How is it suddenly controversial to say that braveheart is abysmal in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity?
It quite obviously and blatantly fails to adequately describe the atmosphere of the time, the causes of any of the events, the events themselves, the people involved and thier motivations, the cultures involved, and so on and so forth.
Entertaining as it may or may not be it actively does a disservice to the very story it is telling.
No its just pedantic to claim that *you* (Barry) can make a better movie, its just childish nonsense. It's a film made by a cinema, it's not going to represent what happened in the annals of the 13th Century. I can read Dan Jones* if I need that. No one wants to see a poorly paced film about historically accurate villagers I'm sorry. Even if you had 700$ million dollars, your movie would play out like ****.
Dan Jones*
The Plantagenets by Dan Jones The War of the Roses by Dan Jones
You didn't say it was pedantic that he could make a better movie, you said it was "objectively pedantic" to claim that it does not represent the atmosphere. It might help to not move the goalposts.
Also, don't be a ****. You have no idea what a movie made by him would be like.
No wonder you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You should read some chronicles from the time, more up-to-date academic assessments, look at some manuscripts and artifacts from the era.
ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:
No one wants to see a poorly paced film about historically accurate villagers I'm sorry. Even if you had 700$ million dollars, your movie would play out like ****.
First, where the hell did I say a film had to be about villagers? What? You just made that up in your head and ran with it. I want to see films about nobles and important people. That said, there are mesmerizing films about common people doing mundane things. You should watch more movies.
ＤＹＳＴＯＰＩＡＮ said:
Even if you had 700$ million dollars, your movie would play out like ****.
And you know this... how? For that amount of money, you could hire top of the line screenwriters, a great cinematographer, the best editors; even if you weren't confident just stay out of their way.
Well, A tizedes meg a többiek has no Turán tanks either and it's still the best film ever, so... maybe it's because Braveheart looks like ****, is dumb and has little to do with actual history. In my humble opinion, of course.
The Medieval clichés were on full display. Fire arrows, bare stonework (which they avoided once, yay!), all those candles burning in broad daylight, always remove your helmet when you need it most! The characters were done with 21st century sensibilities in mind, to make us relate or care about them more, which has the opposite of the intended effect for me because it's lampshading the clichés of the day. The film also fundamentally misrepresents motivations and some of the events. Not quite as revisionist as Braveheart but seemed like it was trying to be at times.
As I noticed before, some armour is fantasy, there are articulated pauldrons, and then a visored bascinet. In 1307. The heraldry is sometimes correct (not always!) so credit where it's due there.
Chris Pine was serviceable but not great. I don't think he detracted from the film but I certainly can't help but feel there was a better actor out there for this. And it is the director and casting director's job to get the best available actor for the role so no excuses. His emotional range is not where it should be.
The movie's portrayal of Edward of Carnarvon (later Edward II) is closer than Braveheart's "But Daaaddd, I just want to sing!" but still misunderstands him. He was not that hotheaded and didn't show proclivity to rule until he was absolutely forced to. The actor who plays him, Billy Howle, Jesus what a ham. As I'm sure you'd imagine, all the English are one-dimensional cartoonish villains.
I'm fine with it ending at Loudoun Hill. Some wanted it to end at Bannockburn but I'm fine with this decision. The battle was good, probably won't rank up with the best of all time. It does start to play fast and loose with events though.
Kills off Edward Longshanks before he actually died.
Spoilers...ish (but they shouldn't be):
In the film, Edward of Carnarvon is actually at Loudoun Hill and engages in personal combat with Robert de Brus as the English army falls back. Edward loses the bout, starts... puking? Too yellow if that's supposed to be blood. Then gets up and... walks home. The whole concept is unnecessarily and ****ing risible.
Also, Douglas shouting, "What's my fookin' name?!" is supposed to be badass but here comes off as more unintentionally funny than anything. Shame because Aaron Taylor-Johnson was otherwise doing very well in the role I thought.
The directing was humdrum. A lot of people seemed to applaud the directing and cinematography but this is paint-by-numbers for me. Swerve the camera during the conversation, shot/reverse shot, shot/reverse shot, wide shot of marching, some more shot/reverse shot. Maybe the director was hampered or out of his niche but at no point did I think I was watching great filmmaking.
That said, it's not bad. Entertaining enough. I wasn't bored and didn't find myself checking for the time. Worth my two hours, if forgettable.
Ok, not great. Not sure why theres always sex scenes, makes it awkward if you're watching it with family. Lacks a certain classic feel, not sure if thats the script or wooden acting.
The main issue was pacing and lack of a proper narrative for me. The movie could have used another 30-40 minutes, it felt rushed in the end whereas the first half dragged a lot. That being said I quite enjoyed this movie, despite the excessive use of MAIL COIF IS ALL THE ARMOR U NEED cliche. Robert's brothers were also not fleshed out enough. I had no idea who was dying when they hanged that man and when one of em' got struck by a spear. I think the love portion could have been cut out entirely instead and that time should have been used to focus on fleshing out Bruce and his brothers and whatnot. Douglas guy was awesome tho.
After watching the movie, for me it doesn't fit in my top 5 (movie genres) and that looked good at the beginning. The movie didn't just take off until it got to the best part which is without a doubt...
...The Battle of Loudoun Hill.
Although it is not comparable to Bravehearth and that this one sins in serious anachronisms...Outlaw King is below Bravehearth at the time of catching the spectator from the beginning to the end of the tape.
The best:
The sequence shot of the beginning... very good.
The sensation of the final battle.
Photography
The Medieval clichés were on full display. Fire arrows, bare stonework (which they avoided once, yay!), all those candles burning in broad daylight, always remove your helmet when you need it most!
Lindybeige fan, aren't you?
Not really interested in investing this two hours either. I've grown unable to appreciate most medieval movies due to the tropes and the stuff they got wrong. Maybe when go with the intimistic approach, instead of the epic historical, that's better already.
By the way, I've seen the battle scene - which is my main point of interest - and I don't how much historically accurate - not an expert of this exact part of the Middle Ages but damn it looks good. Even if it is pretty dark and muddy, there are vibrant colours all around in the clothing - like it should be. The armors are by no means perfect, but they aren't that bad either - with the exception of Edward, which has horrible fantasy gear. They may be some of the best I've seen in western movies in a while. Then there's the one shot one kill trope, but really I've seen armor doing their job in movies maybe twice - Excalibur and Polanski's Macbeth. Some apparently important characters even keeps their helmets on, too.
The one hit kill trope annoyed me quite a bit, especially in scenes where someone in full mail simply got sliced across the chest and instagibed - contrast that with being hanged and your guts spilled and the guy was still moving.
The battle scene was pretty good I think. I wasn't too familiar with the battle so I looked up the actual site and the way it played out, was quite surprised how accurately they portrayed the use of spiked pits and the bog. The pacing before the battle was all over the place. One moment Robert's getting his ass handed to him and says how they must start using guerilla tactics - the next moment he's ready to face Edward full on.
I remember most characters in The Messenger keeping their helmets on and not dying to a single (fire) arrow too... I'm sure that film has its issues, but it could be worse.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
