Who thinks this film is better than Braveheart?

Yup, Rob Roy.

Again, like some other posters, I don't dislike Braveheart. I own it, and I have a place for it, sure. The poster a page or so back who likened Braveheart to fast food and Rob Roy to a decent meal I think got it spot on. Good analogy.

Cunningham is one of the most loathsome villains on film. Tim really did deserve all the accolades he could reap for that.

The end duel is nearly perfect. The lithe, deadly fencer versus the powerful highland warrior. In too many films we see guys swinging the heavier swords around for vast durations, where in reality it's immensely tiring, especially for someone of Rob/Liam's size.

The only thing that really lets the duel down is the end conceit. Every time I watch it, I find myself whispering, "Just pull the rapier back, Archie ..."

But aside from that, great film.

[deleted]

My vote goes to Rob Roy. As I understand it, Rob Roy was much closer to historical accuracy than Mel Gibson's version of William Wallace.

Roy MacGregor, as depicted here, is a fully fleshed out character, faults and virtues portrayed in full.

Gibson's Wallace, for example, didn't have an affair with Longshanks French daughter in law, according to historical records and that sort of distortion annoys me.

Well, based on the minute of Braveheart I saw, and it's trailer, I would say there is no contest. (I couldn't bear to watch more than a minute of the movie, it was so bad.) The language in B. is totally, ridiculously out of the twentieth century, and so is the attitude. The script has Wallace rallying his followers with screams about freedom- a concept which would have been meaningless at the time. They were fighting to rid their land of the hated English--or in support of their clan chieftains. Mel Gibson reached the peak of his acting achievement in the action/comedy (Yes I said comedy) Lethal Weapon.

Rob Roy is the ONLY movie I have EVER seen which is convincing as a decpiction of it's time. You can almost smell the stench of rotting cattle carcass.

I agree,Rob Roy is a better movie...and look at it´s grade! 6.8?Compared to Bravehearts 8.4. A disgrace,I say.

Now,there seems to be some extreme inconsistency and very dramatic differences when it comes to the ratings here and in some cases it makes very little sense,it seems as if the movie suffers from having a very small audience or people willing to vote on movies they saw ten years ago.EXCEPT if they´re cult or movies"you have to love."

I mean Mr.Brooks(not good) has 7.5 for Christs sake.One of the ten worst films I´ve ever seen,The mist,has 7.4. All the while,the simple but very effective thriller Unlawful entry from 1992 with Russell and Liotta has 6.0,that´s less then Bad boys 2,I am number four etc. One of my all time favs Things to do in Denver when youre dead clocks in at a degrating 6.7?Wonderfully acted and originsl The way of the gun 6.6? My point is that Rob Roys 6.8....I don´t think it´s the correct grade at all.Not with merely 17,000 votes(plain silly) against 291,000!!For Braveheart! Is it more popular?Yes. Is it even remotely possible that these numbers reflect how many people that have seen both films?No.



I am a bit baffled,not only in contrast to Bravehearts 10 nominations and 5 wins but the competion in certain categorys.I know Rob Roy suffered due to coming out the same year as Braveheart,yeah?But...the Art direction?Costume Design?The great score?Editing? I do not get it.Sure,Se7en got a nom this year for sound,Heat none but none of those are on my top 75,even though they´re good.


It was one of 1995´s best films and I wish it a best picture nomination...but not even being nominated in the obvious,welldeserved,lesser categorys...abomination.Neesons performance is much more low-key and at the same time powerful.Noble without having it printed on his forehead.Bravehearts old baddie takes stereotypes to new dimensions while we have a few villains here,which I love and Roths performance,smiling while he rapes,polite while he slaughters is a revelation,showing that evil really does come in all forms.It´s smaller in scale and people loved Bravehearts big battlescenes for one...seeing them today,I have to say those scenes have not aged well.

It´s a masterpiece.Too bad we can´t get more people to remember great movies and cast their vote on this one.OR if they hated it,vote that way...though I doubt it.

I thought it was better of the two forsure.

Braveheart works as a sweeping, pathos-driven, melodramatic epic. But it's not exactly the most (re)watchable film, as it can be a bit daunting with one long-winded self-indulgence after another; overwhelming with numerous weighty montages while often coming up short with a truncated narrative. When it's all said and done I don't feel as if I've watched a genuinely great story as much as I've been blasted by a genuinely romantic anthem of sorts.

This film, on the other hand, does proper as a straightforward, tall tale action/adventure in the spirit of Robert Louis Stevenson - less an epic and more of plot-driven exploit with an epic, historical backdrop. It has a good guy, a bad guy and some inner circle acts of skullduggery. I wouldn't say Braveheart is better directed either. It certainly has a more showy style, but Canton-Jones directs this film with class and a measured pace, and his handling of the action, particularly the climactic sword fight, exhibits near-perfect staging and editing (not to mention awesome choreography). The similarities between the two are really surface level at best. They're just different kinds of movies plain and simple. As a personal preference I lean more towards this film, but I enjoy both.

http://www.youtube.com/UPL2229

I prefer Braveheart but 6.7 IMDB rating is too low for Rob Roy, this film is a solid 8/10