The Patriot (2000) | Full Length Reaction!
Added 2025-04-11 05:54:12 +0000 UTCThis movie really made me feel every. single. emotion.
Also that man needs to have a better resolution to everything that isn't just "BURN IT DOWN"
I'm watching the Extended cut - I forgot to mention!! (thanks Desk LOL)
Comments
My recommnedation for a good Mel Gibson movie is Payback (1999)
Hurrakan
2025-05-03 15:18:43 +0000 UTCIf you are going the Mel Gibson war movie route then We Were Soldiers should be next on your list. A great movie about the 1st Battalion 7th Calvary Regiment 1st Calvary Division at the Ia Drang Valley during the Vietnam War. The movie is based off of the book by the same name written by reporter Joe Galloway.
SnakeandNape
2025-04-27 01:12:26 +0000 UTCI met Jason Issacs at a convention in 2017 and got talk to him for a bit and he is such a cool guy. I got him to autograph a picture of him from Harry Potter.
Jayson Phillips
2025-04-16 05:26:48 +0000 UTCIn addition, lol, historical facts. In the British army, you were expected to fire a musket 3 times in a minute. That’s load, aim, and fire. The British focused on quantity. More men, more bullets, more shots. But you sacrifice accuracy and power behind each shot (including cannon fire), especially with the musket but I’ll circle back to that in a minute. Because they sacrificed accuracy, the British gained a reputation of being bad shots. In Star Wars, where the Empire is portrayed by British actors, the Stormtroopers are notoriously bad shots, 😉, and they have laser guns for crying out loud. lol. See, we humiliate the British in our films because of the Revolutionary war. The Musket. There are many reasons why the musket was an inaccurate gun. Some have to do with the time period and lack of precision crafting tools. The barrel of the musket was slightly bigger than the rounds. This caused the bullet to slightly bounce (ricochet) around the insides of the barrel before it left, which would put a spin and angle of trajectory on the bullet as it leaves the barrel which can significantly change where the shot lands even if you aimed straight, especially at longer distances. Second reason is the bullet. As you noticed, with Mel crafting bullets, he poured the melted metal into a cast through a hole. That hole put a little burr on the bullet when it finished cooling. You might have also noticed that he would clip the bullet when finished. This was a to shave off that burr, but again, the precision of the clipping tool was not prefect back then so each bullet had a slight burr on it thus also adding to the spin and ricochet (as well as weight but extremely slightly, of course) of the bullet inside of the barrel. Lastly, was the powder. Since you are loading gunpowder straight into the shaft of the barrel, you are basically eyeballin how much you need to use. Too little and the bullet will lose power and speed the further it has to go, even at short distances. Too much and you could cause the musket to backfire and blowup in your face. These are also true of cannons but because they are bigger barrels and bigger bullets, you could make them smoother shots overall. Military tactics. No shields. Shields would weigh down an army, not only on the battlefield but also when traveling to and from the battle sights. “An army walks on its belly” is the phrase because your army is only going be good as long as your soldiers are in fighting strength. That not only includes being well fed but also not tired out from the weight of all the supplies and weapons they have to carry. Plus, yes, bullets might penetrate the shields but that wasn’t the biggest reason they didn’t bring them. Additionally, again there was the issue of accuracy. Since they knew accuracy was poor, that is why the British army focused on quantity of shots rather than accuracy and soldiers in a line would create a sightly more accurate range of shots, kill zone, than soldiers scattered around. So you have rows of soldiers, 3 to 5 rows deep, all with rifles firing at the same rate, creating waves of randomly accurate bullets. Sometimes hitting their mark and hopefully grazing others. All for the chance to break the line with fear and to drop the moral as the soldiers standing next you randomly starting falling down. They treated the front line of riflemen like you would if you could create a front line of archers, basically. But bullets and rifles were faster to make, and more durable, than arrows and bows even though arrows and bows technically could be more accurate. Coming down to the case of quantity or quality. Since the ease of making rifles existed but the tech to make them better than the way they were didn't, quantity won out that decision. The British line, of this time period, is the end of the old way to battle from the medieval days. The British line was meant to intimidate. More men, more shots. But the line tactics were so entrenched in history as working in the past, it had just been around too long for commanders to believe changing tactics all together could even be worth it. Btw, this is a great look into how our governments evolve, which is slowly, lol. As well as a great way to understand how business evolves, which is also slow but faster than government. When something works and has worked for a very long time, generations, it is very hard to change strategies in the minds of people that learned how to do things the old way. Only when things get drastically desperate do these individuals even begin to consider doing things differently. The French and the Americans have become known as great adaptable armies because they had to overcome the tactics that proved victory in the past. Because the American armies were so few compared to the British, and they had to hold out until the French arrived to increase their numbers, they had to change tactics. What this film didn’t communicate was that the militia and rebel forces adopted the tactics of battle they learned during the colonization of the colonies against the native Americans. Native Americans didn’t have guns to begin with, or an understanding of line tactics, so they had to use Guerilla tactics; ambush, hit and run, and traps to whittle down the forces and to get in close combat. The Tomahawk was a great hand weapon, even before guns were made. In the earlier years of line tactics, like in the time of Braveheart, the French made the throwing/hand ax (the European version of the tomahawk before we knew the tomahawk existed), and this added weapon was a game changer to line tactics and close combat. It is devastatingly