MovieChat Forums > Braveheart (1995) Discussion > What did this and Gladiator have

What did this and Gladiator have


that Troy, Alexander, King Arthur, Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood and Exodus: Gods and Kings all lacked?

The only (sort of) historical epic that was a success after the year 2000 was 300, and that by sticking to a fairly similar story to Braveheart's.

reply

I've not seen all of those but I thought King Arthur was actually quite good. Troy and especially Alexander (and Kingdom of Heaven) were over-blown productions that didn't seem to know what kind of film they were supposed to be.

reply

Braveheart and Gladiator have grittiness. Troy, and others seem so polished and "clean" that make them feel unreal / fake.

That and having important​ story to tell, instead of just wandering around selling pretty faces and vistas while telling nothing.

reply

This.

Also Braveheart and Gladiator have tragic heroes who are ready to face death, and willing to die for a cause that the average person can really get behind, especially Braveheart.

It's ironic because most times movies glamorize or beef up the violence to make the films more appealing, but Braveheart actually did the opposite!!!

If they included Wallace's actual death it would have been hit with an 'X' rating and most people would have left the theater after vomiting everywhere. But I digress.

Troy and the others were -- as you mentioned -- very surreal and movie-like. You knew you were watching a movie, and the characters all had movie-like outcomes. The only time Troy felt grounded was the battle between Hector and Achilles. I was all-in rooting for Hector because he was fighting on behalf of someone else and was willing to die honorably in doing so.

There really wasn't any other part of Troy or Kingdom of Heaven (other the early sequence where Liam Neeson's badass gang gets unduly taken out) that were gripping or worth remembering, and the characters weren't willing fighting for anything the average person could get behind.

reply

agreed, well put

reply

The Director's Cut of King Arthur and Kingdom of Heaven have just as much depth as the beforementioned.

reply

I second that.

reply

Are we talking about the 2004 King Arthur or King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)? Never saw the ‘04 version due to negative feedback but if the directors cut is worth watching I’ll check that out. I thought Kingdom Of Heaven was dogshiz until I saw the directors cut about a year ago. The directors cut was a great epic, even with Orlando Bloom’s wooden acting.

reply

2004. I never saw Guy Richie's film but I did see clips on Youtube and it looks like a Guy Richie film

reply

I wasn't too fond of Gladiator, myself. I think Braveheart is good as fiction. What Braveheart has, though, which none of the others can boast: a complete lack of CGI. Yes, you can do amazing things with CGI these days, but it is devoid of movie magic. The vast armies shown in Troy or Alexander fail to impress, because you know it's all digital and you can do anything with computers. It's not necessarily something people think of consciously, but it will register on a subconscious level. A dangerous and REAL stunt will keep people on the edge of their seats, even though they know it turned out alright (or it wouldn't have made it into the movie). But the danger element still appeals. With CGI, there is no danger element. No actual presence. The armies in Troy are bigger than the ones in Spartacus, but the ones in Spartacus feel bigger, because they are made out of real people and the brain picks up on that.

reply

Braveheart and Gladiator both have Protagonists with a simple motivation: revenge.
It´s easy to connect and feel for people who lose the ones they love because we all have people we love.
Also the fight scenes aren´t CGI heavy. The big fight in Braveheart is just so awesome, all done practical, and much more brutal than any of the newer movies.
Where i come from Braveheart has an age restriction of 16, Troy, King Arthur, etc. of 12.
Like another user mentioned, the CGI and lack of brutality makes those movies feel too clean.
Although i personally like Troy a lot.

reply

Braveheart and Gladiator had charismatic leading characters you could root for with a memorable supporting cast too, both movies had a far superior screenplay to the other movies listed.

The other films listed are good in parts but fail largely due to screenplay and casting choices, compared to Braveheart and Gladiator.

I have to say Alexander has the best soundtrack of the movies listed though, but Braveheart and Gladiator are almost as good with this too!

reply

I was just about to mention the soundtracks of Braveheart and Gladiator. I've seen Alexander a few times but I can't remember what the soundtrack was like. I can hum the scores to both Braveheart and Gladiator and it's been years since I've seen them.

They're better in every aspect compared to the other movies mentioned, but I do like Troy, King Arthur and Kingdom Of Heaven too, like you said they're good in parts.

reply

I own all three soundtracks, Alexander is the best Vangelis has done since Blade Runner in my opinion. 😉

reply

They had heart. Passion. And really bolted down tight screenplays. Well drawn characters with strong motivations working together like cogs in a gear like any Shakespearean tragedy.

reply

^^This. They had heart. Loads of heart and two phenomenal leading men you were totally rooting for.

Troy was summer blockbuster fluff. It was fun at times. But it was fluff all the way. king Arthur was just okay, nothing great, but not terrible either.

The others sucked

reply

both are examples of what every filmmaker strives for where 'the magic' happens and everything comes together to create a timeless bone fide film classic.

the rest are like rip offs of those 2 (in fact Gladiator istself mustve been partly inspired by the success of Braveheart) - the RScott follow ups are like his attempts to redo Gladiator (esp Robin Hood) but Gladiator is up there with Alien and Blade Runner in terms of movie classics. his others are like 'B' movies in comparison (still amazing Ridley visuals etc but that 'magic' wasnt there to create the classic). 2004s Troy & King Arthur & Alexander were a deliberate attempt to 'do a Gladiator' like the way the Whedon JL tried to 'do an Avengers'

reply

It’d be nice to see more movies like Gladiator and Bravehart coming out nowadays.

reply