I saw this movie when it was first released and, despite, the appalling historical distortions and artistic "interpretations", enjoyed it. There is no doubt that film's success and popularity came, almost entirely, from the outstanding performance by George C Scott: he was, and is, the movie. Without Scott, 'Patton' would have been just another war movie - and not a very good one at that. From an historical point of view, the movie treated Patton very favorably indeed, not surprising since the screenplay came largely from Ladislas Farrago's hagiography "Patton, Ordeal & Triumph" which almost deifies Patton - later histories and biographies are more honest, more accurate and reveal the seamier side of the Patton story including the fact that he was far from the gifted general that the movie would have one believe. Regretfully, Scott was unable to reprise his triumphal portrayal in "Patton" when he, unwisely, made "The Last Days of Patton" in 1986 - in some ways that disaster detracts from his original performance. "Patton" hasn't aged well. Thirty-five years down the track the use of the Spanish Army (and its equipment) as extras, poor continuity and patriotic hyperbole - which, no doubt, was stirring in 1970 when the US military was getting an ignoble beating in Vietnam - now grate, severely, on the viewer's nerves. Nevertheless, the movie is still worth watching for, what is probably, George C Scotts greatest movie role.
