Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Konterr Brilliant and touching

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Michael A. Martinez Coming from the height of the Vietnam War, this very optimistic- spirited light-feeling war movie comes to feel somewhat out of place. At the time it came out, it might have been seen as a welcome retread to the gung-ho jingoistic war movies of the 50's and 60's with squeaky-clean heroism from the G.I.'s and sneering incompetence from the Germans. Also, the depictions of the battles in this movie, while often spectacular, feel pretty inaccurate and simplified for anyone who bothered to read a little more than the 9th-grade general-ed history books. It's almost as though the film just isn't interested so much in the war. The war is just a backdrop for the showcase of this complicated man.It's of another time, an era from before when history got complicated and we started really re-evaluating things... who the heroes of the war were and what really makes a man a 'hero'. How interesting is it to show people who never waver in confidence in the face of battle and never seem to fail? How responsible was Patton for the collapse of the 3rd Reich compared to the vast scale of the warfare waged by the Russians on the Eastern Front, not to mention the many who served above and below him? Was he just a cog in the machine or a truly extraordinary individual? This movie tells us the latter, but doesn't really tell us why or how beyond just all the other officers around him behaving like comparative imbeciles.That said, the film is wonderfully acted. George C. Scott was the perfect choice for the role and as long as the film focuses on him and his complicated relationship with the media, his fellow generals and allies, it works well. It just feels awfully dumbed-down to me in its depiction of the actual battles. PATTON may be a step up from THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE in terms of how well it technically pulls everything off, but just about on-par with it in terms of giving history credit where credit is due.

grantss The World War 2 history of General George S Patton, US Army. We see his contribution to the Allied War effort, from North Africa, to Sicily to Europe, especially the Battle of the Bulge. We also see his forthright views on war and winning it, his tactical and strategic military genius, his aggressive manner of waging war as well as his blunt, mischievous, rebellious, almost insubordinate attitude.Superb film on an extraordinary, larger-than-life man. Patton was truly a military genius and the movie demonstrates this very well. It also demonstrates well the lack of diplomacy which often set his career back.Excellent performance by George C Scott in the lead role, a performance for which he won an Oscar.The movie itself won the 1971 Best Picture Oscar.

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.

George Redding This 20th Century Fox production, should have won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the year, which it did for 1970, among other awards, such as Best Actor, which Scott earned. One was able to sense well what the real Patton, "Old Blood and Guts" was really like. Patton was a man who himself stated that he read the Bible every day as he told a priest; (of course, the strong expletive he used as his adjective for the word "day" is not fit, I believe, to be placed in this review.) He didn't mind spitting out dirty words at the beginning when he was talking to his men, a man who loved war so much that generals under him began to hate him, a fact depicted in the movie. One memorable scene was the one in which he slapped hard the head of the boy too scared to fight. (Tim Considine, famed for playing Spin on the serial "Spin and Marty" on, in turn, the "Mickey Mouse Club" of the middle '50's played the part of the scared soldier.) I wonder if George S. Patton was any meaner than George C. Scott. After all, in many of his movies Scott is so mean himself. Karl Malden played one of his best roles ever in his career as General Omar Bradley. The main setting in North Africa was drawing in its own right. Yes, the movie depicted so clearly Patton and his war situation well. An outstanding production.