You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Media, Movies and Music within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. and WOW, it was WAY worse than i remember... and i thought it was bad the first time.
what a piece of s***!
discuss.
I always enjoyed it. I definitely prefered Kingdom of Heaven though, if forced to pick from the two Scott historical flicks. That one I continue to re-watch, while I haven't felt the urge to watch Gladiator in years, despite being a fan of it.
It's movies like this that make me embrace the idea of having the Academy Awards be for films released 10 years ago.
God I hate Braveheart. I can deal with history being embellished a little bit for dramatic reasons, but the amount of **** they changed in that movie makes it unwatchable for me.
i liked the dude with the hammer in Braveheart. i remember having kind of a meh feeling about that movie as a whole. i thought that the woman who played his wife was pretty... i think.
i'll watch it again so i can decide on which i think is the "better" film, artistically.
Duke, i have NO problem with embellishing history... well not really anymore. i used to, though. but THIS s***, never happened. without the names of a few important characters, this s*** could've taken place at any time during the Roman Empire or if you changed a handful of other things, 217 million years ago on Mars.
i liked the dude with the hammer in Braveheart. i remember having kind of a meh feeling about that movie as a whole. i thought that the woman who played his wife was pretty... i think.
i'll watch it again so i can decide on which i think is the "better" film, artistically.
Duke, i have NO problem with embellishing history... well not really anymore. i used to, though. but THIS s***, never happened. without the names of a few important characters, this s*** could've taken place at any time during the Roman Empire or if you changed a handful of other things, 217 million years ago on Mars.
I still have issues with historicity in films, for the most part. Still haven't watched 300 yet, but am definitely open to it, and have it sitting on my TV.
From my perspective, I didn't think Gladiator was ever intended to be a factual historical movie. I thought it did a decent job of displaying the games of the Roman Empire, and trying to illustrate a bit of the political interplay between Emperor, army and defunct/discontent Senate. Good action...good, though unrealistic characters (i.e Maximus...Commodus WAS a bit loony in real life)...great score. It is also more or less based off of Anthony Mann's Fall of the Roman Empire , and so already starting off rather ahistorical.
Braveheart, on the other hand, I always felt was being presented as a historical biopic, and it completely mangled the majority of it. I still think it is a well done movie, but dreadfully inaccurate.
And you are spot on with Wallace's wife, the beautiful Catherine McCormack.
I still have issues with historicity in films, for the most part. Still haven't watched 300 yet, but am definitely open to it, and have it sitting on my TV.
From my perspective, I didn't think Gladiator was ever intended to be a factual historical movie. I thought it did a decent job of displaying the games of the Roman Empire, and trying to illustrate a bit of the political interplay between Emperor, army and defunct/discontent Senate. Good action...good, though unrealistic characters (i.e Maximus...Commodus WAS a bit loony in real life)...great score. It is also more or less based off of Anthony Mann's Fall of the Roman Empire , and so already starting off rather ahistorical.
Braveheart, on the other hand, I always felt was being presented as a historical biopic, and it completely mangled the majority of it. I still think it is a well done movie, but dreadfully inaccurate.
And you are spot on with Wallace's wife, the beautiful Catherine McCormack.
300 is a TOTAL chick flick
historically inaccurate, but based on a graphic novel... which they did tremendously well in terms of adaptation.
it isn't as much a good movie as it is a cool movie. meaning you'll probably enjoy it, but think it was dumb... particularly the Persians and the oversized Jay Davidson looking freak that they made Xerxes into.
oh and did i mention that it's a TOTAL chick flick?
historically inaccurate, but based on a graphic novel... which they did tremendously well in terms of adaptation.
it isn't as much a good movie as it is a cool movie. meaning you'll probably enjoy it, but think it was dumb... particularly the Persians and the oversized Jay Davidson looking freak that they made Xerxes into.
oh and did i mention that it's a TOTAL chick flick?
300 is cool. And folks that have a problem with its historical inaccuracy or dramatic embellishments should be reminded that it is not intended to be a truthfull recounting of the actual events. Instead, the film is a campfire story told to a bunch of soldiers before a battle. So of course, the bad guys are bigger than they really were, more blood was spilled than really was, and the heroes were more heroic than they really were. All to tell an energizing story.
... your review is spot on though... 300 is a cool movie... as far as it being good? well... I guess thats up to the viewer.
Nice timing. I watched Braveheart with my 12 year old son last night. He thoroughly enjoyed it. He loves history and we have Scottish ancestry. He cried at the end and we had a good father/son moment. After the film he talked about how proud he is of his ancestry. this then led into a conversation about the fall of the Roman Empire and the creation and fall of the English empire and now the American empire. Today he has been doing more 'factual' research on Sir William Wallace and wishes to purchase a couple books on the history of Scotland. So from my point of view the film did its job; it was entertaining, it spawned a good discussion, and motivated a history lesson. I can't expect much more from a film.
__________________ "Government to take over AIG! One lousy vowel; we were so close." - Steve Dilbeck
Last edited by UnderTheGUN; February 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 PM.
I just watched Gladiator again right now... 
Iron Duke
