Jeffrey Burton I give this film a 7.5 which I rounded up to 8 for the avalanche of negativity directed toward it. I remember the advertising for this movie and they made a big deal about Annie Lennox being in it. Then they rip you off with only one cameo early in the movie and then she's gone. They also plugged it as being more patriotic, by far, than the movie actually is. This is what they did in the States, anyway. As a result, they setup people's expectations knowing they wouldn't get fulfilled.Though this movie was produced in the 80's it is product of the 70's and totally lacks any of the U.S.A.! U.S.A.! fist pumping of the Reagan era. I think that had a lot to do with its reception. It also features none of the 'stars' of the revolution. No Washington, Jefferson, hell, not even Sam Adams.The feel of the movie is incredibly authentic and unapologetically gritty. It really presents what the war must have felt like to those who had it thrust upon them. It rivals 'Waterloo' and 'Barry Lyndon' for capturing the time period. The UK locations served the film very well. It's more of a study of war as phenomenon than story of heroes going to battle, though there is a great deal heroism in it. The story does get overly personal and pulls you at times far away from the film's titled subject matter but it's still a compelling story, which has many facets and has a satisfactory resolution.I don't know what people are talking about with Pacino's performance. For the most part it's so minimal and the emotion is conveyed so much by the action he could just as well been in a silent movie. Donald Sutherland is brilliant as the sadistic British officer and Natassja Kinski is charming as the Boston aristocrat turned Betsy Ross type patriot. All in all this is a good movie for American Revolution buffs.I think this film, like 'Heaven's Gate', needs to be reevaluated. It really deserves better than it's getting. While it will never be a movie that satisfies all people's tastes it is an incredible depiction of how the Revolutionary War effected the lives of the people swept up in it.

allyatherton A New York trapper and his son get caught upin the American battle of independence.Starring Al Pacino and Nastassja Kinski.Written by Robert Dillon.Directed by Hugh Hudson.This movie could have been great but instead it was a let down.On a positive note the cinematography, period costumes and attention to detail was wonderful. And I found it quite educational and interesting from a historical point of view. Although I'm sure many experts would be able to find a few historical errors.What let this movie down was the quality of acting and the plot which didn't really go anywhere. Al Pacino and the two actors who played his son had bizarre accents which didn't help. I think he was supposed to be Scottish but it came out as rather a weird combination of Irish and some other made up mumble language. In fact I couldn't hear half of what he was saying which kind of ruined the big movie moments! And there were more bizarre accents amongst the many actors in this ensemble. Maybe Al Pacino was a victim of bad casting or bad directing or perhaps his heart wasn't in the movie.I didn't mind Nastassja Kinski's performance. It was probably the best of a dodgy bunch. And she was pretty good to look at too. But on the whole Revolution was a bit of a borefest. There is a big scene towards the end where the main character and another guy are chased by a pack of dogs. That's exactly how I'd describe the plot of this. Like a pack of dogs chasing something but never quite catching it.6/10

Steffi_P After the Academy Awards, the most important awards ceremony is the Golden Raspberries (known as "Razzies") – the "worst of" counterpart to the Oscars. The thing about the Razzies is that they don't go for the literal worst movies of the year – otherwise they would give prizes to a load of trashy B-movies. Instead they bestow their honours upon the high profile flops, the movies that could have been so much more, the casts and crews who should have known better. Revolution stars Al Pacino, one of the greatest actors of his generation, and was directed by Hugh Hudson, he of 1981 Best Picture Chariots of Fire. And yet, in a stark "Oh how the mighty have fallen" scenario, it recouped less than two percent of its budget at the box office and was nominated for four Golden Raspberries.Revolution is not without promise. In contrast to the usual gung-ho attitude of pictures on this subject (cf. The Patriot), this takes an approach rare in historical pictures on any era, showing not the makers and shapers of change, but those unwillingly caught up in it. The Robert Dillon screenplay still ultimately comes down on the side of the revolutionaries, but it shows the conflict with the minimum of political emotiveness, and a storyline whose occasional poignancy comes from its even-handed intimacy. Director Hudson has excelled in creating tableaux that are full of believable bustle and period dirt, even if they were entirely shot in rainy England. There's a realistic melange of accents to be heard here; not just clipped British and broad American, which didn't really exist in any recognisable form at the time anyway. The credibility of some of the bit parts is very effective, such as the bolshy soldier who prods Pacino when he's chosen for the fox hunt, a slappable face if ever there was one.And yet the movie's the biggest flaws are on the same grounds. There are some woefully unrealistic and downright silly characterisations here. Chief among these is Nastassja Kinski's. While no means badly acted (in fact she does very well all things considered), the character as written is in no way believable. Not that you can't have rebellious and resourceful women, but stabbing a man in the nadgers at a soirée is a bit hard to swallow. It would probably have warranted her a stint in an asylum, and certainly more than just a telling off from her mother. And giving the Englishman in question a stupid nasal voice and cartoonish demeanour was a huge mistake. It all seems totally at odds with the realism elsewhere in the movie. There are problems too with the over-earnest attempt at a documentary look. Hudson's constant use of hand-held camera quickly becomes tiresome. Pacino's performance is heartfelt but there are times when he appears to break into improvisation yet comes across too much as the modern New Yorker.In response to its poor reception, Hudson would later revisit the material for a 2009 special edition appropriately titled Revolution Revisited, and it is this version of the movie which I have seen. Apparently around ten minutes of footage was shorn off (I don't know what this was so can't comment), and they added narration by Pacino, written and recorded ad hoc. This latter was to my mind a mistake – it adds nothing, basically spelling out the character's thoughts at any given moment, even though the essence of them is already there on the screen. It somewhat spoils the taciturn moodiness of the character, as well as the chaotic wordlessness of some scenes. It's nice however to be able to enjoy a decent new transfer of the picture, because it really isn't as bad as its reputation (and those Razzie nominations, all of which it lost to Rambo II, I hasten to add) would suggest. It is incredibly moving at times, a high point being Pacino's desperate comforting of Ned as his foot wound is cauterized. It's also beautifully shot. This is ultimately a movie of two sides – the very good and the very bad, with no middle ground of mediocrity. And this is very frustrating, because you can see just how easily it could have been a masterpiece.

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....