DVD Talk
Braveheart [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Braveheart


Osiris3657
02-18-12, 08:09 PM
Braveheart is airing on AMC right now, so I thought I'd see what the general consensus is on DVDTalk. This is one of my favorite films, love it. Gibson is iconic as William Wallace, the score is one of the best I've ever heard, the action is awesome. Well directed by Mel too. An emotionally investing film. I rarely show emotion while watching a film, but some of the scenes that really tug at the heartstrings are when Mel's future wife gives young Wallace a flower at his father's funeral, the "freedom" scene, and the end speech by Robert the Bruce (you've bled with Wallace, now bleed with me).
Angus McFayden was really good as Robert the Bruce and Patrick McGoohan was legendary as Longshanks.

What do you all think about it?

PopcornTreeCt
02-18-12, 08:45 PM
I voted good not great. It's been awhile since I've seen it but I remember the closeted gay character being absurd. Mel Gibson is decent but his hair is ridiculous. I applaud the film for bringing about the trend for "epic" movies. It doesn't work for me as a smart or moving picture and the action scenes don't work for me either.

TGM
02-18-12, 08:54 PM
fantastic movie.

starman9000
02-18-12, 08:55 PM
Voted I love it, but I don't know that I could ever sit through it again. I watched this so many times on VHS, but don't think I've ever watched the DVD I picked up just because I "love it".

whoopdido
02-18-12, 10:30 PM
I voted good not great. It's been awhile since I've seen it but I remember the closeted gay character being absurd. Mel Gibson is decent but his hair is ridiculous. I applaud the film for bringing about the trend for "epic" movies. It doesn't work for me as a smart or moving picture and the action scenes don't work for me either.

Your problems with the movie are Mel Gibson's hair and the gay prince who's in the movie for all of about 2 minutes?

And by the way, it's long been rumored that Edward II was, in fact, gay so the movie didn't necessarily make that up.

JumpCutz
02-18-12, 10:33 PM
I applaud the film for bringing about the trend for "epic" movies.

Except for the fact that it didn't bring about the trend for "epic" movies. :shrug:

PopcornTreeCt
02-18-12, 11:34 PM
Your problems with the movie are Mel Gibson's hair and the gay prince who's in the movie for all of about 2 minutes?

And by the way, it's long been rumored that Edward II was, in fact, gay so the movie didn't necessarily make that up.

No those were the biggest flaws off the top of my head. I'm not upset with whether he was gay or not, it was the portrayal of him that was ridiculous.

The movie just hasn't held up for me.

Pizza the Hutt
02-19-12, 12:57 AM
"...Yer doin it for Murron! You're doin it cause ya think she sees ya!"

"I don't think she sees me... I know it."

Yeah, guess he was hoping she'd turn a blind eye while he fucked a french broad he knew for mere moments. Good movie but ridiculously overrated. The battle scenes and score are what shine here. Otherwise it's typical mamby-pamby Hollywood fabrication. I wish Ridley Scott never saw this movie.

davidh777
02-19-12, 01:06 AM
Love it. Haven't sat through the whole thing in a long time but I revisit certain scenes every now and then.

Burnt Thru
02-19-12, 04:07 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ybQCNb4AuW4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is pretty funny - need to watch the second part too. All about what William Wallace if things from the movie really were true.

Enjoy the film though, it's very good "brain off" fare.

Jaymole
02-19-12, 05:04 AM
I really was disappointed in Braveheart when i saw it years ago. Maybe i should watch it again, but I think it's flaws (overly simplistic characters and way too historically inaccurate) will still make me dislike the film. Too me, it's a film that really tries to make history and characters simplified and easy to digest for the masses...and I guess it succeeded.

Trout
02-19-12, 08:03 AM
It's not a bad film, but take out the violence in the battle scenes and this move wouldn't be as popular as it is.

