A Great Poll, Two Similiar Films, Gladiator VS Braveheart?

Well, since Gladiator sucked and Braveheart was excellent, I'm going with Braveheart.

I would have to cast my vote for Gladiator, simply because I have a very low tolerance for Mel Gibson's melodrama.

"Braveheart" does not age well, especially after historians blew the lid out of, once again, the gross exaggerations and melodramatic silliness of the film. Gibson's effort does not have much credibility as real history -- it's his own macho, pumped up version of the events in a class with John Wayne's "The Alamo." The look of the film was more like a Western than a historic conflict -- he really never dealt with any of the real political problems of that day, he just lampooned them.

"Gladiator," at least created a real world even while monkeying around with historic fact. It was, of course, a shameless homage to "I, Claudius" but it's hard to get around that.

Well...
Well is you want my thoughts on this, I just feel like gladiator was an epic tale of struggle and loss, while braveheart was just about a guys ego.... its just no contest really.

Which makes one wonder who's ego? The actor/director or the character?

You're all on f*cking drugs if you think Braveheart wasn't better than Gladiator. I don't understand what the big deal about that piece of **** is. I saw it at the theater and there were points in the movie where people were actually laughing out loud at the hammy overacting by that hack, Joaquin Phoenix, playing the role of Commodes-R-Us, or whatever the hell his name was. The writing sucked, the acting sucked, even the battle scenes were nothing special really...the only thing it had going for it was a decent overall story and Russell Crowe. The movie was mediocre at best.

Braveheart had some of the most amazing and intense battle scenes I've ever seen, and Gibson was great in it. Most of your critiques of Braveheart sound a lot more like bitchy little snipes at Mel Gibson himself rather than a cogent opinion on the movie itself. What's that about? Maybe it's a gay thing.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on the subject. Now go take your meds and come back when you've become thinking human beings again.

Take your Mel Gibson poster of your wall, kicky, and try to think rationally.

Don't make me hurt you, Gus.

<making a fist>

I did, however, think Mel Gibson should have won some sort of award for his role in that movie where he played the paranoid freak opposite Julia Roberts.

That was some fine acting.

Boys, Boys now take this froma womens sort of veiw.... Mel Gibson is a fine actor, but NOT in braveheart. His role brang the whole movie down and kicky if you like the blood and guts battle thats ur thoughts but you just arn't looking at the overall picture. And overall it sucked way worse then Gladiator.

Okay, okay, now it's time to go back to your little rubber room, animalsemily. That's a good girl...

Personally, I couldn't stand to sit through either movie more than once. If I wanted to see excessive scenery-chewing I'd just watch any film starring Charleton Heston.

<ducks out of the room quickly to avoid the flaming arrows and hurled pila sure to come>

Aww, how sweet, kicky's got a crush on Mel. I wish Mel had decided to cast someone else to play the lead as he wisely did for "Passion," even though that is an even more dreadful movie.

Kicky thats a bold statement for someone who aspires to be like mel gibson... i won't go into any room without u ... to beat it into you that gladiator is soooo much better then mel gibson and his stupid approch to Braveheart.

Read the real history of William Wallace and you'll figure out what Gibson did to this historic figure, he did to Jesus. He's a movie actor and, at one time, he was in good graces in Hollywood. I thought he lost it with some of his acting decisions but now I know he's lost it with his film projects. They are not good films -- they are obvious pandering to an audience he knows he's got in his back pocket. His TV series, what was the name of it (?), was short-lived and about as interesting as artificial insemination.

animalsemily, do you really want to get into this? Because I will verbally cut you into little pieces, but only if you really need it.

Lightwizard, my friend, you are still focused on the guy and not the movie. Focus, please. The actual history is not important to me at all. Who gives a **** if he got every detail right about some **** that happened centuries ago? It was f*cking entertaining ****.

Tell me, what line do you think is more memorable?

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"

or

I don't know, was there any line worth remembering in that piece of **** Russell Crowe action movie?

I did not perceive "Gladiator" an action movie, but if you want to believe that, be my guest.

"Gladiator" with it's flaws is more authentic looking and more involving that Gibson's obvious action movie. You remember that line "They make take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom?" Oh, but they did, for nearly another century. He never uttered that line at all, purely Gibson fabrication.

History is not important to you -- just distort it, make it fly, make you come. Well, that's all well and good but "Braveheart" will never be in the position in the annal of cinema history that it would hope to be.

Lets just keep it at both movies have their good and bad points. Even though Braveheart had more bad then good, I am sure Kicky only focuses on one thing.... Whos going to die next. Well Kicky you shouldn't be so mean to a lady. Where are ur manners, or are you not a gentleman?

So, what I hear you both trying to say is that you see the light finally, and agree with me that Gladiator is one of the most overrated pieces of **** ever put on film. It's alright. Go ahead and let it out. You'll both feel so much better.