Sword Fight
I think the final sword fight between Neeson and Roth might be one of the best ever filmed. Any thoughts?
shareIt makes watching watching the movie in its entirety SO rewarding. Neeson makes a hero that's fun to root for, Roth makes a villain that's rewarding to hate. Their eventual and destined clash is notably greater even than the hype built for it, which is well done for the course of the film. Its rare, but there are times when a man is outclassed in a duel, and simply guts it out for the W. I can't think of a better cinematic instance of this than this sword fight.
shareNot an expert on swordfighting.... I always thought the fight in "Dangerous Liasons" was great....this one as well. It showed (well implied) how powerful swords could be for a change....
"It's only forgotten if you forget."
Wallace Dane Jurr
Not surprising, given that William Hobbs did both of them!
Check out The Duellists. Another Bill Hobbs choreographed film, directed by Ridley Scott. It's got, I think, five separate and distinctly different sword duels in it.
[deleted]
Rob Roy has been my favorite movie since it came out, 'really love it and have to watch it at least once a year.
As for the ending swordfight, it was great, but one error ....
A physical therapist, masters degreed and experienced, told me that if Archibald's sword was sharp enough to cut flesh, it would have severed the tendons in MacGregor's fingers and made it impossible for him to hold the blade. But even if MacGregor had a firm hold on the blade, any swordsman could have just tore it out of his grip. Maybe the surprise of the move paralyzed Archibald, but if he had had the presence of mind to just snatch the blade back, there is no way MacGregor could have maintained enough grip (slippery blood) on the blade to prevent Archibald from killing him. Keep in mind Archibald was no slouch when it came to swordfighting.
The movie remains my favorite ever, despite this rather large error in a crucial place of the story.
Someone pointed out a possible error in editing when the quartering wound in Archibald's back appears one frame BEFORE he is actually cut by MacGregor, but I believe that is an intentional editing device done to emphasize the effect.
If you frame-by-frame the scene in BraveHeart where W.W. rides his horse onto the bed of one of the just awakened treacherous Scottish leaders who betrayed him in battle, right before the smashing blow W.W. gives with the flail (a spiked ball on a chain) you see the face of the man already smushed one frame before the blow. I think this is the same editing technique at work, not just a coincidence. It may also have something to do with the interleaving frames raster scan of conversion from film to video.
As for the ending swordfight, it was great, but one error ....
Discussed here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114287/board/nest/121795183.
----
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Yes, I agree that Archibald should have been able to whip the sword out of MacGregor's grasp, perhaps even kicking the bigger man back at the same time. Even if Archibald was initially paralyzed out of sheer surprise, he should have had time to get back his composure. Notice how long it takes for MacGregor to grab his own sword off the floor, and even how long Archibald just stands there as MacGregor gets ready for the massive blow.
Anyway, it's an incredibly tense scene, with the viewer already mourning what must surely happen. Very satisfying ending, all in all.
I just saw the movie last night. The sword fight was great until the very end. I kept thinking wouldn't the sword cut his hand. Then I couldn't figure how Archibald was injured. If the sword wasn't sharp enough to cut Roy's hand how did it kill Archibald? Also the editing was terrible. Why would Archibald wait till Roy to struggles to pick up his sword before striking the final blow?
shareIf the sword wasn't sharp enough to cut Roy's hand how did it kill Archibald?
The sword does cut Rob's hand, and the sword Rob uses to kill Archie is a different sword anyway. (He doesn't take Archie's rapier; he picks up his claymore.)
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.
Allow me to clarify....
My thinking was that both swords should have been sharp enough to kill. Not one dull and one sharp. I assumed Archibald's sword should have been as equally sharp the poor man's sword that was used to slice him in half. Roy's hand should have sliced off not a mere "paper cut."
Roy's hand should have sliced off not a mere "paper cut."
No doubt that's would have happened had Archie had the presence of mind to give his sword a good tug. But Rob's action surprised him and he was momentarily stunned.
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.