Waste of time

Good concept, poorly executed.

disgusting, overrated, pointless

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

It's 1776. France and England are in perpetual war. After the Declaration of Independence, British troops land in New York. Fur trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) had lost most of his family. All he has left is his boat and his son. The revolutionaries confiscate his boat and they promise to pay him in gold in two weeks after the war is to end. His son Ned unwittingly signs up for the revolution and Tom is forced to join up to protect him. Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski) is the rebellious daughter of a rich New York family. She is drawn to the revolution and rebels against his war profiteering father. Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland) is the ruthless English soldier who fights alongside his drummer boy son.The son is the brattiest of brats. Pacino is Italian to his core. There is no way to alleviate that and his natural accent doesn't help. Kinski is foreign in her accent and annoyingly arrogant in her rebellion. Of course, her family is horribly selfish. The British are cartoonish. The revolutionaries don't start off well either. It's an ugly world overall. The only compelling work comes from Sutherland who knows how to play his uncomprising role without becoming a caricature. It is interesting to depict the rebellion start with such an ugly mob. Usually they're more noble than that. That has to be a part of the reason why this movie bombed so badly. There are also other pressing problems.It's notable that the black actors barely speak a word. I'm sure the movie is trying to say a little something about slavery. In Philadelphia, the slaves are rising up as freedom rings out all around them but it's left confused. Obviously, none of them are freed in reality but it's not clear from the movie. I think the blacks being march off in the opposite direction is suppose to be them being sent into slavery in the south. I also have a problem with Pacino fighting off the two Indian scouts. It's barely believable and it would be easily solved if the friendly Indians arrive a minute earlier. They could help him kill the two Indian scouts. In addition, I don't understand why he doesn't go with his son at the end. He spends the entire movie rescuing his son but leaves him for the city life. That's stupid. I don't mind portraying the war as an ugly affair but this one is not that good.

Revolution is a very different war movie. Its a film based on war from the very bottom line of the war-front. Its not from the general or the leader but from the everyman... The sort of people at that time who where pushed to take a side and fight in a war over something that they never really understood. The great thing is that you watch this film and at the end of it come out no better a political understanding of the war, but rather an understanding of a characters struggle and failures during it. This i believe (i work in film as a camera assistant) is one of the best war films shot in terms of cinematography. The whole film is hand-held and rugged (ground breaking at the time) giving it a realistic feel. The production values, grubby set designs and thousands of extras in costumes and make-up deserves the large depth of field given in the shooting style so that we can appreciate this all on the screen. Obviously shoot on film it has had a beautiful push process giving a gritty and noisy look on screen...Its basically looks like a series of John Trumbull paintings of the war on celluloid.I have had the pleasure of meeting the director Hugh Hudson many years ago on the board of a panel when joining the industry as an apprentice cameraman. He was a kind and knowledgeable man of the film industry and was proud to be part of the British film industry and talent and was all for the fruition of this. I find it unfair that he is put to blame for the failure of this movie and the British film industry of the 80's and early 90's. This movie is no way as bad as so many other films out there and has aged well! Sadly its anti-war message mixed with a release in a cold war era in America.... Bad publicity and press due to a then confused audience topped off with a British man directing a film based on American history meant that it was destine for failure.

With a subject as fertile as the American war of independence and four outstanding actors how could anyone blow it to such catastrophic proportions. I think both the script writer and the director must have gone out of their way to produce something as empty and boring as Revolution. What a waste! Money first, a glorious subject which would deserve more respect, but also waste of actors' talent. What a goofy idea to expect Al Pacino to act and sound as a Scott. Why not pick a Scott? I felt sorry for the three main actors because I don't think that with a script like this they were given a fighting chance to shape a specific character. So from the writing, to the shooting there is little in this movie that I would recommend to the public. For Fox TV to air it now (May 2010) laced with commercial also shows how little this network cares about their audience.

This is one of my favorite movies on the revolutionary war. I was lucky enough to travel to the states and retrace many of the old haunts in this movie and I must admit, that the feel of this movie was authentic. Pacino...of course excellent. This movie is visually stunning and "dirty" in the port cities just as you would expect and port city to be. Remember, no running water, no electricity, no sewage. That is why this movie is epic in my opinion. It shows what was at stake for the average man who could just as easily sided with the British and no lose as much as he did in the revolt. Let me assure you that history will be kind to this movie. You will see....