[John H K]

There's a difference between pedantic "that guy's uniform should have had 6 buttons, not five" and the sort of rampant, egregious fabrications "The Patriot" engaged in.

What basically offends me is that The Patriot PRETENDED to be historically accurate; they made a big deal of having hired historical consultants so that they could say they did; then then proceeded to ignore them totally.

I mean, the central incident of the movie (the church burning) was totally and completely invented out of whole cloth. That's not trivial.

[Sicon]

I agree. I just sw it for the first time over the weekend, and was amazed not only by its historical inaccuracy, but also its disconnection from reality in terms of how the weapons of the day were portrayed and employed.

Utterly and completely ridiculous. That movie is total, 100% Hollywood crapola. That its producers even hinted that it was in any way historically honest, accurate, or relevant is laughable.

[cyborg]

I stopped watching history movies for accuracy. It kills enjoying the movie. Although I never really cared for old war movies, esp. old slave movies like Roots.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I beg to differ and yet am in agreement. The Church burning was hollywood. The British revered God and would not stoop to burning a church, courthouse maybe, but not a church. The Historic accuracy follows the correct timeline of the revolution. You don't see all of the battles, but the movie is about the struggles of a father to make the world around his family safe, and what he had to do to keep it together.

[supercat]

I mean, the central incident of the movie (the church burning) was totally and completely invented out of whole cloth.

Not really. They got the year wrong (off by a couple centuries), as well as the place (off by hundreds of miles) and the identity of the government that did it, but a government-ordered church burning has indeed happened on this continent.