Question by Bob: Could someone check my grammar/sentence structure?
This is a review of the movie Revolution. I was supposed to detail how accurate or inaccurate the movie was. I know it’s a bit long so much thanks to anyone that takes the time.
“Revolution”, released in 1985, was directed by Hugh Hudson and starred Al Pacino. The film was labeled as a moderate failure and earned only 200,000 dollars during it’s time in theaters. However, despite its shortcomings, the film does a marvelous job of accurately portraying the Revolutionary War from beginning to end. That’s not to say the film is completely perfect. It does have its shortcomings in that department, but those are few and far between. Suffice to say that you would have a hard time finding a more historically accurate film than “Revolution“.
“Revolution” is short on action and story, however, the set design, costumes and above all the historical accuracy of the film is top notch. Attention to detail is remarkable particularly in the period music. While watching the movie I really felt like I could have been watching a documentary of what had actually happened. The uniforms and costuming are also magnificent. The historical choreography of the film as mentioned earlier was outstanding as well. The film does an a decent job of not sugarcoating as much as some other movies in the past have. “Revolution” does a nice job of showing the poverty, desperation and filth that was common in cities like New York without exploiting it for a reaction from the audience.
The film begins by doing a good job of setting the atmosphere of New York where the Americans celebrated the Declaration of Independence and harassed the British subjects. The film included an interpretation of the famous incident when the notorious Sons of Liberty tore down the statue of a horsed King George and broke off it’s head. The Battle of Brooklyn Height is accurately described in the movie, the untrained, unmanned, and unprepared American army was no match for the British and they fled for their lives. The film does a great job of developing a realistic setting that draws you in. It also uses multiple patterns of the American flag which is accurate of the time.
Although the movie does a nice job at keeping things real, there was a few points where the lines of realism and Hollywood production began to blur together. The film makes a passing effort to present the awful conditions of winter quarters at Valley Forge. Disease, and lack of supplies are depicted, but the scenes did little to show how severe the conditions actually were. The movie’s depiction of the British seems to be a little lacking as well. The British leader starts out weird and only gets weirder as the film progresses. I do agree that British people can be a little strange, but I think this was a little much. He has some strange relationship a drummer boy. It was beyond me to determine if it was father-son, brother-brother or some sort of hidden homosexuality. Lastly, the movie does not make any mention of the burning of New York City which took place on September 21, 1776. The movie’s production values were mostly great. England was adequately muddy and awful looking for the winter scenes, while the New York scenes were very well done as well.
It is unfortunate that the plot and casting of the film didn’t do justice to the outstanding work of the set designers. I can’t bash the story too much because there have been far worse films that are now heralded as classics. If you like period films then give “Revolution” a chance, I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Best answer:
Answer by Anna !
“Revolution,” released in 1985, was directed by Hugh Hudson and starred Al Pacino. The film was labeled as a moderate failure and earned only 200,000 dollars during its time in theaters. However, despite its shortcomings, the film does a marvelous job of accurately portraying the Revolutionary War from beginning to end. That’s not to say the film is completely perfect. It does have its shortcomings in that department, but those are few and far between. Suffice to say that you would have a hard time finding a more historically accurate film than “Revolution“.
“Revolution” is short on action and story. However, the set design, costumes and above all the historical accuracy of the film is top notch. Attention to detail is remarkable particularly in the period music. While watching the movie I really felt like I could have been watching a documentary of what had actually happened. The uniforms and costuming are also magnificent. The historical choreography of the film as mentioned earlier was outstanding as well. The film does an a decent job of not sugarcoating as much as some other movies in the past have. “Revolution” does a nice job of showing the poverty, desperation and filth that was common in cities like New York without exploiting it for a reaction from the audience.
The film begins by doing a good job of setting the atmosphere of New York where the Americans celebrated the Declaration of Independence and harassed the British subjects. The film included an interpretation of the famous incident when the notorious Sons of Liberty tore down the statue of a horsed King George and broke off its head. The Battle of Brooklyn Height is accurately described in the movie: the untrained, unmanned, and unprepared American army was no match for the British and they fled for their lives. The film does a great job of developing a realistic setting that draws you in. It also uses multiple patterns of the American flag which is accurate of the time.
Although the movie does a nice job at keeping things real, there were a few points where the lines of realism and Hollywood production began to blur together. The film makes a passing effort to present the awful conditions of winter quarters at Valley Forge. Disease and lack of supplies are depicted, but the scenes did little to show how severe the conditions actually were. The movie’s depiction of the British seems to be a little lacking as well. The British leader starts out weird and only gets weirder as the film progresses. I do agree that British people can be a little strange, but I think this was a little much. He has some strange relationship with a drummer boy. It was beyond me to determine if it was father-son, brother-brother or some sort of hidden homosexuality. Lastly, the movie does not make any mention of the burning of New York City which took place on September 21, 1776. The movie’s production values were mostly great. England was adequately muddy and awful looking for the winter scenes, while the New York scenes were very well done as well.
It is unfortunate that the plot and casting of the film didn’t do justice to the outstanding work of the set designers. I can’t bash the story too much because there have been far worse films that are now heralded as classics. If you like period films then give “Revolution” a chance; I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!