Braveheart

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

Details?

The whole intro principle that the King of Scotland was dead. False.
Long-standing Scottish opression under Longshanks. False.
No Scot during the 13th century wore kilts (they also didn't fight battles in woad dress).
The Battle of Stirling Bridge took place at *gasp* a bridge, and played an important role in the battle.
Wallace's father wasn't a farmer, but a knight who owned lands. His brothers also were knights who owned lands and outlived Wallace.
Wallace never met Isabelle, let alone get her pregnant.
Primae noctis was never used.

I could create a list quite long, but it would take to long to do it.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

err no.

Its pretty accurate.. Its at least as accurate as "History of the World" (all parts), and Inglorious Basterds.

I'm going to assume you're joking as if not, then :laugh: at using those movies to compare Gibson's historical accuracy. You're right, but I don't think anyone with a brain went into those expecting great accuracy. Gibson doesn't give a shit about historical accuracy and has proven it multiple times. He likes to pretend he does and half-asses it which convinces most people that he does.

I know I'm probably the only one, but I think Braveheart wasn't just meh, it straight up sucked. Its the one movie I have never been able to figure out what people liked about it. Its not even the historical accuracy, I just think it was terrible. I watched the whole thing once and just hated it. After hearing other people say how good it was over and over, I've tried watching parts of it but can't get further than 5 minutes without just giving up.

 

[Homerboy]

It was head and shoulders above the rest 14 years ago. Not today. That's the point.

 

[Homerboy]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

And so what? I don't recall them ever marketing it as a history lesson did they? I HATE when people complain about movies based on historic people/places/events complain about historical accuracy. If I want history I will open an encyclopedia or visit my local library or watch PBS.

 

[thegimp03]

Hmm, I'm going to have to pick this up this weekend and watch it again. I haven't watched the Blu-Ray version and definitely haven't seen the whole, unedited movie in years.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Homerboy

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

And so what? I don't recall them ever marketing it as a history lesson did they? I HATE when people complain about movies based on historic people/places/events complain about historical accuracy. If I want history I will open an encyclopedia or visit my local library or watch PBS.

He specifically mentioned history as a reason for enjoying it, and I responded based on that, dipshit. I actually enjoyed the movie.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

When I say atrociously, I mean they didn't even place the Battle of Sterling Bridge in the right location, get the clothing the least bit right, introduced scenarios that never came close to happening (Wallace got Isabelle pregnant...how about they never met), and so on.

It was an enjoyable movie, but it is not a re-enactment of true history.

I'm also about 1/4 Sioux and 1/8 Cheyenne. I LOVE watching movies about the Battle of Little Big Horn...Again, it's an event from history, but is rarely portrayed accurately...

Hell, I liked Dances With Wolves...but there's not much historical accuracy there either.

Same with many of the movies about the attack on Pearl Harbor. There's usually way too much "artistic license" taken to maintain total historical accuracy, especially when dealing with the Japanese side of the attack, but the main event is indeed part of history, and in spite of any historical inaccuracies or embelishments, I USUALLY enjoy watching them. (even the Ben Afflec love story version...the CGI in that is fabulous)

 

[Dumac]

Braveheart irked me in a lot of ways...

It was too over the top. Also, why did they take such a great story (the story of William Wallace), and add so many fabricated parts? I mean sure, historians don't know everything about Wallace, but the things they added definitely couldn't have happened.

Also, why was everyone wearing kilts, and wearing them so weirdly?

And where where Stirling Bridge in the battle of Stirling BRIDGE?

Why did they for some reason replace the Queen from Blind Harry's The Wallace with Isabelle, both of which are doubted to have every met Wallace.

Why did they include primae noctis, an act speculated to never actually being imposed by any king, much less King Edward?

There are an endless count of little details that bugged me. But what bugged me more is that all the little added events they frabricated just caused the movie to be longer, duller, and have pacing issues. If they cut the story leaner and stuck to somewhere at least close to what contemporary historians think, the movie probably would have came out better, as both a film and a honor to history.

EDIT:

Also, why is the movie called Braveheart? That was a nickname for Bruce, and caused stupid shit like this to be made.

The statue isn't even a subtle allusion to the movie, and disgraced Wallace's memorial while it was there.

 

[dennilfloss]

A lot of the movie (and also that turd The Patriot) suggests to me that Gibson hates the English enough to fabricate historical facts just to portray them in a bad light.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Homerboy
And so what? I don't recall them ever marketing it as a history lesson did they? I HATE when people complain about movies based on historic people/places/events complain about historical accuracy. If I want history I will open an encyclopedia or visit my local library or watch PBS.

If you aren't going to stay accurate to your source, why create a film that is an homage to past events?

If you don't care about what actually happened, create your own original story and characters. The only reason not to is if *gasp* you lack creativity and have to use a base cultural canvas from which you can draw ideas from.

If you are going to make a film about history, at least try to be accurate (unless you are putting an artistic spin on it). If you don't feel like being accurate, then come up with your own damn ideas, setting, and plot. Don't half ass in between.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: bigrash

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

Gladiator was 50 times better.

Holy hell you have to be shitting me, the story was not real, the actors acted as if they were going through a highschool initiation and the fucking story as a made up story simply fucking sucked. They had to make large jumps to ensure it wouldn't get as boring as it got anyway.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

From a previous post:

Magnolia
goodfellas
full metal jacket
there will be blood
2001

You have to be fucking shitting me...

FMJ was so fucking stupid that vietnam vets rose from the grave to give the director the finger.