Michael Corvin
02-19-12, 08:28 AM
My favorite movie, you can guess which option I voted. :)

The cast is what makes the whole thing shine. There isn't a weak link in the whole movie.

wishbone
02-19-12, 08:58 AM
This might have been one of the first movies and its historical (in)accuracy that I read about when I got internet connectivity in '96. It certainly opened my eyes to changes large and small in adapting history, novels, etc., to the big screen.The battle scenes and score are what shine here.I think a big contributor to Braveheart's success lies in James Horner's moving score.

http://i42.tinypic.com/347z0o1.jpg&nbsp;http://i44.tinypic.com/rh1mrc.jpg

And let's not forget that Braveheart introduced most of us to Catherine McCormack and Sophie Marceau. ;)

dhmac
02-19-12, 10:09 AM
While I give the film its due for making Scottish hero William Wallace well-known to the world, I think the movie is a missed opportunity. The overly simplistic dramatizations in it just don't work for me and the historical inaccuracies are irritating when they are done for no good reason (for example, completely leaving the bridge out of the Battle of Stirling Bridge makes no sense whatsoever).

I think Mel Gibson made this as if he was making a film about a fictional character like Robin Hood instead of a real historic person, such as William Wallace, where the real stories are so much better than the stuff Mel Gibson and his screenwriters made up.


(P.S. It's the same view I have of James Cameron's Titanic, where the real stories of the actual people on the ship are so much more interesting than the made-up story of Jack and Rose.)

Solid Snake
02-19-12, 10:16 AM
It's heavily overrated. I do enjoy it though. It's no Kingdom of Heaven on the epic front but very nice to look at and listen to though.

like dhmac said: It's overly simplistic. And the inaccuracies are irritating too. Here's an interesting nitpicking thing...the lack of continuity of some things in battles always weirded me out.

Burnt Thru
02-19-12, 11:08 AM
The overly simplistic dramatizations in it just don't work for me and the historical inaccuracies are irritating when they are done for no good reason (for example, completely leaving the bridge out of the Battle of Stirling Bridge makes no sense whatsoever).
Well it doesn't seem like such a heroic victory when you learn that the English were basically ambushed on a bridge and were hence unable to fight. Clever perhaps (though thought very badly of at the time) but not really the stuff of heros of the type Gibson was going for with this film. Likewise Wallace's penchant for wearing a swordbelt made from human skin - might have given the film a bit of a Silence of the Lambs kind of feel to it!

Supermallet
02-19-12, 11:35 AM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ybQCNb4AuW4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is pretty funny - need to watch the second part too. All about what William Wallace if things from the movie really were true.

Just as an aside, Stewart Lee is my favorite living stand up comedian. He's a genius.

On topic, I'll take Rob Roy over Braveheart any day of the week.

whoopdido
02-19-12, 01:19 PM
Never heard of Stewart Lee...dude seems pretty funny.

Dr. DVD
02-19-12, 01:50 PM
Good but not great. The battle scenes, cinematography, and score hold up well, but it can be kind of boring at times. I also cannot help but think a lot of this movie's strengths had less to do with Mel Gibson's direction and more from having top notch people on all of the said areas, and possibly a good 2nd unit director for the battles. Decent movie, but I prefer Gladiator.

mcnabb
02-19-12, 02:41 PM
Always loved this film, and an excellent score too.

whoopdido
02-19-12, 02:49 PM
Decent movie, but I prefer Gladiator.

Obvious comparison.

Why does Gladiator seem to get shit on so much on this board, while Braveheart doesn't? Almost 80% of the poeple that voted in this poll at least consider Braveheart good. I have a feeling much less than 80% of this site would vote that Gladiator is good. The movies are eerily similar.

I, for one, really like both movies, but probably prefer Gladiator as well. I've never understood the hate it gets on this board.

