Steineded How sad is this?

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

SnoopyStyle It's 1776. France and England are in perpetual war. After the Declaration of Independence, British troops land in New York. Fur trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) had lost most of his family. All he has left is his boat and his son. The revolutionaries confiscate his boat and they promise to pay him in gold in two weeks after the war is to end. His son Ned unwittingly signs up for the revolution and Tom is forced to join up to protect him. Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski) is the rebellious daughter of a rich New York family. She is drawn to the revolution and rebels against his war profiteering father. Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland) is the ruthless English soldier who fights alongside his drummer boy son.The son is the brattiest of brats. Pacino is Italian to his core. There is no way to alleviate that and his natural accent doesn't help. Kinski is foreign in her accent and annoyingly arrogant in her rebellion. Of course, her family is horribly selfish. The British are cartoonish. The revolutionaries don't start off well either. It's an ugly world overall. The only compelling work comes from Sutherland who knows how to play his uncomprising role without becoming a caricature. It is interesting to depict the rebellion start with such an ugly mob. Usually they're more noble than that. That has to be a part of the reason why this movie bombed so badly. There are also other pressing problems.It's notable that the black actors barely speak a word. I'm sure the movie is trying to say a little something about slavery. In Philadelphia, the slaves are rising up as freedom rings out all around them but it's left confused. Obviously, none of them are freed in reality but it's not clear from the movie. I think the blacks being march off in the opposite direction is suppose to be them being sent into slavery in the south. I also have a problem with Pacino fighting off the two Indian scouts. It's barely believable and it would be easily solved if the friendly Indians arrive a minute earlier. They could help him kill the two Indian scouts. In addition, I don't understand why he doesn't go with his son at the end. He spends the entire movie rescuing his son but leaves him for the city life. That's stupid. I don't mind portraying the war as an ugly affair but this one is not that good.

a.lampert Not half as bad as Rotten Tomatoes makes out. I don't profess to know the history of the American Revolution and people who criticise movies for historical inaccuracies leave me a bit cold. They should watch documentaries and not go to the movies. Unless there are glaring errors in a script I first ask myself 'is it entertaining?'. I read an article by Mel Gibson after Braveheart where he said that something that happens in reality doesn't necessarily transfer well to entertainment on the screen and therefore it's better to change the facts sometimes to suit the screen. This may well be the case with Revolution. I don't know how accurate it is but nevertheless I found it quite entertaining on the whole. Beautifully photographed, with superb atmosphere and a sense of it happening hundreds of years ago, it really hits the button with those features. What lets it down is some really bizarre accents from the leading players, some weak performances, particularly from some supporting actors and some over long scenes, particularly with Al Pacino muttering a lot inaudibly. Strange casting in British roles would have been better had British actors been cast, in particular Nastassja Kinski and Donald Sutherland. Having said that, the film rattles along at quite a pace on the whole with one or two quite tense moments and most of the the battle scenes I found quite absorbing. l love chase movies and there are several chases in this picture which I really appreciated. I thought I'd rate it 5 out of 10 but have decided on reflection 6 out of 10. I've seen a lot worse.

thinker1691 The Revolutionary War was waged here in the Americas'. Seeing this movie called " Revolution " directed by Hugh Hudson and written by Robert Dillon, one would expect a great outcome. However, I saw this film and as a Historian I expected so much more. The story begins in 1776 and continues to the end of the war. A father (Al Pacino) is visiting New York shortly after War has been declared. Straying away from his father, the son is inducted into the military, forcing the father to follow with the dubious promises of pay and compensation for his boat. Once fighting has been enjoined, they soon meet up with Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland) a brutal , but very professional British soldier. From then onward, the two experience the confusing and often destructive effects of the war. Along the way, they are helped and sympathized by women of the revolution, like Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski). Unfortunately, the movie tests the limits of patience as our director includes scenes which should have been edited. The war becomes interesting with several easily recognized actors along the way, such as Robbie Coltrane and Graham Green, playing minor roles. Despite it's cumbersome length, the movie did have several realistic features, like the battle of Yorktown which were included in the final draft. Acting-wise, the cast made this movie and should be seen as most epics, over several nights. Good movie though. ****

bobivey633 I had never seen this although I knew it had a bad rep from previously, so went last night to the BFI in London's special (and free) screening of Hugh Hudson's about-to-be-released-on-DVD cut with relatively high hopes.Hudson has trimmed the film by about 11 minutes and added a voice-over narration from a clearly much older Pacino (but perhaps that doesn't matter as he could be telling the story as an old man). This does give it a clearer narrative and might assist those who felt it lacked that before.I will say it is wonderfully shot with realistic scenes and fine battle footage but some of the performances are woeful, I'm afraid. The worst by a country mile is Richard O'Brien as an odious British officer/lord. This is pantomime acting and his character even utters the line "American dream, what!" which I find impossible to believe would have been said in late 18th century America by an Englishman! Nastassja Kinski, gorgeous as she is in this, is not much better. She is all over the place and I find her character barely believable.Pacino is not that bad in comparison and is clearly trying very hard but why, oh why did they allow him to wear that ridiculous headband thing?? This dates the film to 1985, not 1776. It detracts from his performance.Overall, visually good (apart from the headband) but very disappointing.