Arguably the worst Al Pacino film that you will ever see.......other than the picture and level of detail to the period this film was set in I can honestly say that I have never seen such a disjointed film in all my life.

I watched this movie 5 times and still could not understand why all the negative reviews. Yes, the movie was not as lustrous as the modern day versions, but it was a great attempt at historical reality. Ok, the viewers had to work a little overtime to follow the script, but all in all, it was a story that captures pain and embraces all the glory of what we call, Revolution.

Certainly not the best film on the subject, lacking genuine pathos (everything feels overly melodramatic and contrived), and somewhat clumsy in its defense of idealistic values (the enthusiasm for the idea of building a new homeland or promised land). The pacing is not always clear (constantly shifting scenarios, a narrative lacking in strength). On the positive side, the British production can be seen as a somewhat pedantic attempt to reconstruct a crucial historical period with attention to historical dynamics (alliances, troop movements, and the inevitable sadism of war looming in the background). Not everything is to be discarded, though. However, Pacino's involvement seems purely a paycheck role and is certainly not one of his most memorable performances. For fans of historical adventure, though, it remains a viewing option worth considering.

On the one hand I can see why it was not well received (certain key roles are miscast, the movie is often frustratingly vague regarding its plot/themes) on the other I cannot bring myself to entirely dismiss the movie as the unromantic and gritty view of the American Revolution is entirely unique and the scope of the production remains impressive. Also, the Director's Cut is worth checking out. Perhaps the only time a movie was improved by adding voice over narration several years after its release.

wofully inept script sinks what should have been great.

It's a great surreal movie! I can not comprehend the absurd 10 out of 100 rating??? This movie blows away Gibsons The Patriot,,, A fake Hollywood try and feel good movie, vs this wonderful picture!!!

Remake this well filmed drivel. Take out the voice overs and replace them with music whilst cutting those scenes to increase the pace of the movie. Take 30mins out of the film. Or keep it as it it is with. Both Al Pacino and Donald Sutherland are terrible in this poor film where it all comes down to a terrible script and the director not getting hold of the story. The Pacino wandering accent and voice overs must in the worst of film history (Russell Crowe Robin Hood another) Pacino is lucky to have a film career after this dead donkey. DOP good but the direction and editing make it cumbersome to the pace of a terrible story. Worth watching for film study.

On the one hand I can see why it was not well received (certain key roles are miscast, the movie is often frustratingly vague regarding its plot/themes) on the other I cannot bring myself to entirely dismiss the movie as the unromantic and gritty view of the American Revolution is entirely unique and the scope of the production remains impressive. Also, the Director's Cut is worth checking out. Perhaps the only time a movie was improved by adding voice over narration several years after its release.

Too long and boring. Kinsky is miscasted. Sutherland seems to be asking himself "what am I doing here?". A question, please, regarding the most important issue in this film: who is Mr. Pacino's hairdresser? Let me tell you: don't waste your time with it, go to a museum instead !

There isn't much to hate but there isn't much to like either.

Staggeringly dull 'epic' about the American revolution. There is nothing positive I can say about this film, terrible script, terrible accents, terrible film.

Terrible film, Was so slow and boring I really struggled to get through it.

The film deserves praise for refusing to put the American Revolution on a simplistic moral pedestal. In fact, Hudson's vision is surprisingly grim -- a refreshing break from most pictures broaching this subject. What drags the film down is the convoluted and essentially unnecessary romance between Dobb (Pacino) and Daisy (Kinski).

Fur trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) unwillingly participates in the American Revolutionary War after his son Ned is drafted into the Army. Later, his son is captured by the British, and taken by the strict Sergeant Major Peasy (Donald Sutherland). Dobb attempts to find him, and along the way, becomes convinced that he must help fight for the freedom of the Colonies, alongside the disgraced & idealistic aristocrat Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski). Hugh Hudson´s British historical drama "Revolution" has been on my to see list for years. I do remember however that it was seen as a flop back then, but you need to see it to believe it. "Revolution" cost $28 million to make, and as said proved to be a box-office disaster, only grossing $346,761 in the United States. The film was also a critical letdown, with many criticising the performances (especially the accents), writing, and choice to shoot a story of American history in England. The film was on its release the biggest and most expensive box-office disaster in British film history and was almost single-handedly responsible for a decade-long financial crisis in the industry after the massive losses scared off city financing for British films for years to come. And it was Al Pacino's final film for four years until Sea of Love (1989). Reportedly, Pacino took the hiatus due to the big flop the film was. I am intrigued by the American Revolution and that period in America, but when doing a historical piece of film you still need a story that doesn´t drown in all the costumes, environments, lavish battle scenes etc. In "Revolution" the plot is not coherent, interesting or satisfying for that matter. The storyline is just wishy washy and all over the place, there´s no proper character development, many scenes feel haphazard and it never grabs you emotionally. Pacino is nowhere near his best while Nastassja Kinski tries to engage herself in her character, but she leaves you blank and not caring about Daisy whatsoever. And Sutherland goes "over the top" in his attempt of method acting. I reckon Hudson wasn´t sure what he was aiming at, an epic dramatic war film or a costume drama. It became neither.

