I don't have Patton on Blu-Ray yet, nor do I have a film projector and a Patton film reel, so I can't comment on the integrity of the Blu-Ray transfer, but I'll say this...
The argument that Blu-Ray is supposed to "reproduce the look of cinema in home theater" is an unfair way of looking at it. If that was the case, should Blu-Ray movies simulate dust specks on the film and that big black dot that tells the projectionist to switch reels? Obviously not. Maybe that's a bit of an extreme analogy but it illustrates my point: as much as home entertainment technology is supposed to bring the splendors of cinema to your living room, "more like cinema" does not necessarily mean "better".
Most of the time, film grain is a product of technological limitation of film. There are some exceptions, but other than that, to say that Blu-Ray should stay faithful to cinema by limiting DNR would contradict the sole purpose of Blu-Ray, which is to overcome previous technological limitations.
I think Blu-Ray movies should find an equilibrium between "reproducing the look of cinema" and "overcoming the limitations of cinema". The extreme of the former would be to simulate dust specs and "cigarette burns" that you would see in a cinema, and the extreme of the latter would be adding color and sound to Charlie Chaplin. Eliminating film grain, however, is completely reasonable and these videoholic elitists need to lighten the **** up.
I don't know enough to judge whether Patton strays too far from this equilibrium, but I just think it's ridiculous to say that every Blu-Ray should adhere to that "The film has already been made. The job is to reproduce it." Posting a pic of the Mona Lisa with DNR is complete ********.