philosopherjack At its sporadic relative best, Hugh Hudson's Revolution seems to aspire to becoming a work of pure texture and movement and evocation of time and place, prioritizing collective over individual experience; at such times it sometimes puts one in mind of the great and overlooked Peter Watkins. That's not necessarily helpful to the film as it stands though - Watkins would surely have rejected the big-star casting and the narrative contrivances, and would have found his way to a far more probing kind of authenticity (among so much else, the film doesn't have much sense of real labour, or of real pain), even while acknowledging its artifice. Obviously the film was largely shaped by more commercial considerations than that, but it's still disappointing that the makers couldn't have avoided the lame love story between the fur trapper who gets swept up by events (Al Pacino's Tom Dobb) and the child of privilege who abandons her family for the sake of becoming a figurehead of the revolution (Nastassja Kinski); or the over-reliance on Dobb's fierce love for his son as an all-consuming motivation and engine of personal transformation. The film presents the English as being grotesque either in their effeteness or else in their brutality, and invests heavily in the inherent moral superiority of the rebels, to the point of expunging any notion of exploitation of the indigenous people, or (I think) any reference to slavery: perhaps these simplifications can be interpreted partly as a function of one man's subjective experience (and the film certainly emphasizes that Dobb is illiterate and under-informed) but they mainly seem hollow and calculating. Revolution does acknowledge in its closing scenes that the new regime may primarily come to represent new means of exploitation and misrepresentation, but that's mainly for the purpose of stroking us with Dobb's new awakening and articulacy (which then in rapid order meets its primary reward, that of getting the girl). The nature of the film's failures is almost always interesting, but it seldom feels like a meaningful conversation with American history, nor with its present.

Kirpianuscus The first motif for see it is the feeling after its end. like the taste of the coffe grounds. because it is not a patriotic film, not exactly a historical one but eulogy of small and fundamental things, from the love of a father for his son to the love for a woman and the status of part of a great cause. Al Pacino does a great job. sure, it is far to be surprising. but in this film, he gives more than a remarkable performance. because he has the brilliant art to propose the rhytm, the force, the message, the bitter atmosphere and the wind of hope to the story. a film about sacrifice. one of films remaining, for a long time, in your memory. for its strange, freshh, authentic beauty. and for its truth behind the words of characters, from the middle of each scene. so, one of the impressive films for see it. again. and again.

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. ****

pjkwas This is one of my favorite movies on the revolutionary war. I was lucky enough to travel to the states and retrace many of the old haunts in this movie and I must admit, that the feel of this movie was authentic. Pacino...of course excellent. This movie is visually stunning and "dirty" in the port cities just as you would expect and port city to be. Remember, no running water, no electricity, no sewage. That is why this movie is epic in my opinion. It shows what was at stake for the average man who could just as easily sided with the British and no lose as much as he did in the revolt. Let me assure you that history will be kind to this movie. You will see....