Shannon Nutt
02-19-12, 03:00 PM
I voted "good but not great" even though I think it's VERY good...I just don't "love" it.

dhmac
02-19-12, 03:01 PM
Well it doesn't seem like such a heroic victory when you learn that the English were basically ambushed on a bridge and were hence unable to fight. Clever perhaps (though thought very badly of at the time) but not really the stuff of heroes of the type Gibson was going for with this film. Likewise Wallace's penchant for wearing a swordbelt made from human skin - might have given the film a bit of a Silence of the Lambs kind of feel to it!
I wouldn't call it "ambushed" because the English knew the Scottish army was there, they weren't hiding. The Scots simply attacked before all of the English army had crossed the bridge. That the English thought the Scots would be "gentleman" soldiers and just sit back while the much larger English army entirely crossed the bridge, and only then engaged in battle, is what seems quaint by today's standards. If the Scots did what the English expected them to do, it would've not only been tactically dumb, but the Scottish army most likely would've lost the battle to the much larger English forces.

And I think Wallace wearing a belt made out of his enemy's skin makes him sound like a badass you don't want to mess with.

Pizza the Hutt
02-19-12, 03:24 PM
I, for one, really like both movies, but probably prefer Gladiator as well. I've never understood the hate it gets on this board.


It gets hate because it's an ugly-looking, simplistic epic for kids with a once visionary and influential filmmaker now trying to ape some of his slightly younger peers. The film is also lacking a coherent and credible third act and that Crowe won his Oscar for this role after his work in The Insider, LA Confidential or even Romper Stomper is laughable. The score is really good though. A good score goes a long way.

rw2516
02-19-12, 03:35 PM
(P.S. It's the same view I have of James Cameron's Titanic, where the real stories of the actual people on the ship are so much more interesting than the made-up story of Jack and Rose.)

I'm sure there were much more interesting people living in France at the time of Romeo and Juliet, why isn't the story about them? They weren't even real people!
Titanic is just the setting for a retelling of Romeo and Juliet just as West Side Story did the same thing with street gangs.

dhmac
02-19-12, 03:55 PM
I'm sure there were much more interesting people living in France at the time of Romeo and Juliet, why isn't the story about them? They weren't even real people!
Titanic is just the setting for a retelling of Romeo and Juliet just as West Side Story did the same thing with street gangs.
That is not a very good analogy. I'm not criticizing putting fictional characters in historical settings, I'm criticizing putting a less interesting story in place of a more interesting story, which in this case, I think the fictional story is a lot less interesting than the historically accurate one. As for Shakespeare, he wasn't one for historical accuracy, but he knew how to tell an interesting story with good characters. Being historically inaccurate is OK with me if it makes for a better story.

rw2516
02-19-12, 04:43 PM
That is not a very good analogy. I'm not criticizing putting fictional characters in historical settings, I'm criticizing putting a less interesting story in place of a more interesting story, which in this case, I think the fictional story is a lot less interesting than the historically accurate one. As for Shakespeare, he wasn't one for historical accuracy, but he knew how to tell an interesting story with good characters. Being historically inaccurate is OK with me if it makes for a better story.

If you mean a historical accurate telling of the sinking(docudrama), that would be an entirely different kind of movie altogether. This movie isn't about the Titanic, the ship is just the background setting for a love story. I'm positive there were far more interesting people on the ship. I doubt an accurate telling of what they did from boarding the ship till the sinking would be very interesting. A bio of someone on the ship would be interesting with the Titanic showing up about 3/4 into the movie. The bottom line is they set out to remake Romeo and Juliet foremost. The arguement would be how good a version of Shakespeare's story it is rather than how good a Titanic movie it is.

mndtrp
02-19-12, 06:53 PM
It's been a long time since I've seen it, so I don't know how I would feel now, but I used to like it quite a bit.

GoldenJCJ
02-19-12, 07:38 PM
I still like it very much. It's one of the few movies that make me tear up while watching it. Wallace's final "freedom" scene always gets to me when he sees his wife walking in the crowd.

Historically inaccurate but entertaining nonetheless.

Supermallet
02-19-12, 08:23 PM
It gets hate because it's an ugly-looking, simplistic epic for kids with a once visionary and influential filmmaker now trying to ape some of his slightly younger peers. The film is also lacking a coherent and credible third act and that Crowe won his Oscar for this role after his work in The Insider, LA Confidential or even Romper Stomper is laughable. The score is really good though. A good score goes a long way.

