Bugg is the winner....and I still am not a fan of Braveheart

Wow, so many people seem so down on Braveheart. Is it because you all really don't like the movie or because you think something else should have won that year? Or is this just a bandwagon thing?

I just think it's pretty overrated. I bought the DVD unseen. I haven't rewatched it. It's an ok movie, but nothing special.

Yeah, but overrated doesn't necessarily equal worst Oscar winner ever. If it had gone up against Dead Man Walking instead of Babe, Apollo 13, Il Postino, and Sense and Sensibility, I think it would have lost.

maybe you'd disagree, but for my money Taxi Driver was the better film that year.

I thought Braveheart was the best of the nominated films that year. But you're right, Dead Man Walking was better. and IMO Leaving Las Vegas was better than both.

I gotta disagree with this one. Braveheart became my all-time favorite movie after my first viewing of it. It wasn't until Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came out that I got a new favorite. Of all the best picture winners I've seen, I was probably the most underwhelmed by Rainman (1988). Good movie, but there had to be something better that year.

Everybody knows the worst best picture is a three-way tie between On the Waterfront, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Godfather. Ungh. All simply dreadful.

Empire's not a very good magazine anymore, but because of their longevity, they tend to get the best interviews... I hate to see good magazines resort to "stunt articles". I remember when some brit film mag did "the top 25 idiots", all done rather poorly. Seriously, who cared that much that there had to be a list?

What surprises me, though, is the amount of posters also eager to decry so many best picture winners, and worse, to label them the worst they've ever seen. Opinions differ over everything, of course... but can you sincerely say that those films were so worthless?

I'm sure I'll get at least one reply of "yes" to that...

Oh, and dogmatica... if you joke among some of the posters in this thread, people might misunderstand your post...

To put things in perspective... QuiGonJosh loved Elektra.

I have a love/hate relationship with these threads. I end up reading such threads, even though they all end up the same: Post after post of people who think that certain popular or award-winning movies are the worst pieces of junk imaginable simply because they didn't like them. You know, the "my opinion is objective and correct and everyone else lacks proper taste" mentality. Sure, not everyone actually believes that about their own opinion, but it's the way it usually comes across. Of course, that's just MY opinion.

Mmmmm...left foot...

Yeah, I did. you got a problem with it?

God forbid someone enjoy a movie based purely on entertainment value and a hot lead actress.

Braveheart is a joyless, overlong, dull, cliche, trite, wannabe Kurosawa or Lean and it fails miserably. Mostly because Gibson can't direct or act for shit. He plays the same character. Is Wallace any different than Riggs? Really, besides the accent, it's the same damn character. Also the script is for shit, the battles poorly executed, and it's incredibly historically innacurate.

So, yeah, I hate it...a lot. And I enjoyed Elektra. Perhaps you ought to spend a little more time actually reviewing the movie or what not instead of trying to blast someone for liking one movie and hating another. In other words, try not to be a douchebag, I know this might be difficult, but I think you can do it.

There are two problems with your argument: First, I love a good popcorn flick, but "Elektra" has no entertainment value whatsoever. And second, a hot lead actress does not make for a good movie. If that were the case the softcore porn on late-night Cinemax would be all you'd ever need to watch.

Calling someone a douchebag because they disagree with you is childish.

Not only is it the worst Oscar winner ever...it's just a bad movie, period.

no doubt about it!!

i would also say "Unforgiven", but not the worst, i simply didn't enjoy it that much.
but, "Braveheart" is most assuredly deserving. fantastic movie!!

Well, that's subjective now isn't it. The fact is that somehow he was trying to dis-credit my opinion because I liked another movie that is not has well thought of. Now that's childish.

And he's a douchebag. Sorry, I call em like I see em.

Uh, anyone ever seen (or tried to get through) "Tom Jones"? I tried three times and couldn't make it past the midway point. I just hated the film's supposed whimsical tone. To me, it was the slowest moving dreck.

Personally, I thought "Braveheart" was one of the best Oscar winners I've ever seen. It was a monumentally entertaining "big, booming" epic that was grand storytelling. So what if not all historical details are to the letter. It's a Hollywood movie, fer Chrissakes, not a documentary. Is it because the king threw his effeminate, obviously gay, son out the window? Considering the times they lived in, that was not too far off the believability chart. I have to also wonder if Gibson's recent involvement with "The Passion of the Christ" comes into people's perception and re-evaluation of his previous work. Those who vehemently disliked "Passion" may not be the most unprejudiced of opinion while reflecting back on "Braveheart."

I totally agrre with Empire, Braveheart is the worst Best Picture film I've ever seen. It has as much subtlety & depth as a Chuck Norris film.

I've always felt that it's a film for people who hate history. A film where the god guys are very good & the bad guys are very bad. It's a perfect film for the mass audience who don't like to think much and like their charcters cut & dried. It also showed no feeling for the times it depicted, I always felt I was watching actors in dress up.

Thank you for that public service.

Braveheart is one of my favorite epics of all-time. It's much more deserving of the Best Picture award than many of the most recent winners, such as Return of the King (I still think the Academy should have honored Fellowship of the Ring if they were going to honor any of them).

To add to an already excellent post.

A few things,

one, FWIW, it was his gay son's lover out the window. The son lived.

Two, William Wallace the actual person was mysterious, not a whole lot was known about him, so the film itself is probably more fiction than fact. This is alluded to in the film, when he gives his speech about fireballs and lightning from his arse. Fact is he was a barbarian/savage and moreso than the movie made him out to be. So I don't think the film is too unrealitic a bit.

I also agree the hate stems from recent times, but not limited to PotC. Probably because of love for Gladiator(a far inferior film), LOTR, Troy, Alexander and other newer "big, brash epics littered with CGI nonsense.

CHARIOTS OF FIRE is the worst.


RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
ON GOLDEN POND
REDS
These were way better in 1981

In 1992, I felt that A FEW GOOD MEN was better than Unforgiven.

So do I... and you know quite well that personal attacks are against forum rules.