Gladiator and Braveheart opinions ???

[Quasar44]

What is your opinion on these 2 awesome movies?


Your right , Saving P Ryan , is just great in its first act and then it’s a shallow Movie


Glad and BH ?

 

[Darkwind]

Both Gladiator and Braveheart are producers' (Artists') conceptualization of what happened in these periods.

Saving Private Ryan, at least the first 20 minutes of the movie, is so close to actual combat that veterans who have served in a hot zone were actually traumatized (again) by its realism.

All three of them are entertainment and while Braveheart and Gladiator are better than the current dross being peddled by hollywood today, they still were symptoms of that industry's complete lack of orignality and storytelling.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Gladiator is a rare "perfect movie". Defined as a movie that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
It entertains the audience near perfectly. You do not become aware of how long the movie is.
That is rare.

Braveheart is not a perfect movie, reason being even though it is only 15 minutes longer than Gladiator - it feels much longer. It is a solid movie, no doubt. But IMO - it needed another 10-15 minutes left on the editing floor. I can't say any movie is perfect when you begin to think "when is this going to end?"
But - again - it is a very good movie.

 

[JWBooth]

They are great movies. It’s a real hoot that some think of them as history.

 

[marvin martian]

Gladiator is a rare "perfect movie". Defined as a movie that is exactly what it is supposed to be.
It entertains the audience near perfectly. You do not become aware of how long the movie is.
That is rare.

Braveheart is not a perfect movie, reason being even though it is only 15 minutes longer than Gladiator - it feels much longer. It is a solid movie, no doubt. But IMO - it needed another 10-15 minutes left on the editing floor. I can't say any movie is perfect when you begin to think "when is this going to end?"
But - again - it is a very good movie.

Braveheart tried to educate viewers about events that not a lot of people outside western Europe know much about. That's always a flaw with a film. It takes too long, and it's boring.

Gladiator took A LOT of historical liberties, and didn't bother to try to educate the audience. The little bit at the beginning about the Roman empire's travails in North Africa and the Mediterranean were enough to set the stage for the story without a lot of historical exposition.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Braveheart tried to educate viewers about events that not a lot of people outside western Europe know much about. That's always a flaw with a film. It takes too long, and it's boring.

Gladiator took A LOT of historical liberties, and didn't bother to try to educate the audience. The little bit at the beginning about the Roman empire's travails in North Africa and the Mediterranean were enough to set the stage for the story without a lot of historical exposition.

Unlike Napoleon recent movie - which took liberties to trash everything about him and present him as a weak cuck afraid of his own shadow. Ridiculous movie.

 

[BothWings]

I enjoyed Gladiator wayyy more than Braveheart. Never been a fan of Mel Gibson. In every role he just comes off as an artificial Hollywood type person. Russel Crowe is more like a believable character, normal, an "everyman" if you will.