 

[TheSlamma]

It was a good movie.. for the year it came out the only other thing that was out was Babe. It's not accurate on the life of William Wallace though that's for sure.

I know it always gets compared with Gladiator and I have no idea why, Gladiator was a decent movie IMO but I see nothing that makes these two need comparison.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oh, and there are a lot of better movies out there than Braveheart.

Pulp Fiction
Shawshank Redemption
American History X
Fight Club
V for Vendetta
Band of Brothers
Schindlers list
The longest day
Das Boot


And so on and so forth.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Locut0s

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

From a previous post:

Magnolia
goodfellas
full metal jacket
there will be blood
2001

You have to be fucking shitting me...

FMJ was so fucking stupid that vietnam vets rose from the grave to give the director the finger.

The only good part of that movie was the first half. The second half (Vietnam) sucked.

 

[CPA]

OP, you are the biggest fail ever. Braveheart is one of the greatest movies ever made.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: bigrash

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

Gladiator was 50 times better.

The stupid little boy ruined most of that movie. At least they could have found a 12 year old who could actually act.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Braveheart is one of my all time favorites. It's a great story of courage and honor. The acting is superb, Patrick McGoohan (Longshanks), Angus Macfadyen (Robert the Bruce), both gave powerful performances one as an evil man and one who is saved from losing his humanity (from becoming evil) by meeting William Wallace. I love the scene where he and Wallace are arguing and Wallace offers him his hand to unite the clans and fight against the English.

And let us not forget the direction, the cinematography. Braveheart is glorious, beautiful to look at. The slow motion pictures of horses preparing to charge armed combatants, the entire landscape of Scotland that Mel Gibson captures with the camera. The soundtrack is also fantastic. Yes there is violence in this film but that violence does serve a point...that freedom isn't free and sometimes it takes death, gruesome and horrible, to let ones people taste what it is like to be free.

Also, to anyone who hasn't seen Goodfellas. Watch it, you won't be disappointed. It is one of the all time great gangster flicks.

Patrick McGoohan gave one of the best movie performances I have ever seen. He made the movie more than Gibson did.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

Who effin cares? I didn't watch it to get a biography on William Wallace, I watched it to be entertained. Didn't you?

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Locut0s
I just finished watching it for the first time. Yes I know I fail for waiting 14 years to see it. I remember at the time looking at the trailers and reading a bit about the movie and wondering what the heck all the fuss was about. Now that I've seen it I can only say WHAT THE FUCK WAS ALL THE FUSS ABOUT!?!?! How the hell does a movie like that walk away with 5 Oscars!? Let alone best director and best picture? I mean it was okay in places, I suppose as a period piece it replicates the feel of the time well enough, the scenery was beautiful and you can tell a lot of $$$ went into it but that's about where my praise ends and even that's stretching things.

Double up on your psycho meds did ya?

I've seen Braveheart several times. Very well made, for the most part, well scripted and well acted. Is it "The best movie of all time?" No, but it's enjoyable to watch some of Scotland's history being re-enacted and wondering where the hell my ancestors were during this...and what part they may have played.

The history in that movie is atrociously inaccurate.

Who effin cares? I didn't watch it to get a biography on William Wallace, I watched it to be entertained. Didn't you?

*sigh* I like you, please don't make me call you a dipshit like the others who didn't catch that I was responding specifically to the comment made about history.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Patt
How has there been so many replies already without referencing how blazingly hot William Wallace's love interest in the movie is? Murron? Well, the first love interest. I love the movie, and I don't generally get all goofy over actresses,. but Catherine McCormack did it for me ... hell, she still does

She is hot. I still think she's hot even though she's in her late 30s now.

Uhh, I don't think she's hot at all...

Originally posted by: BoomerD
The only good part of that movie was the first half. The second half (Vietnam) sucked.

Yea, when Ermy got shot, TV gets turned off.

 

[Kanalua]

Originally posted by: bigrash

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

Gladiator was 50 times better.

Flamebait thread and/or you just lost all credibility in judging movies.

Braveheart was a masterpiece. Most movie goers today are disabled by Michael Bay/Transformers explosions and big boobs or George Lucas' crappy story telling of late.

Like they said in South Park, "Say what you want about Mel Gibson but the son of a b*tch knows story structure."

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Oh, and there are a lot of better movies out there than Braveheart.

Pulp Fiction
Shawshank Redemption
American History X
Fight Club
V for Vendetta
Band of Brothers
Schindlers list
The longest day
Das Boot


And so on and so forth.

v for vendetta was meh and doesnt compare to the other selections on your list. american history x isnt something id normally put on a list of "really good movies" but it wasnt bad, been a while since ive seen it.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bigrash

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
What are good movies then?

Gladiator was 50 times better.

Holy hell you have to be shitting me, the story was not real, the actors acted as if they were going through a highschool initiation and the fucking story as a made up story simply fucking sucked. They had to make large jumps to ensure it wouldn't get as boring as it got anyway.

yep. some fight scenes were ok. mostly after the opening battle, however, i lose interest in the movie.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Oh, and there are a lot of better movies out there than Braveheart.

Pulp Fiction
Shawshank Redemption
American History X
Fight Club
V for Vendetta
Band of Brothers
Schindlers list
The longest day
Das Boot


And so on and so forth.

v for vendetta was meh and doesnt compare to the other selections on your list. american history x isnt something id normally put on a list of "really good movies" but it wasnt bad, been a while since ive seen it.

I think V for Vendetta made a lot more sense to me than to most people, that is why i can relate to it and understand some of the things that are happening that are not purely political but a struggle.

American History X is very spot on, if you have ever been homeless in Venice.