:: rogerebert.com :: Great Movies :: Patton (xhtml):
"Franklin J. Schaffner's 'Patton' (1970), released at the height of the unpopular war in Vietnam, was described by many reviewers at the time as 'really' an anti-war film. It was nothing of the kind. It was a hard-line glorification of the military ethic, personified by a man whose flaws and eccentricities marginalized him in peacetime, but found the ideal theater in battle."

This is one of my favorite films and one of the best ever. I think Mr. Ebert is missing the thrust of this movie though. To my eyes, this is a sober, clear-eyed assessment of a madman who found his unique brand of madness most useful on the battlefield. What does that say about warfare then? Does that glorify it? Not logically. That means that war is MADNESS, hence ANTI-war. And you don't need to make an anti-war film by shoving your "message" down the throats of viewers a la Spielberg or Stone. I didn't find anything glorified in this picture. I understood that PATTON glorified war and warriors. But as we all could see he was INSANE! So what does that say about his glorification? It always surprises me to read reviews about this film that declare it as pro-war, pro-military, pro-ANYTHING. And maybe Coppola and Schaffner did intend it that way although I can't imagine why. I think they simply wanted to show Patton in all his madness and self-anointed glory and let the viewers decide if that was enough.