it has everything like the old Hollywood epics. Action, comedy, romance, intrigue etc. and luckily it was made before the time of heavy cg, crap camera work and so called gritty filmmaking which ends up being cold and humourless
shareYou're right. They had a handful of very good scenes but I personally didn't watch this movie until yesterday and my opinion is... Mel Gibson's movies are not my cup of tea. Shame on me for having excentric tastes.
shareGibson makes a habit of being in films that are totally, historically inaccurate. He really hates the English doesn't he?
Time flies like the wind - and fruit flies like bananas!
Ms Knockers
totally, historically inaccurate
He really hates the English doesn't he?
Whatever - Braveheart (to most people who have a fairly good film sense) was a total and utter piece of garbage! Bloody hell Neeson's Rob Roy was better than this turgid nonsense! And Rob Roy was bad!
By the way rosslynglen you sir are a McPrat!
Time flies like the wind - and fruit flies like bananas!
Knockers
Never mind the Knockers ...knockers
Whatever
people who have a fairly good film sense)
LOL at your statement "to most people who have a fairly good film sense". Who determines who has good film sense?
Opinions are opinions.
IMO this is the greatest movie of all time. It's such an inspirational film.
Why can't people just accept that this movie is beloved by so many? It didn't win Best Picture for no reason.
IMO this is the greatest movie of all time. It's such an inspirational film.
It is good to have such modest expectations.
Time flies like the wind - and fruit flies like bananas!
IMO this is the greatest movie of all time. It's such an inspirational film.
It is good to have such modest expectations.
IMO this is the greatest movie of all time. It's such an inspirational film.
It is good to have such modest expectations. This way one is seldom disappointed.
Winning an Oscar for best picture doesn't necessarily mean it is the best picture. I'm thinking of Forrest Gump winning over The Shawshank Redemption!
Then again ... horses for courses - you probably feel Forrest Gump is one of the greatest films ever made too and that would be your prerogative.
Time flies like the wind - and fruit flies like bananas!
Or Moonlight winning over anything else.
shareThe movie made Wallace world famous and heightened Scottish tourism. Plus bugger all is really known about Wallace anyway for sure
shareMaybe not "totally historically inaccurate" but yeah... Braveheart had indeed its fait share of inaccuracies.
shareEASILY.
shareI liked it. Who cares if his movies are totally inaccurate. So is most of history.
shareI agree it's similar to epics like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia, sweeping grand master classic films.
share"I agree it's similar to epics like Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia, sweeping grand master classic films."
Hmmm... I didn't see Lawrence of Arabia yet, but from what I heard it is not on the same level as Braveheart. It is a classic of cinema while Braveheart doesn't have nor probably will never have the same cult.
As for Ben Hur, no way we are a the same level here. Ben Hur was a cinematic challenge to shoot back in the days. The race is still today as one of the most difficult and dangerous scene ever filmed. By the time Baveheart came out, there was already a lot of impressive movies. Without neglecting Gibson's effort to direct all those epic battles and to all the technical team behind that made all the amazing costumes, composed this wonderful music and the production designers who absolutely nailed the sets. This been said, it wasn't as impressive as Ben Hur.
So it sounds to me exaggerated as statement.
The films are similar in that they are:
Epic
Grand
Classic
Sweeping masterpiece
Whether the plot, themes, aesthetic, or mood is the same isn't the point. And whether a film was more difficult to make or not doesn't exclude it from being an epic film or a classic. Apocalypto is another and yes it was very difficult to make but if Americans dislike such films it is due to their innate preconceived bias, not due to the film's worth. Also whether a film is accurate or not doesn't preclude it from being a sweeping masterpiece. Watch older Hollywood films, the grand or action types of their era and you will realize that.
This is a highly praised movie and it is a great movie, I just didn't like it. I found the acting weak for a best picture winner and the historical inaccuracies bothered me for some reason (and I've movies way worse historically wise and enjoyed them).
I found the passing somehow boring, long and lame. Even the dialogues seemed useless sometimes. I don't like the way they showed William Wallace as a barbarian while he was actually a honorable warrior. And the said romance is so "cheesy" and seemed totally out of place.
Maybe I'll give the movie a second watch just to see if I missed something. But for now it makes my personnal list of best picture winners that I question myself if they really deserved it? A lot of people put Rocky, Shakespeare in Love and American Beauty in that category, and see, I disagree. While I personnaly put Gladiator and Titanic in that category as well, a lot of people disagree. It is subjective.
Mel Gibson is the greatest actor of this generation. His direction is also better than his opponents.
share