While the story is a little unbalanced, mainly due to some choppy editing and shifts, and the love story is a tad simplistic, 'Revolution' overcomes that thanks to the handheld cinematography (a new concept back in the 80s before every action director aped it) which gives the film a quasi-documentary aesthetic, very much fitting the film's main idea; telling the story of the revolution from the perspective of an ordinary man, and foregoing a lot of the pomp this genre tends to have. Add that to a fine roster of performances, Pacino once again reminding us why he is one of the great actors of his generation (and his psuedo cockney-bronx accent actually fits, considering A) this was before the states really established their own identities and B) New York is shown as a mix of people and cultures, so it doesn't feel out of place), solid production values that really make Southern England look like Colonial America, and a grand orchestral score by John Corigiliano that mixes of the pomp of Williams/Vangelis with the more moving elements of a Horner/Goldsmith piece.

Overly-cynical story of the Revolutionary War through a poor, illiterate trapper's perspective. The cynicism, directed mostly at Continental supporters, rich & poor, likely derives from the lingering resentment against the American government following Vietnam and the treatment of U.S. soldiers thereafter. However, the movie is all over the place with a roaming plot that doesn't seem to know where it's going or why. Pacino seems to be doing his best with the material, but the performance is disjointed and off-putting. It's probably that weird accent & dialogue he uses, like it's supposed to sound rustic, but instead sounds like it was written for a sci-fi alien movie. I watched the "Revisited" version, which includes added narration by Pacino, so I don't know what the movie was like without it. I imagine much, much worse with lingering shots of dopey looks on Pacino's face. I would guess the narration gives added depth to Pacino's character, how he gets swept into one thing and another, and why he makes some of the choices he makes.

This would be a fine feature if it wasn't for the odd casting of Al Pacino...He seems totally out of place and his narration really drags the picture making it feel longer than it should be.

It's a historical re-enactment, devoid of any emotion or life. It's so unconvincing that I felt if I turned away from the screen I could see cars, hot dog stands, and throngs of tourists taking snapshots of the whole thing.

Proof if proof were needed that if you rush a film out before its finished the critics will kill it stone dead and both director and actor will come away cheated out of a halway descent movie. Fortunatley for us director Hugh Hudson and Al Pacino got the film back recut it and despite the flaws the new version is pretty good and deserves a second chance. Pacino is good here as Tom Dobb a fur trapper who is drawn into the War of Independance in 1776. Bioth he and his son Ned end up fighting the British and are subject to all kind of torments along the way as the United States of America endure a painful birth. The film does fall a little flat in places and the love interest between Dobb and Daisy McConnahay played by Nastassja Kinski never really engages leaving it intert amongst all the sweeping action shots. That said Hudson should be given credit for shooting those battle sequences using hand held camera which was rare in 1985 but is now the norm. And as for Pacinos accent? Well as Hudson points out America at that time was made up of many cultures and that gave a huge melting pot where accents could be wide and varied. So there you go the critics got it wrong and now i would say its one of Hudsons better films and not the dog its been painted as by American critics at that time.

After having success with Chariots of Fire (1981) and Greystoke - The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (1984), Hugh Hudson was touted to be the next David Lean, but when he went for this epic depicting the American War of Independence, it was plagued by production problems, which left the film confused and half-baked, not helped when producers Goldcrest wanted it out for Christmas 1985. It killed them, but it's not as bad as what the critics make out, it does have it's moments. In 1776, New York fur trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) and his son Ned (Sid Owen) end up getting enrolled in the American army to fight the British, whose grip on the American empire is weakening, and America has signed the declaration of independence. Tom meets Daisy McConnahay (Nastassja Kinski), whose parents (David King and Joan Plowright) still remain loyal to the British monarchy. But, Tom finds himself being taunted by the British, and when his son is taken away by Sgt. Maj. Peasy (Donald Sutherland), he goes to rescue him and ends up with the Indians who end up on his side, also wanting rid of the British. True, it's not a perfect film, Pacino and Sutherland's accents are laughable, Richard O'Brien appears, thinking he's in a pantomime. But, Hugh Hudson has a good eye for visuals, and it's good that he turned King's Lynn into New York, and the battle sequences are well done as well. It's just a shame Goldcrest ruined it for him, a little more time could have made this a true masterpiece.