This. Braveheart is a good, but flawed film. Gladiator is a bad and seriously flawed film.

whoopdido
02-19-12, 09:20 PM
Once again this thread is proving my point. Gladiator is getting shit on. 8.4 at imdb. 85% by the users at rottentomatoes and 8.7 by the users at metacritic.

And to the displeasure of many on this board, it received oscars for best picture and best actor. Despite getting shit on at this site, it appears that the majority of the movie going public loves Gladiator.

Supermallet
02-19-12, 09:42 PM
The majority of the movie going public loves Transformers 3.

PopcornTreeCt
02-19-12, 10:00 PM
I know people shit on Gladiator for a myriad of reasons but it's no worse than Braveheart. Braveheart isn't this deep, moving epic. It's just as silly as Gladiator but Gladiator excels with its badass arena battle scenes. Neither is high art and I'll take Gladiator over Braveheart any day of the week.

whoopdido
02-19-12, 10:02 PM
The majority of the movie going public loves Transformers 3.

I love it when the minority tries to come up with reasons why the majority is wrong.

Michael Corvin
02-19-12, 10:32 PM
I know people shit on Gladiator for a myriad of reasons but it's no worse than Braveheart.

While both films may be flawed, Gladiator comes off as a second rate Braveheart.

They're both best picture winners for crying out loud. Even though I'm not a fan of Gladiator, I'd still take it over some of the best picture winners of the past decade.

emachine
02-19-12, 10:32 PM
Not a fan

GoldenJCJ
02-19-12, 10:47 PM
I actually just re-watched Gladiator again a few days ago. I'd only seen it one other time in the theater and it bored me to tears. However, re-watching it on Blu-ray (oddly enough, it came packed with Braveheart) I actually rather enjoyed it. Joaquin Phoenix gave a truly outstanding performance. Russell Crowe may not have been worthy of the Oscar but I think Phoenix's performance was.

Supermallet
02-20-12, 01:43 AM
I love it when the minority tries to come up with reasons why the majority is wrong.

I love it when people use majority opinion to suggest that people who disagree must be wrong.

MoviePage
02-20-12, 01:49 AM
I absolutely loved Braveheart when I was 17, and I watched it many times.

I feel that my tastes have...matured since then. I don't think it would be possible for me to sit through the whole thing again now. I voted "It's OK," because that's pretty much where it lives in my memory. It has some nice touches, but the characters are absurdly cartoonish and the whole thing is pretty ridiculous overall.

MoviePage
02-20-12, 02:01 AM
Also, Braveheart won the Best Picture Oscar for the same year that gave us Oliver Stone's Nixon, Tim Robbins' Dead Man Walking, David Fincher's Se7en, Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys, Rob Roy, and the Ian McKellen Richard III, none of which were even nominated. So that whole discussion is a bit irrelevant to a discussion of quality, as it should be.

whoopdido
02-20-12, 04:25 AM
I love it when people use majority opinion to suggest that people who disagree must be wrong.

All else being equal, isn't it safe to assume that if 9 people think that the sky is blue and 1 person thinks that the sky is pink, then the sky must be blue?

If you can't use majority opinion as a way to come up with an answer to a question, what can you use?

mcnabb
02-20-12, 06:51 AM
Also, Braveheart won the Best Picture Oscar for the same year that gave us Oliver Stone's Nixon, Tim Robbins' Dead Man Walking, David Fincher's Se7en, Terry Gilliam's Twelve Monkeys, Rob Roy, and the Ian McKellen Richard III, none of which were even nominated. So that whole discussion is a bit irrelevant to a discussion of quality, as it should be.

I am a huge fan of Braveheart, but I still think Apollo 13 should have won the Oscar for Best Movie that year.

arminius
02-20-12, 08:04 AM
All else being equal, isn't it safe to assume that if 9 people think that the sky is blue and 1 person thinks that the sky is pink, then the sky must be blue?

If you can't use majority opinion as a way to come up with an answer to a question, what can you use?

Look at my sig.

