Braveheart was o.k., but it totally butchered scottish history (as all of gibson's historical movies seem to do), and that really takes it down quite a few notches in my estimation.
Gladiator never claimed to be more than it was. The cinematography was great, the acting was great and the characters were better developed than in Braveheart. My nod goes to Maximus.
Originally posted by Mando
I think Braveheart went somewhere war movies never went before. I mean, seeing a guy get a hammer to the face, and then watching the blood fly all over the place is just awesome IMO. And when the man gets his throat slit near the beginning was great.
Yes, forget about acting, writing, cinematography, production, costumes, story , plot flow or anything else that makes a movie good. Seeing some guy get hit in the face with a hammer is what makes a great movie!
What a completely ridiculous thing to say.
Re: Braveheart or Gladiator
Originally posted by lordofwar
I would choose Braveheart. I think Gladiator was good, but Braveheart was much better. It has more intense battle scenes and a great soundtrack. The movie is more emotional. The villain Longshanks was just awesome. Love the line, "Bring me Wallace. Alive if possible, dead... just good."
Gladiator.
Braveheart's ok, but I prefer Gladiator, for me it had better acting (Russel Crowe, at his best, is better in my mind then Mel Gibson, who I don't think was at his best in Braveheart), better direction, nicer scenery. Both movies had an element of violence, but I preferred Gladiator's depiction over Braveheart's. Story lines are interesting, but I was a bit let down by Braveheart's take on the whole history surrounding Wallace. That, and I couldn't help snorting over the idea of Wallace having it off with the Prince's wife. Why do we need to fit a romance narrative into every movie, even when there isn't one, and more importantly doesn't NEED to be one?
That, and I think Commodius as the villain was better then Longshanks, and the selection and quality of movie villains is a big deal to me. Yeah, Longshanks was a right bastard, but Commodius was a right mad Roman Emperor bastard, and for me that's really something (I'll admit, Rome is one of the more interesting periods of history for study in my view)
So while Braveheart's good and all, Gladiator's better where it counts.
They are both just as good as one another. Both have sad endings, excellint action sequences, stories and good acting. Gibson was just great as Wallace and his freedom speech was inspirational.
William Wallace: Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take away our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!
gladiator
gladiator no doubt, though both the same they were very diffrent, the last scene in gladiator was great, fighting and killing the ceasar, plus if you read into the gladiator story the ceasar did go into battle with him. Though i think Braveheart had better action scenes and was more dramatic, gladiator just stood more to me, that last scene, sweet
( said he was crazy, he really did try to get rid of the senate and tried to change the name on Rome to his name)