Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UteStar
I agree Dan with what you are saying...my problem with Patriot was that Gibson seemed to be pointing out that his fighting had nothing to do with his country, it was all because of his son. Yes, he was protecting his son, which in turn is protecting his home, which in turn is protecting his country. But it seemed like that wasn't the point Gibson was trying to make. It was like a clear distinction in that movie that he had no interest in being in a war to help his country but he was forced in it to save his son. He could have been living in Korea, Russia or Vietnam, he was going to fight on the side his son was to save him. Anyway, just my interpretation and a reason why that movie could have been great but in fact, was terrible to me.
Patriot is a complex term...I just think it got muddled in that movie when it didn't need to be. And I am probably wrong, but I think you give Gibson too much credit in what he was trying to accomplish with that movie and that title of the movie. But, probably like usual, I am wrong.
|
Did you see the ending? I thought it was pretty clear that Mel's character finally caught the vision of what the colonists were fighting for. There's the scene before the final battle where Mel comes riding up to the line carrying his deceased son's patched-up flag. And then during the battle, he briefly abandons his quest to kill evil British dude in order to rally the faltering American line. Even after the battle, after he had his revenge on evil British dude, he stayed on until the end of the war.