Philzilla
02-20-12, 08:24 AM
I'm sure there were much more interesting people living in France at the time of Romeo and Juliet, why isn't the story about them? They weren't even real people!
Titanic is just the setting for a retelling of Romeo and Juliet just as West Side Story did the same thing with street gangs.

Maybe, but Romeo and Juliet takes place in Italy, and Italians aren't that interesting. ;)

Sean O'Hara
02-20-12, 09:37 AM
Your problems with the movie are Mel Gibson's hair and the gay prince who's in the movie for all of about 2 minutes?

And by the way, it's long been rumored that Edward II was, in fact, gay so the movie didn't necessarily make that up.

Edward II was certainly gay, but the idea that he was a swishing fairy like something out of Kids in the Hall is absurd, and the way the film played Edward I killing his son's lover as a joke is just reprehensible -- and like most things in the movie, completely made up.

Sean O'Hara
02-20-12, 10:34 AM
All else being equal, isn't it safe to assume that if 9 people think that the sky is blue and 1 person thinks that the sky is pink, then the sky must be blue?

If you can't use majority opinion as a way to come up with an answer to a question, what can you use?

A) You're conflating objective questions with subjective ones.

B) Objective truth is independent of popular opinion. They may coincide some of the time but not always. If the majority of people believe in ghosts, UFOs, or that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, that doesn't make it so.

Sondheim
02-20-12, 10:51 AM
All else being equal, isn't it safe to assume that if 9 people think that the sky is blue and 1 person thinks that the sky is pink, then the sky must be blue?

If you can't use majority opinion as a way to come up with an answer to a question, what can you use?So if someone goes to a popular and acclaimed movie and ends up disliking it, we can know that they're wrong? Even if they are able to articulately explain why they didn't like it?

Wow, that's kind of absurd.

First, you seemed to have missed a fairly fundamental component of art, which is that it's (largely) subjective (there may be certain elements of aesthetics that can be judged objectively, but whether someone thinks an overall film is good or not is a subjective thing.) A question like "What color is the sky" is mostly objective - that is, the sky is either blue or it isn't. Even then, one might quibble and say that it's a specific shade of blue, or it could be that it's a different color at the moment due to storms of pollution or whatever. Or it could be that the person is color blind, and within their own subjective experience the sky is not blue but some other color. (But that's all beside the point - we'll concede that, to most people, at most times during the day, the sky is blue.)

Of course, to twist your example around, if ten people were asked "What color is the sky, generally?" and nine people said bright yellow and only one person said blue, we would still know that the sky is generally blue to most people at most times. That might seem like an unlikely scenario, but there have been plenty of cases throughout the history of the world (into the modern day) when people have held demonstrably false beliefs. There are much better ways at arriving at truth than public consensus.

That's all irrelevant anyways because we're not talking about objective facts here. If the question had been "Do a majority of the people who have seen Braveheart or Gladiator enjoy them?" the answer would be yes - and one could use things like IMDb scores and Amazon reviews and public opinion polls to verify the claim.

On the other hand, the actual question under discussion is "Is Braveheart a good movie?" which is largely a subjective question, and therefore not subject to either consensus or scientific testing. Even if everyone in the world but you liked a movie - and I'm assuming we've all had times when we found ourselves disliking a popular and highly-acclaimed film - you wouldn't be wrong for disliking it or thinking it was bad. I really hope, whenever that happens, you're not sitting there thinking "Well, I didn't think I liked it, but I see that it has high ratings on RottenTomatoes and the IMDb so I must be wrong." It can be worthwhile to find out why other people like it so much, but you're certainly not obligated to then change your opinion to match theirs. They're not wrong for enjoying the film, but you're not wrong for disagreeing with them either.

tl;dr version - You're not wrong for agreeing or disagreeing with the majority about any given film. Also, your example is silly, and opinions aren't subject to consensus polls or the scientific method.

Edit: What Sean O'Hara said much more succinctly.

