MovieChat Forums > Outlaw King (2018) Discussion > it felt like braveheart lite

it felt like braveheart lite

posted 6 years ago by maximmm (3408)
13 replies | jump to latest

The budget, the music, the actors, the stunts/sfx - it all felt subpar when compared to braveheart.
Now - perhaps the story is more factual? I haven't done any fact checking, so perhaps it has that going for it? Otherwise, it feels too much like braveheart lite - in that the story is rather similar, while all of the film elements are weaker. It doesn't make it a bad film on its own - in fact, this film is not half bad, it's just that braveheart was such an epic, it's hard to recommend this film over braveheart.

[–] olioz (3865) 6 years ago

I agree, but I quite liked it. It's no Braveheart but an enjoyable movie if you like this sort of stuff. How would you rate it? I'd give it a 7/10

Chris Pine was solid as Bruce. The more I see him in movies the more I like him. I hope he makes a third movie with David Mackenzie.

[–] jriley555 (8550) 6 years ago

i wonder about the relative numbers & facts concerning the big battle scene, but it was pretty good.

except that the king's army retreated when they had far more troops left than bruce's force.

more extras would have helped all that.

the charge into the stakes part was awesome.

[–] Ldlamb (655) 6 years ago

The story is similar because it’s essentially the exact same time period. This movie starts In what would be about halfway through Braveheart....and then goes on for a few years after Wallace’s death.

[–] TandyMan (11349) 6 years ago

So is this a companion film that kind of connects to Braveheart, or is it too different?

[–] jriley555 (8550) 6 years ago

braveheart focused upon wallace.

this film focused upon the period after wallace. you do get to see his arm up on a board, though.

in both are battles to rid scotland of an english king named eddie.

[–] Ldlamb (655) 6 years ago

I wouldn’t say they are “meant” to be companion pieces, since they seem so different to me.
Braveheart is a blockbuster cinematic experience that is a GREAT movie with an enthralling story, but is highly inaccurate factually. I think this movie attempts to tell a somewhat truer story of the events of the second half of the war of Scottish Independence, but does that kind of at the expense of interesting storytelling.

Specifically, Braveheart, once Wallace was an adult, covered the years 1297-1305, with an end scene that jumped ahead to 1314 (featuring Robert the Bruce’s biggest victory).

While this movie showed related events from 1304-1307 (and ends with Robert the Bruce’s first big victory).

[–] Xcalat3 (3754) 6 years ago

So true, i this could easily been an official sequel.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 6 years ago

The budget, the music, the actors, the stunts/sfx - it all felt subpar when compared to Braveheart.

That's amusing, because "Outlaw King" is actually the better film: Chris Pine is an all-around superior protagonist to Gibson; Florence Pugh is more beautiful compared to Sophie Marceau (or Catherine McCormack) in a petite, curvy way; not to mention she’s a more interesting character; the locations are better (even though the locations in "Braveheart" are excellent); the music edges out the score to "Braveheart"; the movie's more streamlined and consistent; and the film's all-around more compelling and realistic.

True, "Outlaw King" doesn't top Patrick McGoohan's delightfully diabolic portrayal of the pompous Longshanks nor does it have the superb defenestration sequence. But it lacks the sluggish start of "Braveheart" (the opening 25 minutes); the eye-rolling betrayal scene; the equally eye-rolling episode where Wallace rides into a noble's bed chamber on a freakin' horse and easily escapes (Why Sure!); and, lastly, the overlong and dull execution sequence in “Braveheart” wherein the Christ symbolism is laid on too thick.

It’s also more historically accurate in that it doesn't have the Scots wearing kilts or painting their faces, nor does it wrongly have Robert the Bruce betraying Wallace, which never happened (although he initially disowned him publicly, obviously for political reasons, he secretly supported his war effort and openly admitted it later).

[–] maximmm (3408) 6 years ago

I think Gibson is the better actor of the two. As far as historical accuracy is concerned, you are correct.
As for betrayals and whatnot, I didn't think they were that eye-rolling. Betrayals in those days were a common theme. I dunno how accurate that was in this instance - I didn't fact-check, but they weren't that unusual for that time period.

All in all, braveheart had much better productions, and was an epic through and through. Reality may have been by far less epic, but films often stretch out the truth for dramatic purposes.

Oh - and Sophie Marceau was a stunner - she was one of the highlights of the film - so it seems as if our opinions diverge due to different taste in women ;)

[–] Wuchak (8855) 6 years ago

Gibson was decent in the role of Wallace (which he didn't originally intend to play), but that hideous wig didn't do him justice. Pine was natural for the role of Robert the Bruce.

Speaking of whom, Robert never betrayed Wallace so that scene in "Braveheart" was historically inaccurate. But that wasn't my main beef with the sequence. It was the way it was presented that struck me as thoroughly eye-rolling.

All in all, Braveheart had much better productions, and was an epic through and through.

While "Outlaw King" is a Netflix film, it cost a whopping $120 million and looks it. "Braveheart" cost $72 million in 1994 dollars. Factoring in inflation, they cost roughly the same amount with maybe "Braveheart" costing a little more, which is understandable since it's an hour longer and therefore much more footage was shot (the proverbial "time is money").

As far as it being "epic": Yes, it's a looong medieval movie, but long doesn't necessarily mean good. Like I said, the opening 25 minutes is rather dull; and the last hour loses its mojo. The 95 minutes in between are good though. "Outlaw King," by contrast, is more streamlined -- cutting out the dull parts and others that simply don't work (which "Braveheart" failed to do) -- and is the better for it.

I agree that Sophie Marceau is stunning; Catherine McCormack even more so. I'm just saying that I appreciate the curvy intelligence of Florence Pugh.

I saw "Braveheart" in the theater in 1995 during all the hoopla. I thought it was overrated then due to the weaknesses noted above and I felt the same way in my openminded viewings since then (I've probably seen it four times altogether). "Outlaw King" is more consistent with a more compelling story, not to mention more realistic and historically accurate.

You obviously prefer "Braveheart" and that's your prerogative. It's all good.

[–] TheDemon (598) 5 years ago

Brave Heart is probably a better 'story' but it's exactly that. A story.
It omits the battle of Stirling Bridge which is a paramount strategic move in Wallace's victory over England.
It assumes Wallace bonked the Princess of Wales. Yeah, right.
That the Prince had preferences like the Earl of Doncaster in Blackadder.
That Longshanks was rotten to the core. Not certain that is accurate.
Outlaw King is more down to Earth and not an epic in the same manner as Braveheart.
It's probably more realistic. Easier to believe how events unfolded.
But I think they are both great movies anyway.

[–] howgamer (3988) 3 years ago

The story certainly is much more accurate. I thought the costumes, sets, action, and realistic grittiness of the world were all fantastic though. I think some of the things that I struggled with were the hollow villain who just runs around screaming all the time, the pacing, and lack of any real memorable supporting characters. The music was also just OK. I guess I liked the look of this world and its characters more than in Braveheart, but Braveheart is a much superior film in terms of story telling and entertainment. Overall, I thought this was quite good which was a surprise for me because I'm not a big Chris Pine fan.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6544) 5 months ago

There were plenty of inaccuracies. See Wikipedia for the details.