fast, deadly, can easily be retrieved and used again and again after throwing, and created such angles of arch and swing that were so difficult to counter that they made quick and possibly deadly small wounds that they easily could overcome individual combatants so quickly that it made odds like 10 to 1 feel like 2 to 1. Plus, these line tactics come from the old nobles agreeing to “gentlemen” ways to conduct war (and from ancient Rome, technically, but that is who eventually conquered the European lands and became nobles anyway so, same diff, lol). We meet on the battlefield, line up our battalions, and fight it out like chess only with human lives. So front line men knew they would most likely die and did it out of the “honor of following orders” and “duty” (plus the chance you might not get hit since accuracy sucked); hence, one more reason we make fun of the British in our films. You'd be expected to be uneducated to be on the front line, more pompous to be a commander, and a grown idiot to be on the throne and could think these tactics were still good to use these days (or a good leader that is aware that commanding his troops is similar to 'herding cats' like Commandant Norrington in Pirates of the Caribbean. Usually a 'smart' British character in American films is someone that will eventually change sides, btw. The more you know 😉). The militia were given a reputation by the British as cowards because they wouldn’t face them in open combat, but clearly that rep didn’t stick as well as us making fun of the British did. Tradition and tactics were held with a deep respect and honor so, yes, it was very true that the American soldiers had a hard time switching their tactics to guerilla tactics. They themselves also saw it as a dishonorable, cowardly, and villainous way, so much so that it did cause some problems between the factions of the Americans, but ultimately we overcame it because it really worked, and it worked well. The inaccuracies of this film are kind of flipped because, in a sense, we the Americans used dishonorable ways to win our freedom from the honorable “gentlemen” styles of the British. No one slaughtered civilians to the extent this film made it out as to happening. Only on the battlefields did slaughter exist, no matter the time period. But this time period had stories of people sitting on hills, overlooking the battlefields, having lunch and afternoon tea as they watched the slaughter, then going home without being accosted by the victor of those battles. There was a level of decency that everyone observed and still felt as common sense that existed in this war. Not everywhere and with every soldier, true, but overall, yes. The British were more of an imposition to civilians. Violence occurred but it was very little in comparison to this film. In peace time, the British soldiers could come into your home or business, eat your food, take your medicine, ammunition, horses, and whatever else they wanted (usually not harm the women but that wasn't always the case) and leave your home and land a mess, maybe even kill a couple of your slaves for sport; and you didn't have the right to stop them. Hospitality to the British rulers and enforcers was a requirement. This is the reason for the 3rd Amendment, "No quarter to soldiers and the right to privacy on your own property". A majority of the time, honor was still upheld by both sides. Even all the way into World War 1 where there still were agreements, that didn’t get broken, to go onto the battlefields after the combat has ended to retrieve the bodies and give them burials. Soldiers of both sides even observed Christmas on the battlefield of 'No Man’s land' during World War 1, so much so that the American and German soldiers both put down their guns and partied together throughout the night, on the field, without any death. The only things this film ignored was the true treatment of slaves and black people in general. Decency on that topic existed but not to the extent this film made it out to be. As for the native Americans, treatment for them was mixed at best and some tribes did join the British. They had been fighting the Americans since they landed on these shores after all. These were, in general, the tribes that found aggression and violence more honorable then the tribes that didn’t. After all, some native tribes had been at war with each other since before anyone even colonized the Americans, too. Bullet wounds. So, yes, the wounds look big but you weren’t looking at the bullet wound itself, you were looking that bullet hole made in their clothes. It’s the difference of the bullet being round versus the bullet having a tip like today’s bullets. One of the most deadly things about musket bullets was getting shot when fully clothed. The bullet would tear through the fabrics and leave pieces of those fabrics inside the wound with the bullet. Remember, unlike today, the bullets didn’t have tips on them so ripping through fabric makes the hole look bigger because it’s a round projectile pushing through woven materials. So the material is going to rip apart where the fabric gets weaken the most, which is around the round the bullet instead of slicing through it like bullets today do. So even though you could get the bullet out, you couldn’t be 100% sure you pulled out all the fabrics, which would cause a great amount of infections, especially if the clothes hadn’t been cleaned in some time. The blood pouring out, was exaggerated effects for the film though, plus they are squibs after all (those fake shot packs that pop to show an actor has been shot). These particular squibs are called 'blood squibs' because they had more fake blood in them to make the wounds look more exaggerated and leaky, lol. And lastly, we call the British “redcoats” because of the red coats, obviously; but did you notice the coats were red with blue lapels? And the American armies were blue coats with red lapels? The American armies were once employed in the British army after all and if you turn a red coat inside-out, it became a blue coat 😊. Materials and labor to make supplies for the war were limited so just turning your coat inside-out, instead of making whole new outfits, was good enough to distinguish you on the field of battle for which side you were on. The militia, on the other hand, wore browns, greys, and blacks to help with hiding in the vegetation for ambushing but also because its quick and cheaper to make these clothes without dyes. Browns and blacks from animal hides, greys and whites from wool and cotton.
Raptor
2025-04-12 22:19:16 +0000 UTC