Burnt Thru
02-20-12, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't call it "ambushed" because the English knew the Scottish army was there, they weren't hiding. The Scots simply attacked before all of the English army had crossed the bridge. That the English thought the Scots would be "gentleman" soldiers and just sit back while the much larger English army entirely crossed the bridge, and only then engaged in battle, is what seems quaint by today's standards. If the Scots did what the English expected them to do, it would've not only been tactically dumb, but the Scottish army most likely would've lost the battle to the much larger English forces.
I don't think fighting in the common manner was considered being a gentlemanly thing to do. It was just the way of the world. That the Scots effectively ambushed the English force is smart by todays view of warfare but was shocking in the extreme to those living at the time. And even to today's viewing public I doubt it would show the Scottish forces off as particularly heroic to be butchering drowning men. Fighting in a field on even ground looks much more like honour and chivalry and all those things Wallace is played to represent in Braveheart.

And I think Wallace wearing a belt made out of his enemy's skin makes him sound like a badass you don't want to mess with.
Really? I just think it's creepy. Maybe this is why there are so many serial killers in America..

whoopdido
02-20-12, 11:53 AM
All I'm saying is that people in the minority can't get pissed because most people don't think like them. If 90% of the moviegoing public likes The Godfather, for example, the 10% that don't like it shouldn't go spouting off trying to belittle the 90% that do.

You're perfectly entitled to not like a certain movie or a certain style of movie and you could very well have perfectly good reasons why you don't like it, but don't waste your time trying to change the mind of the overwelming majority that do that particular movie or genre.

I've been in the situation numerous times. There are many movies I don't like that EVERYBODY seems to love. No Country for Old Men is a perfect example. That seems to be universally loved, but I hate it. I'm not going to say that the 90% that do like it are morons or sheep or whatever. I just realize I'm in the minority and keep my mouth shut.

Pizza the Hutt
02-20-12, 12:22 PM
All else being equal, isn't it safe to assume that if 9 people think that the sky is blue and 1 person thinks that the sky is pink, then the sky must be blue?


No it isn't and I am astonished that you may think so.

Dr. DVD
02-20-12, 12:51 PM
FWIW, while I like Gladiator better than Braveheart, I think Braveheart is more worthy of being a Best Picture winner. The reason I like Gladiator better is because I can pop it in for light entertainment purposes and not have to pay that much attention to it. Braveheart can get a bit heavy handed at times. I was actually quite astounded that Gladiator won Best Picture the year it came out, as I saw and still see it as a guy action movie and little more.

Let me also say that me liking it better than Braveheart does not mean I think it is the better movie. If someone to were to ask me which movie I liked better of Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List, I would obviously say Raiders, but cannot deny that Schindler's is the better quality movie of the two.

whoopdido
02-20-12, 12:59 PM
No it isn't and I am astonished that you may think so.

So if I say the sky is pink I'm not wrong? Rather, the rest of the people that say the sky is blue are wrong and I should consider them morons for believing that the sky is blue and not pink?

Supermallet
02-20-12, 01:20 PM
All I'm saying is that people in the minority can't get pissed because most people don't think like them. If 90% of the moviegoing public likes The Godfather, for example, the 10% that don't like it shouldn't go spouting off trying to belittle the 90% that do.

You're perfectly entitled to not like a certain movie or a certain style of movie and you could very well have perfectly good reasons why you don't like it, but don't waste your time trying to change the mind of the overwelming majority that do that particular movie or genre.

I've been in the situation numerous times. There are many movies I don't like that EVERYBODY seems to love. No Country for Old Men is a perfect example. That seems to be universally loved, but I hate it. I'm not going to say that the 90% that do like it are morons or sheep or whatever. I just realize I'm in the minority and keep my mouth shut.

This is two different things. First you said you were arguing that because the majority like Braveheart and Gladiator, then they must be good movies. Now you're saying that if someone dislikes those movies, they shouldn't talk about it?

Your opinion is your opinion. It may not be popular, but it is yours. So say it. Just be prepared for people to disagree. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because a majority of people like Gladiator. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because a majority of people think differently than I do, period. We should strive for a spectrum of perspectives and opinions as often as we can.

