of a historic battle ever made - never again will a film be made like this. I can't help but think it does help if your film is about an American war hero, with famous American actors for Americans (like almost every successful film that has been made in the English speaking world since 1945). Interesting that a Bridge to Far which has faultless battle scenes and outstanding moving acting did not receive anything like 7 Oscars! I wonder why?

A bloated, impersonal biopic lacking the stimulating information necessary to justify its monotonous length

[TheUnknown837-1 · 5/10 · 17 January 2012]

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.

Favorite war film . . .

[jaywolfenstien · 2 December 2003]

. . . 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.

Fascinating bio of hard-ass WWII general

[RNMorton · 10/10 · 26 February 2005]

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.

Scott Delivers Memorable Performance

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 14 June 2006]

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.

An compelling portrait of a deeply paradoxical man, biting sarcasm makes the film

[CubsandCulture · 9/10 · 21 December 2018]

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.

A fine tribute to a great patriot and fearless warrior

[tim.riley · 10/10 · 9 July 2000]

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.

Hasn't Aged Well

[chaucer-1 · 6/10 · 7 April 2005]

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.

Ignore the goofs and concentrate on Scott's brilliant portrayal.

[planktonrules · 10/10 · 30 March 2013]

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!

This film is average, that is unless you're American..

[haasxaar · 6/10 · 3 January 2006]

What a colossal bore. Its a film that takes its ideas, mulls over them but just wants to give you a little, not a lot. Patton conceivably was a great man, with great flaws. He was determined, like this film to get his goals achieved. However, unfortunately he was halted by fate, as was this film from any genuine ingenuity.

The film's flaws stem mostly from its pace. It drags out a message that could be conveyed in a fraction of the screen time. Yes, he was an aggressive and difficult character, yes he was admirable for his ambition and conviction and yes he was a pompous, overbearing and ultimately hypocritical human. Why does Schaffner have to take so long illustrating this? At first it seemed mature and honest, we see Patton's abrasive nature and obstinacy, his arrogant refusal to submit to the system. Unfortunately then we see the same point reiterated on numerous occasions and through the same initial omniscient viewpoint, we never get any other angle on all this. All that we are treated to is the same perspective that eventually insinuates that Schaffner wanted us to feel sympathy for an egomaniac who loved war, and festered the whole time to his wholehearted dedication to it.

Although Scott's performance is truly breathtaking; his presence and charisma really manage to keep us interested to watch the film to the end. He never can diversify the one-sided material he was given. We just get treated to the generic and repetitive view of how Patton was unfairly treated and vilified by his superiors. Objectivity just seems to be flung far away for Patton to roll over in his tank.

Good biographies show the many facets of an individual, their strengths and vulnerabilities; strong biographies like 'Raging Bull' concentrate on how the qualities and dysfunctions interweave with those surrounding them and how their morphed personality shapes their future. 'Patton' unravels itself more to be an wholesome tribute to a psychotic and driven madmen,rather than an analytical piece of characterisation. Its glorification of war is offensive and ridiculous, and it wants to invoke pity and empathy for a supposed 'legend' who was really a very apprehensible individual. He is rewarded for being brutal, egotistical - not only on the battlefield but in the audience's eyes as well because of the partiality of the narrative. It chooses to take sides with Patton, to depict his pomposity as an approvable characteristic and to compress his fallible traits as excusable. It avoids a balanced depiction and chooses to become a cheerleader for devotion and loyalty to Patton's type of firebrand patriotism.

Pity would have been more forthcoming had Schaffner opted for a more sagacious viewpoint; one that chose to focus more on his skewed values and hone in on them rather than dedicate 3 hours of film to underplaying Patton's zealousness and portraying him as an admirable and amiable fundamentalist. Scott's brilliance rather than Schaffner's incapability are what really gives this film a renowned reputation. It simply comes across as frivolous piece of US patriotism masked as an honest portrayal of an unbalanced, crazy and disastrous humanbeing.

The film's ultimate purpose is to evoke empathy and sentimentality for a person who should be lauded for his determination and rebellious nature, and not criticised for his amazingly warped view on life. Because Patton was a victor, he has been canonised as a saint of the American right; which is all this film seems to want to achieve. It eschews real quality through its monotone narrative and dishonest subject matter. Its for romantic rightwingers and nobody else.

It Deserved Every Oscar It Got

[screenman · 9/10 · 7 February 2009]

Here is George C Scott in the role he was surely born to play. He fits the part as well as Paul Schofield fits Thomas Moore in 'A Man For All Seasons'.

Scott's presentation of an ambitious, single-minded, overbearing man brimming with self-belief is wonderfully realised. You cannot imagine that he is anything but the general he pretends to be. At times likable and loathsome, we nevertheless care about him and his sometimes strange contradictions.. If not for his unpromising face and gravel-crusher voice GCS would surely have been one of the leading hero/ladies-men of his day. Yet despite the punished-looking expression, and the Dalek-with-a-sore-throat delivery, every feature and vocal tone manages to carry some subtle nuance of emotion and thought. Scott is a real actor, from a time when acting carried more weight than good looks. Ernest Borgnine cut a similar figure.

This is a movie about a general. War takes second place. We get to know the kind of man responsible for the lives of thousands. We learn about his own personal and political wars, his likes and dislikes, and those who like and dislike him. There's a lot more of the latter. He shows us that heroes can sometimes be insufferable. They are often driven men who drive others just as hard and this excites resentment. Worse still it excites ingratitude. For however much we may despise them, they are needful to the hour. Without them we would be lost.

There is war, and the action is perfectly adequate for the movie's vintage. But the real war is Patton's own. His victory is the victory of personal ambition.

Other actors pale into insignificance. And maybe this was intended by the director. The only other instantly recognisable face is Karl Malden's, which is scarcely more ornamental. The budget is big and deservedly so. location-work is expansive, filming, lighting and editing all hit their targets.

War-mongers like Patton may be discountenanced now in this politically-correct age of left-wing liberalism. But when the enemy begins banging at the gates - who ya gonna call?

Very highly recommended.

Decent film

[Ebertandsiskel · 7/10 · 1 March 2005]

This isn't a bad film at all. Scott puts in a very good performance as Patton and effectively explores the complex nature of the generals character.The film is well made and put together and the cinematography is good - good battle scenes from the desert plains of North Africa to wintry northern France - it is all well done. Some great scenes that show the complex nature of Pattons character (slapping the soldier, drinking with the Russian, shooting the donkey). There are the usual Hollywood stereotypes - Montgomery's character is very one dimensional - its a wonder we ever won the war with generals who were so pompous, posh and self centered - good job we had Patton to win it single handedly for us! Overall a decent film.

Inaccurate history

[ramonhleigh · 2/10 · 13 July 2012]

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.