I do. I think it's a lot better.
Better villain, more sympathetic hero, more realistic action scenes, more interesting characters, better actors and director.
The final duel is one of the most gripping scenes I've ever seen.
The two films are like apples and oranges, but I would have to give it to Braveheart, hands down. Better acting (excepting Tim Roth), better characters, better story, and bigger grand scale sets.
I love Liam Neeson, but even the most ardent Mel Gibson-hater has to admit he gave an amazing, heartfelt performance in Braveheart. That man can act.
Last watched: Rob Roy
Rob Roy for sure. Braveheart has nice action scenes, but that's about it.
shareMe too. I did that when both movies came out, and people thought I was crazy, but after all these years I think the same still. Liam Neeson, Eric Stolz, Jessica Lange, John Hurt were fantastic in their roles, but Tim Roth was out of this world, in a performance that definitely deserved an Oscar and other awards!
Simply put, for me at least, "Rob Roy" exceeded "Braveheart" in pretty much everything, casting, acting etc. Nevermind the music. "Rob Roy"'s soundtrack is soo beautiful and nuanced as suppossed to the "Braveheart" one.
Don't get me wrong "Braveheart" (and its music) is a good movie, no doubt, but I much prefer "Rob Roy".
"Today is the tomorrow I was so worried about yesterday"--Anthony Hopkins
In the 1990's, I really enjoyed Braveheart more than Rob Roy. I loved the epicness of Braveheart. In the past 10 years, though I have come to love Rob Roy more and more than Braveheart. It is a more intiment and mature film. It has a truer sense of it's time and place. And, as so many have said, the climatic sword fight is without peer.
shareNO, Braveheart is the better the academy awards agrees with me!
Im sorry, Did Robroy when best picture?
Robroy was good, but it aint no braveheart!
Since when do the Academy Awards know anything? They took 30+ years to give Scorsese an oscar, and it wasn't even for his best film..... They know bugger all, their selections are based on who bribed them the most. I thought most people about the age of 17 grasped this?
*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´Follow your bliss
[deleted]
I'm Scottish, and I can tell you that not only is this film better than the tripe that is Braveheart, it is also more accurate. I cringe watching Gibbo's Wallace tale, which he basically fabricated from start to finish apart from a few details here and there. He used Wallace as a metaphor for Jesus..... He eventually skipped the hinting and got straight to his point with The bloody Passion.....
And he turned Robert the Bruce, who IS an actual Scottish hero, into a Judas type character (accidentally but still nonsense) who then turns around because of Wallace's influence.... Absolute and utter pish. The real William Wallace was a nut case who famously killed his friend and used his skin to make a belt for himself..... Didn't see romantic Wallace doing that in the film.....
Rob Roy as a film at least doesn't make up nonsense to support the director's religious beliefs.
*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´Follow your bliss
Good post!!!
shareYou often take history lessons from movies?
Two different movies that unsurprisingly do not satisfy all audiences for myriad of reasons. I see no point in this whole comparison. Both are perfectly enjoyable works of art for what they are. Braveheart was based on an epic poem which was spun into an epic movie script and finally turned into an epic movie.
It tends to be that epic movies frequently have god/satan-like protagonists/antagonists. This has been the preferred way of telling stories - particularly moral stories - since the dawn of man.
I couldn't care less about Mel's private persona and fail to see what that might have to do with Braveheart. Mel's on-screen persona has rarely been skittish, and it ain't skittish here either. You can either go with that choice and appreciate it - or you can cry wolf for a little life time because Wallace isn't quite the Wallace _you_ wanted it to be.
I assure you there can be nothing even remotely resembling accuracy when it comes to the story of one William Wallace. I'm sure Wallace killed his friend and used his skin to make a belt for himself just like I tend to believe that one lady Bathory 300 years later murdered some 600 girls and bathed in their blood - just for lulz.
Yours is the opinion I'd most agree with.
shareI thought that I was the only one who felt this way. No, I liked Braveheart a lot, but I LOVE this movie. Ironic that they both came out the same year--just a month and a half apart.
Sister, when I've raised hell, you'll know it!
It's a better film, and it isn't even close (BRAVEHEART is quite poor).
---
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/
I must disagree. Rob Roy is actually in my top 10 films of all time, the Braveheart is my favorite film ever. I Saw Rob Roy at the theaters three times, and Braveheart 13 times. Of course, that is when I was young and had money and time. Overall, a great year of films for me.
share