B.A.
02-20-12, 01:23 PM
I still love it, despite its flaws, but not as much as I did when I was a teenager.

Sean O'Hara
02-20-12, 01:26 PM
So if I say the sky is pink I'm not wrong? Rather, the rest of the people that say the sky is blue are wrong and I should consider them morons for believing that the sky is blue and not pink?

If the majority said instead that the sky was pink and not blue, would that make it so? The truth value of the proposition is independent of public opinion. The majority of people in the 19th Century didn't believe in evolution -- does that mean evolution wasn't true back then? What about today -- at least in the US, only 40% of people believe it's true. If by 2050 90% of humanity believe in evolution, does that mean the truth changed between 1850 and 2050?

wishbone
02-20-12, 01:38 PM
Why can't we have a narrative about the Jurassic period that's not filtered through a Homosapien-perspective?

Pizza the Hutt
02-20-12, 01:46 PM
Why can't we have a narrative about the Jurassic period that's not filtered through a Homosapien-perspective?

As Sean can attest, it's because of 'The Homosapien's Burden'.

Artman
02-20-12, 02:08 PM
Edward II was certainly gay, but the idea that he was a swishing fairy like something out of Kids in the Hall is absurd, and the way the film played Edward I killing his son's lover as a joke is just reprehensible .

Even though you personally didn't care for them, both characters work fantastically well together in the film. (being polar opposites, etc) It is a very "Hollywood" style movie... but it was a product of it's time, most were like that.

Always been a huge fan of Braveheart and Gladiator.

Nick Martin
02-20-12, 02:21 PM
I think the argument here isn't that one shouldn't voice their criticism, it's just that some people seem to voice their criticism by trying to undermine or devalue everyone else's opinion first. The "most people like that movie, and I hate it. Well most people are morons so who cares what they think" idea.

I've never seen a Transformers movie and I never intend to. Sure a shitload of people have seen them and obviously liked them enough to warrant three, soon to be four of them and they all made buckets of cash.
Saying that is one thing. Saying all those people out there who made them so successful are stupid for liking them is crossing a line, and I think that's what the argument is about.

A lot of people despise "Independence Day". It's one of my all-time favorite movies. I suppose to a lot of people I'm an idiot or have no taste for loving that movie. Like something, hate something, fine. As long as people don't go belittling those who don't share that opinion which is extremely arrogant to do, then there's no issue here.

Or to sum it up nicely:



Your opinion is your opinion. It may not be popular, but it is yours. So say it. Just be prepared for people to disagree. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because a majority of people like Gladiator. I'm not going to keep my mouth shut because a majority of people think differently than I do, period. We should strive for a spectrum of perspectives and opinions as often as we can.

Indeed. :)

rexinnih
02-20-12, 02:22 PM
Love it and part of my collection.

Burnt Thru
02-20-12, 03:03 PM
If someone to were to ask me which movie I liked better of Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List, I would obviously say Raiders, but cannot deny that Schindler's is the better quality movie of the two.
Disagree strongly. To me Raiders is an all time classic of its genre while Schindlers is good but doesn't bare close scrutiny.

Sondheim
02-20-12, 03:52 PM
I pretty much agree with Supermallet.

I'll add that I don't like either film in question particularly much, but I would never think negatively of those who do enjoy them. I think it's stupid to belittle people for their opinions of films, regardless of whether they match up to the majority. The first and third Transformers films may have bored the hell out of me (I didn't see the second), but I know plenty of very intelligent people who love them. I'll feel free to express my opinions on the films, and I won't be bothered when someone else comes and says how much they love them.

The only time it annoys me is if someone comes in and starts making assumptions about the intelligence or taste or objectivity of those with differing opinions ("if you didn't like this then you've forgotten that movies are supposed to be fun" or "you only liked it because it was foreign" or "the only people who didn't like this are those who have to have explosions and sex in all their films"), all of which seem to be based on the idea that everyone secretly feels the same way about a film and any stated deviation in opinion is only an indication that there's something wrong with your thinking. That doesn't seem to be happening in this thread, it's just a pet peeve of mine so I thought I'd mention it.

