Patton

Anyone who criticises the film because they believe General Patton was not a great warrior general misses the point. The film is a tour de force, an excellent portrayal of an historical figure whose contradictory and colourful character make him an ideal subject. The acting is first class, the screenplay clever and historically near accurate. As it happens, Patton was one of the most effective generals in the second world war and arguably one of the 10 best commanders in the second millennium. His achievements are evident in historical fact and also justify this monumental film. It is true he treated cowardice with contempt - which all effective military leaders must do in war. Out of the context of real war, Patton's attitudes may seem harsh but when life and winning depend on military cohesion, they must be forgiven or at least tolerated. Watch the film and judge but be a leader in war to understand.

To the people who are worried about the historical inaccuracies. ITS A MOVIE! Not a documentary! If that's what you want watch one of those. Now that's over with, the movie is brilliant. It draws you in and even though it's a long movie seems to go quickly. I've watched this movie a number of times and every time I notice or come out of the movie with something different. You don't really get that with modern movies. If you wanted to watch an old war movie this and The Longest Day are the two to watch you won't be sorry you did.

First of all forgive me as the last time I saw this movie was over a year ago, but after seeing that this had an average rating of 3.5 stars on iTunes I felt moved to redress the balance Wonderful Performance from George C Scott. A rare treat to watch a biographical film where the subjects flaws/weaknesses are explored to the same extent as their strengths/admirable qualities. Strange how some reviews have questioned the historical accuracy, citing that he refused to accept soldiers had shell shock and nearly removed from the war because of his outspoken tirades, whilst these may not have been actual scenes in the movie, they were referenced in the field hospital scenes and when he was removed from the war. Wether or not the movie is historically correct or not i can not comment, I wasn't there. But I do believe that story tellers should be afforded a little license. We need to care about the characters in order to see the whole picture that is being painted The score (always one of the most important parts of a film) whilst not especially varied is perfectly suited, and there are some beautiful background images in the scenes in Sicily and North Africa. Not to be mistaken for traditional War movie full of battle scenes, brother type relationships as unbreakable bonds born on battlefields, rather an exploration into "great" military leaders and the common prima donna type characteristics the three field generals (Patton, Montgomery and Rommel) all share, i believe a point made by Patton himself.

historically inaccurate... not in the normal way Hollywood does it, but actually bears ZERO resemblance to the facts. Patton was not a military genius, nor was he the only general feared by the axis powers. Its a matter of record that he refused to accept that his soldiers had shell shock.

supreme lead performance. script is great and the movie just wants to be watched.

Couldn't be more historically incorrect. Patton was hardly a genius and was nearly removed from the war for his outspoken tirades that would have him thrown in jail today. The fact he thought he was a warrior in past lives clearly suggests some mild insanity. He was a racist southern red neck that was only allowed to command due to the desperate situation and lack of anyone better to replace him.

It is extremely difficult to find a better film that this one; exceptional acting all round and definitely one of my favourite movies!