Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

seeleyal This film is nothing short of a masterpiece. Not your classic war film, it is entirely focused around the rise, fall, and redemption of a well-respected general. We are able to watch the war from both sides as well, through the respective languages (which I believe was a very nice touch). The cinematography is that of a classic war film, put together with some very artistic long takes. Also, it is very naturalistic in the sense that you see the scenes the way that you may see it in real life. Without dramatic shadows, colors, and lighting. The sound is fantastic as well because you are often not distracted by background music. In fact, in most dialogue-heavy scenes the only noise whatsoever is the dialogue, forcing the viewer to take notice of the advancements in plot. Lastly, I admire this film very much because of these elements. For me it is very difficult to watch a war film that is driven so much through the dialogue and "behind-the-scenes" action. However, I found it difficult to turn my eyes from the screen and became wrapped up in Patton's story. This film is a must see for everyone!

Hitchcoc I sometimes grow weary of war movies. So many of them are a glorification of something that is about death and destruction. So often the victors in movies are glorified but we don't get a picture of the victims. George Patton was a great general, which also meant that he gave his life to war and all its implications. Soldiers are his pawns to him. Winning in battle is the only thing, no matter what the cost. I remember the line about dying for your country--the idea is to get the other poor son of a bitch to die for his country. I look upon this as the worst of human ideology. So how can I give this a 10? It's because George C. Scott becomes Patton, with all his bluster and arrogance. This is one of the best performance ever by an actor in any film. When I see Scott standing in front of the flag, I think I am watching Patton himself. There is also the fact that he is not seen as some sort of Hollywood creation. He is there, warts and all. I love this movie.

Miguel Neto Patton is a great movie War, portrays well the war and its damage, the cast is very good, George C. Scott this great, the cast is very well also, the direction of Franklin J. Schaffner is very good, more the film has problems, I found the slow pace, the film takes a long time, with some is needless dialogues, the battle scenes are very good, the soundtrack is excellent, especially the theme music, the costume is very good, has scenes well strong, as in the opening scene, Patton is a great movie, has great scenes, even me finding the rhythm of slow film, tiring at times, have good performances, a great speech at the beginning of the film and a great soundtrack. Note 8.3

ncleasure The film Patton was made during the film drought of the 70's and it suffers from that. Yes few good films came from this time period for the same reasons this is as bad as it is. To begin with, there are so many factual and anachronisms in the film it is mind boggling how the director took a good look at the cut and said "Yep, that's the best I can do." for example, the tanks used for the film were either the M,41,46,47,or 48. Ironically, these tanks were known as the Walker (M41) and Patton (M46,47 and 48). Also, they all debuted following WW2, and in respect of the Walker, not until midway through the Korean War. Another major problem is the directing aspect. Continuity errors and other goofs abound, unacceptable and unprofessional. In total, IMDb holds a total of 81 goofs and errors, there are probably more in there somewhere, I wouldn't be all that surprised if there were. However, by dislike of this film is not limited to the factual and historical errors, my being a college history student, this would be enough for me to black-ball it. Patton also has quite wooden acting, almost canned bits by Bradley (Malden) when he first meets Patton in the HQ. The sole exception to the is Patton (Scott). But even he on occasion has a pause or two were likely him trying to remember his lines and not dramatic. The worst part of this it is not a true biographical specimen like it is touted as. The biggest slight on history is it does not detail the untimely death of Patton. If you want or need a biographical account of Patton for something like an assignment, steer clear. If you are a historian, steer clear. If you are a WW2 movie fan, consider it. If you have no idea what WW2 is and want to learn something about it, read a history book, Killing Patton is a good example. I think that this should be remade with modern practices and standards, it would be quite good. I think Harrison Ford would be good for Old Blood and Guts if he gained five pounds.