I also think it's misguided to hold "public consensus" as some sort of barometer against which other people's taste should be judged - that is, both "This movie made almost no money so it must be great" and the far more common "You may not have liked this movie but it was super popular so it's obviously very good" (or, similarly, "I've never even heard of that film or any of the actors so it must be crap," a line one of my coworkers used just a few days ago) seem like pretty bad ways of looking at things.

Dr. DVD
02-20-12, 03:58 PM
^ I respect that, and you might be right as Schindler's is such a rough movie to endure subject wise that many people most likely don't watch it enough to give it close scrutiny, hence its reputation as being one of the best movies ever made.

I have no problem with people saying they disliked a movie like Gladiator, but I feel if you disliked something and the point of the thread isn't about the movie, no need to give in depth detail as to why you didn't like it , just say so and move forward. Saying you disliked it is one thing, going on a rant about all that is wrong with it can come across as condescending to those that did and while it may not be intentional, could make them feel lesser and sorry they even mentioned it. If the point of the thread is to review it, then yes, explanations should be given, that's the point of a review .

Staying on topic, the score to this movie (Braveheart) is one of the finest ever written IMO, and I have been inspired to give it another viewing later this week to see if perhaps it does still hold up.

jjcool
02-20-12, 04:38 PM
I enjoyed it very much when I first saw it. it was on a couple of weeks ago, and I couldnt resist watching it. It holds up well. As for the historically accurate documentary that some people are speaking of in this thread, I havent seen that one.

DaveyJoe
02-20-12, 04:47 PM
It's interesting that people let historical inaccuracies get in the way of enjoying a film. Are fantasy-based epics like Lord of the Rings superior because they aren't held back by possible inaccuracies? Should Gibson have made up a fictional Scottish hero that inspired revolution? Should he have sacrificed entertainment value so that he could be more historically accurate? I'm just interested in hearing more from people who are really bothered by the inaccuracies in films like that. What sort of solutions would you propose to make a better film? What other historical films did you really enjoy that were more accurate?

Pizza the Hutt
02-20-12, 06:47 PM
If someone to were to ask me which movie I liked better of Raiders of the Lost Ark or Schindler's List, I would obviously say Raiders, but cannot deny that Schindler's is the better quality movie of the two.


No it isn't.

MoviePage
02-20-12, 07:14 PM
And we're off!

DaveyJoe
02-20-12, 07:22 PM
Well there's this school of thought that a film is better when it's more serious or dramatic, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I think both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Schindler's List are great movies, but I'd probably rather watch RotLA more on repeat viewings. I'd probably have to concede that I like it more than Schindler's List so perhaps I would have to say that I think it's a better movie because of that.

Artman
02-20-12, 11:18 PM
Well there's this school of thought that a film is better when it's more serious or dramatic, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I think both Raiders of the Lost Ark and Schindler's List are great movies, but I'd probably rather watch RotLA more on repeat viewings. I'd probably have to concede that I like it more than Schindler's List so perhaps I would have to say that I think it's a better movie because of that.

That's kind of what I was getting at with the 'Hollywood' style films. (character over acting, swelling musical score, etc) Those conventional styles seemed to kind of die off in the 2000's.. they're more subdued now, which in most cases isn't a bad thing. It'd be interesting to see an ultra realistic, serious version of Braveheart and 300... they may be great films, but I'm more likely to choose the former versions if I just want something fun to watch. I tend to approach films with different mindsets... sometimes it's a film enthusiast, studying kind of view, or I just want to kick back with a few (or six) beers and have more fun.

mike45
02-21-12, 12:27 AM
Braveheart is good. But, I prefer the other film about the Scotland Rob Roy.

Heat
02-22-12, 01:38 AM
Great movie. I remember Mel Gibson being on Leno, with a longsword.

Couldn't find that clip, but here he is on Letterman with a war hammer. Part 2 is where he is talking about the movie.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IazA9PUecyQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y_jHY4AXFUQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MEYMrw9HxSo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>