Why "Revolution" (1985) is a Cinematic Disaster Liberals Love to Ignore

"Revolution," the 1985 film directed by Hugh Hudson, is a historical drama that attempts to capture the American Revolutionary War's essence but ends up being a cinematic disaster. Starring Al Pacino and Donald Sutherland, the film was released in December 1985, primarily shot in the United Kingdom, and aimed to depict the gritty reality of the war. However, it failed spectacularly at the box office and was panned by critics. The film's failure is a testament to how Hollywood sometimes misses the mark, especially when it tries to rewrite history with a liberal slant.

First off, let's talk about the casting. Al Pacino, a brilliant actor in his own right, was completely miscast as Tom Dobb, a New York fur trapper. His performance was lackluster, and his attempt at a British accent was laughable. It's as if the filmmakers thought they could slap a tricorn hat on Pacino and call it a day. The film's attempt to portray the American Revolution through the eyes of a reluctant hero falls flat, mainly because Pacino's character is so unconvincing. It's a classic case of Hollywood trying to shoehorn a big name into a role that doesn't fit, hoping star power would save a sinking ship.

The film's historical inaccuracies are another reason why it flopped. "Revolution" takes liberties with historical facts, presenting a skewed version of events that would make any history buff cringe. The film portrays the British as cartoonish villains, while the American side is shown as a ragtag group of noble savages. This black-and-white portrayal of the conflict is not only simplistic but also misleading. The American Revolution was a complex event with many shades of gray, but "Revolution" reduces it to a simplistic good-versus-evil narrative. It's a classic example of Hollywood's tendency to oversimplify history to fit a particular narrative.

The film's pacing is another issue. At over two hours long, "Revolution" drags on with little to no character development or plot progression. The film meanders through various battles and skirmishes without any real sense of direction. It's as if the filmmakers were more interested in showcasing the chaos of war than telling a coherent story. The result is a film that feels disjointed and aimless, leaving audiences bored and confused.

The cinematography, while occasionally impressive, can't save the film from its many flaws. The battle scenes, though visually striking, lack the emotional weight needed to engage the audience. The film's attempt to depict the brutality of war falls flat because the characters are so poorly developed. Without a strong emotional core, the film's impressive visuals feel hollow and meaningless.

"Revolution" also suffers from a lack of focus. The film tries to tackle too many themes at once, from the horrors of war to the struggle for independence, without fully exploring any of them. This lack of focus results in a film that feels scattered and unfocused. It's as if the filmmakers couldn't decide what story they wanted to tell, so they tried to tell them all, resulting in a muddled mess.

The film's failure is a reminder of how Hollywood can sometimes get it wrong, especially when it tries to impose a particular narrative on historical events. "Revolution" is a cautionary tale of what happens when filmmakers prioritize star power and spectacle over substance and accuracy. It's a film that should serve as a warning to those who think they can rewrite history to fit their agenda.

In the end, "Revolution" is a film that deserves to be forgotten. It's a cinematic disaster that fails on almost every level, from its miscast lead to its historical inaccuracies. It's a film that should serve as a reminder of the dangers of oversimplifying history and the importance of staying true to the facts. So, the next time someone tries to tell you that Hollywood always gets it right, just point them to "Revolution" and watch them squirm.