Revolution [VHS]

I feel I need to add my comments to this review list, coming from the perspective of an extra who worked on the movie. I was indeed one of the 'suicidal extras' in the scene one reviewer refers to and can only say the angle must have been deceptive because when we did topple the statue (can't remember if this is shown in the final edit)it crashed to the ground (as much as fibreglass can crash - I still have a fragment as a souvenir!)a few feet in front of the rope-pullers, causing them to scatter rapidly but not presenting any real danger.
On a serious note, I think the reviewer is correct who comments that Pacino's performance is undermined by a weak script. I definitely got the impression he was not happy during filming and witnessed one or two tense moments between him and Hudson on set, including one ('he won't come out of his trailer' moment!). The visual authenticity of the film remains its saving grace for me and I do remember the lengths that were gone to to get every detail correct. However the visual accuracy was again let down by the script; in the drag-hunt scene, for example, when Pacino's character, Tom Dobb,is captured a British officers jeers 'and so dies the American Dream' . In fact the American Dream is a modern term, not coined until the 1930's, some 240 years after the American war of Independence. Much of the dialogue comes across as awkward and stilted and you sensed the embarrassment of the cast at having to perform it.
However, as I've said, this is a visually breathtaking film which accurately portrays the grim realities of a desperate and bloody war. All of the battle scenes are real action, not CG, involving hundreds of extras (whose induction involved a full week of 'square bashing' under an army drill-instructor, versed in the military protocol of the period)and the very strong cast do their best to wring something noble out of a script that should have been discarded in the first week but wasn't.
I do think it improves with repeated viewings; there is a huge amount of visual detail which is not picked up first time around. The atmosphere is suitably oppressive throughout, with many scenes taking place in mud or torrential rain, historical research having shown that 1776 was one of the wettest years on record at the time. (after a week of standing under fire hoses every day, spontaneous industrial action gained extras a 25% 'rain bonus' on all days filmed in rain, however, this did not extend to real rain!) and the film-stock was selected to give a grainy feel on-screen.
Some notes on the cast list; early acting appearances feature for Annie Lennox and Robbie Coltrane, who both have bit parts. Tom Dobb's son is played first by Sid Owen (Ricky Butcher) and then Dexter Fletcher, who went on to great things.
Lastly, one possible exception to historical accuracy; the aftermath of one battle was filmed amid fields of oilseed rape in Norfolk, which, while the bright yellow flowers added to the visual impact, I'm not sure that this was a commercial crop in 18th century America.

Revolution is realistic a portrait of how the American Revolution was. Most people either love this movie or hate it. I love it, as a historical movie about the American Revolution, that was not hollywoodized (The Patriot). If your one of those history buffs that want to watch a well made movie with excellent cinematography and realistic settings then this film is for you, Director Hugh Hudson did a fabulous job. Now on the other hand there are many of those same folks that have to over-analyse every microcosm of any film and will come away dissapointed in this film.

Wars are desperate and horrible blood-soaked experiences that rip relationships apart, destroy everything, and are fought at ground level by the most uneducated people of all, many of whom really have no choice in the matter and are merely fighting for their own lives.

Revolution demythologizes the American Revolution by dismissing many of the ideal illusions we have about that war in particular. The hero is a self-serving man, who has no interest at all in war, but is forced to fight in it against his will. He's a free man who is forced into virtual slavery to fight for his freedom. Does this make him a bad man? No, he's an honest man who is out for number one, and is motivated mostly by love and loyalty to his son. The war steals everything from him, so why should he be happy about it? There are a few true 'patriots' in this movie, gung-ho idealists like Daisy, but almost everyone else is in the war for selfish motives, to profit from the war, to assert power, to avoid starvation, or for the pure joy of war itself. The redcoats are depicted as rowdy london street-toughs, who are no more or less ignorant & petty than the Americans, only more cocky and egotistical. Their uniforms are ill fitting and poorly miantained. This and a thousand other details give this movie the air of truth. By the end the victory of America is all the more sweet due to the wretchedness the victors must slog through. It's a very noble thing to see war depicted in such realistic ways.

I love Pacino, but the man has misfired now and again.
To be honest, I had such a hard time with his terrible accent - or lack of one - that I couldn't actually take in enough of it to rate it as a film.
Every time he spoke, especially when he was angry (and that seemed quite often) it was like a Brooklyn thug in a 3 cornered hat.
I may watch it again someday to see if, now that the initial shock is over ('How could anyone let him get away with that?!?'), I can appreciate the script or cinematography.
MIght be a bit like trying to rate the tense plotting of All The Presidents Men starring Morecambe and Wise.