One might posit that this sort of patriotic, heroic movie of the American Revolution could not be made in the 21st century or perhaps not during a Republican administration, but one might have an easier time defending the first thesis given the cinema’s profitable embrace of patriotism during the Reagan presidency. But one would have to go to more serious outlets of movie criticism were one inclined to tease out those arguments. Personally, I just muse on what I’ve seen, and those are two thoughts that came to mind. After 2000, we have the George W. Bush presidency, the attacks of 2001, and In the Valley of Elah and Lions for Lambs. I guess some more patriotic themed films have snuck into the theaters from time to time, but they’re not the standard fare. Not that I would know, I guess: Although I saw this film in the theaters in the pre-child days, I have only seen, what, two films in the theater in the last five years? So don’t mind the musings that follow. Just click More to see the actresses.
So: In this film, Mel Gibson plays a widower Carolina farmer who had served in the French and Indian War speaks out against a war against Britain but, as the revolution erupts, he’s drawn into the conflict when a particularly brutal British officer kills his son and fires his home. When he sees that American generals, trained in the British army, are trying to use British tactics to fight the country which perfected them, he builds a small militia force for guerrila tactics and harrasses the British, but not without a cost. Gibson does some incredibly action hero things, but main characters are definitely at risk, and many die before the war is over.
So a bit slower paced than more modern actioners (or even some actioners for the time) as it pauses every once and again for speeches about liberty and whatnot. A couple splashy gore effects, mostly from cannon fire. Good for rewatching every couple of decades, and perhaps a springboard to re-learning about the American Revolution–the expedition that Gibson’s character would have been part of took place about the same time that Benjamin Franklin, whom I “studied” a bit last year (see The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin and The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin), served in the Pennsylvania militia during the French and Indian War. Does that mean I’m going to start a study of that era in 2025? Probably not, as the Nogglestead stacks are (relatively) light in material.
But, now to the More part.
2000 would still have been the era of dialup AOL, so the Web was still in (relative) infancy. Which doesn’t mean that message boards were not lit up with Charlotte versus Anne debates. But I suppose they could have been.
Joely Richardson played Charlotte Selton, the widower’s sister in law who helps provide for the children and becomes a love interest for Gibson’s character. She has had a long career and has appeared in many period dramas which allowed her to dress up historically.
She’s the daughter of Vanessa Redgrave. And she has a fragile blone beauty not unlike Charlize Theron and Cameron Diaz, where I look at her at some angles and ask, “Is she really that pretty?” and at others, I think, “Yes.”
Lisa Brenner played the love interest to Heath Ledger’s son-of-Gibson.
She’s had a career over the intervening 25 years as well, mostly on television and small movies. I’ve previously seen her in The Librarian: The Quest for the Spear, but I watched that before reviewing movies, so no link for you.
I’ll leave the debate to the Internet. I think they’re both lovely.
