Review of Patton (1970) by Miguel U — 03 Nov 2010

Of the war films that I have viewed, this one may be the most powerful of them all, combining both battle scene action and an emotionally stirring plotline. The dialogue was very, very strong, and of course, George C. Scott's performance was of utter magnificence (unbelievably commanding and very electrifying, as Roger Ebert said). One thing I found interesting was for two years in a row, the protagonist of the Best Picture was a corrupt hero who lost his position by the end (the other being Gene Hackman's Oscar winning role in "The French Connection"). Not to say, that there are at least four years in a row where the Best Picture recipient was rightfully chosen (Patton, The French Connection, The Godfather, The Sting; I have not seen The Godfather Part II but if I did it would be six years because One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was great film too). Getting back to the film, however, Karl Malden, though not as strong as Scott, as should be mentioned for giving a very nice supporting performance, along with the rest of the cast. The cinematography was unreal as well. Essentially, a World War II masterpiece, a well picked Best Picture winner, and as James Berardinelli said, the best biographical of all time.

As I watched the film though, it reminded me of the film "Paths of Glory" which was taken place during World War I, though the movie's topic was much more disturbing. For some reason, Scott's great performance reminded of Kirk Douglas' grand performance as well. Both seemed similar in way, and purely beautiful. Perhaps, Patton is the best true war film of World War II while Paths of Glory is the best true war film of World War I. Indeed, two great films that must be viewed.