|
Post by JangoB on May 27, 2024 23:07:21 GMT
Anthony Minghella earns a score of 65. And now for 1995's winner, Mel Gibson for Braveheart
How would you rate this achievement from 0 to 10?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 27, 2024 23:17:12 GMT
10. Fearless, fearsome, bracing work that revived a lost genre even more than Gladiator, and frankly I think it's proof that Gibson is the best actor turned director of the last fifty years. Those battle sequences are all-timer level, but the quiet moments of this film also have such power.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 27, 2024 23:26:29 GMT
8.5.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on May 27, 2024 23:29:58 GMT
10, influence is perhaps slightly understated in terms of bringing a genuine grit but also a certain class to a genre that prior to this film was typically very artificial or just exploitative.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 27, 2024 23:38:18 GMT
6. I found it bland. Gibson improved as a director over the years. It pales in comparison with Gladiator.
|
|
|
Post by TheAlwaysClassy on May 27, 2024 23:55:26 GMT
8
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on May 28, 2024 0:02:21 GMT
9
|
|
|
Post by Kings_Requiem on May 28, 2024 0:06:52 GMT
8
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 28, 2024 0:29:11 GMT
10. Fearless, fearsome, bracing work that revived a lost genre even more than Gladiator, and frankly I think it's proof that Gibson is the best actor turned director of the last fifty years. Those battle sequences are all-timer level, but the quiet moments of this film also have such power. I love Braveheart, and Gibson's performance and direction, but I don't think it revived a lost genre at all, the way Gladiator did. I don't think Braveheart is particularly far away from The Last Of The Mohicans as a bracing action romantic drama set within the last 900 years. Or even Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, which was a huge hit. Romantic action dramas set in the middle ages and beyond were not an extinct genre. Films set in antiquity were. What Gladiator did was revive the sword and sandal genre of films set in antiquity. Ancient history. Action dramas set before the middle ages. Gladiator revived a genre that which had basically been dead since The Fall Of The Roman Empire failed at the box office in 1964. Troy only exists because of Gladiator. As for the topic question, I'd give Gibson's direction an 8. He didn't reinvent the wheel or anything (like I said, Michael Mann gave a very similar effort a few years before him), but he did it in a compelling and entertaining way.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 28, 2024 1:35:23 GMT
8 / 10
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 28, 2024 3:12:44 GMT
8/10
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on May 28, 2024 3:18:28 GMT
8
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on May 28, 2024 3:32:55 GMT
10. Fearless, fearsome, bracing work that revived a lost genre even more than Gladiator, and frankly I think it's proof that Gibson is the best actor turned director of the last fifty years. Those battle sequences are all-timer level, but the quiet moments of this film also have such power. I love Braveheart, and Gibson's performance and direction, but I don't think it revived a lost genre at all, the way Gladiator did. I don't think Braveheart is particularly far away from The Last Of The Mohicans as a bracing action romantic drama set within the last 900 years. Or even Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, which was a huge hit. Romantic action dramas set in the middle ages and beyond were not an extinct genre. Films set in antiquity were. What Gladiator did was revive the sword and sandal genre of films set in antiquity. Ancient history. Action dramas set before the middle ages. Gladiator revived a genre that which had basically been dead since The Fall Of The Roman Empire failed at the box office in 1964. Troy only exists because of Gladiator. As for the topic question, I'd give Gibson's direction an 8. He didn't reinvent the wheel or anything (like I said, Michael Mann gave a very similar effort a few years before him), but he did it in a compelling and entertaining way. Robin Hood is a brand unto itself, up to that point I think pretty much every big Hollywood adaptation had been a success, having an A-list leading man as Robin Hood would have been viewed as a low risk proposition in the early 90's. Obviously not the case today with how allergic everyone is to historical films now (unless its Nolan I guess). Last of the Mohicans was also based on a well known classic book that at that time was still regularly assigned in schools and in general the settlers vs Indians