Braveheart v gladiator

Apart from both protagonists dying I can't remember much else?

Loved both of these films when they came out. I think I must have watched Braveheart at least 6 times over the years, Gladiator not far off either.

For me, I think Braveheart just about edges Gladiator. Gladiator definitely has more polish and looks amazing.

The Revenant surpasses both though.

BTW, for those whinging about historical inaccuracies, cop on. They're movies, not documentaries. You watch them for entertainment.

Must watch The Revenant. For some reason I've avoided this movie and it's been on streaming channels forever.

Phoenix really created such an amazingly creepy disgusting villain in that movie.

Both movies are absolute junk from an historical perspective, so choosing one over the other from that point of view is a hiding to nothing. But, in any case, the two movies are very entertaining too. It's difficult for me to pick one over the other and over the years they've pipped each other to the post. The last time I saw both of them (in the last couple of years), I was really surprised at just how much I enjoyed them, even though my brain was very upset with me. 😊

At the moment they both probably stand side by side with each other. But as someone else has already said, 'Apocalypto' wipes the floor with both of them. It's Gibson's masterpiece and I'd wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone...and if you know nothing about the film, keep it that way until you sit down to watch it, because the heightens the experience immensely.

'Braveheart' isn't even 10% accurate. In fact it's very title was given to Robert The Bruce, not William Wallace. Robert The Bruce's "brave heart" was taken on crusade after his death, which is where the term was supposed to have come from.

There's more historical accuracy in 'Star Wars' than there is in 'Braveheart'.

The Passion Of Saint Tibulus surpasses them all.

The English in 'Braveheart' are just the "bad guys". It's the same as nearly every war movie where the Germans are reduced to evil cliches too, or anything from the Cold War era that features anyone with an eastern European accent. I really wouldn't be reading too much into it if I were you.

All that's happened in 'Braveheart' is that Gibson has used a few set pieces to make you hate the English, simply because they are the antagonists in the story, which is a simple story as well.

in any case, there's nothing in 'Braveheart' to get upset over. It's all a pure fantasy. Long Shanks didn't die when Wallace was hung, drawn and quartered. Wallace didn't fuck Queen Isabella. They certainly didn't have a baby (as it's implied). King Edwards' son wasn't gay (as is also implied). Robert The Bruce didn't betray Wallace. Wallace wasn't a scraggly Scot's highlander, Scots didn't wear woad...etc.

...the list is endless.

In contrast, you have Ridley Scott turning Commodus into an incestuous psychopath in order to make you hate him and root for the goody. It's pretty much the same thing, except the hateful entity is boiled down to a fictional representation of a single man, rather than an occupying country.

You sound upset. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, I mentioned nothing about an "anti-Commodus agenda" either. I merely said that both directors are using the age old technique of making you hate the antagonist of a story in order to make you root for the protagonist. It's a movie technique that's as old as storytelling itself.

The fact of the matter is, however, is that there's little in either movie that can claim historical accuracy, whether it's the depiction of the times, the circumstances, or the people involved.

The problem with Gladiator is it was made by Scott 🤣

Ay...Alrite lad

Do you refer to John McClane as 'Diehard?'

They mean using the characters name instead of the movie title.