set up is familiar for movies, it's pretty much a western. Plus I think anything set in America is going to be a much easier sell than something set 700 years ago. Braveheart didn't have any of those extenuating factors and was just a big budget war film about an obscure historical event in the middle ages. Even with his mega star status Gibson had to get three different studios to split the budget because none of them would individually put up more than 25 mil or so. Find it hard to believe Gladiator gets made, and certainly with the budget it had, without Braveheart laying the groundwork. It even uses the same basic beats as Braveheart, it had to have been pitched as "Braveheart in ancient Rome" at some point. Your Joe Schmo movie goer isn't going to make any kind of distinction between Rome or the Middle Ages, it's all just guys in armor fighting with swords.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 28, 2024 4:40:28 GMT
I love Braveheart, and Gibson's performance and direction, but I don't think it revived a lost genre at all, the way Gladiator did. I don't think Braveheart is particularly far away from The Last Of The Mohicans as a bracing action romantic drama set within the last 900 years. Or even Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, which was a huge hit. Romantic action dramas set in the middle ages and beyond were not an extinct genre. Films set in antiquity were. What Gladiator did was revive the sword and sandal genre of films set in antiquity. Ancient history. Action dramas set before the middle ages. Gladiator revived a genre that which had basically been dead since The Fall Of The Roman Empire failed at the box office in 1964. Troy only exists because of Gladiator. As for the topic question, I'd give Gibson's direction an 8. He didn't reinvent the wheel or anything (like I said, Michael Mann gave a very similar effort a few years before him), but he did it in a compelling and entertaining way. Robin Hood is a brand unto itself, up to that point I think pretty much every big Hollywood adaptation had been a success, having an A-list leading man as Robin Hood would have been viewed as a low risk proposition in the early 90's. Obviously not the case today with how allergic everyone is to historical films now (unless its Nolan I guess). Last of the Mohicans was also based on a well known classic book that at that time was still regularly assigned in schools and in general the settlers vs Indians set up is familiar for movies, it's pretty much a western. Plus I think anything set in America is going to be a much easier sell than something set 700 years ago. Braveheart didn't have any of those extenuating factors and was just a big budget war film about an obscure historical event in the middle ages. Even with his mega star status Gibson had to get three different studios to split the budget because none of them would individually put up more than 25 mil or so. Find it hard to believe Gladiator gets made, and certainly with the budget it had, without Braveheart laying the groundwork. It even uses the same basic beats as Braveheart, it had to have been pitched as "Braveheart in ancient Rome" at some point. Your Joe Schmo movie goer isn't going to make any kind of distinction between Rome or the Middle Ages, it's all just guys in armor fighting with swords. Interesting to realise that Rob Roy, which is also very similar to Braveheart, came out before Braveheart. I always thought Rob Roy came out after Braveheart and was greenlit based on Braveheart's success.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on May 28, 2024 4:57:47 GMT
8.5
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on May 28, 2024 15:54:11 GMT
8/10
I love the earthy feel he brings to the movie, I love the battle scenes, I love the pathos and even poetry of certain passages... but I've always felt that the court scenes are not quite at the same level (they're still good but not great) and I don't know if he makes the Sophie Marceau storyline work as well as it should. But when Mel's on, he's on.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on May 28, 2024 16:23:26 GMT
8
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on May 28, 2024 17:19:04 GMT
5.
|
|
tylosaur
Junior Member
Posts: 276
Likes: 143
|
Post by tylosaur on May 28, 2024 18:48:26 GMT
7
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on May 28, 2024 19:48:26 GMT
8. His worst choice is casting himself in the lead role.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 28, 2024 19:52:23 GMT
8. His worst choice is casting himself in the lead role. To be fair, he didn't want to star in it, but no one would finance the movie if he didn't. That said, he was considering Brad Pitt and Jason Patric, so I think we dodged two massive bullets there.
|
|