Film Braveheart or Gladiator

Redplane

( . Y . ) planned for Christmas
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
10,348
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
Except if you are talking strictly about historicity, Braveheart holds up better than Gladiator.

Maximus was completely made up, Commodus was always designed as heir (Marcus Aurelius went against the then long established tradition of adopting a competent public servant/military commander as protégée and heir in favour of his own blood, and the dude was actually choked to death in his bath by a Gladiator hired by a mistress of his)
Yet if you take those elements away you are still left with a lot more historical accuracy than in Braveheart - where the main character was in fact a real figure where almost nothing was true to actual events. Not to mention the shameful way they portrayed Robert the Bruce. The portrayal of life and war in Gladiator by almost all accounts seems way more accurate as well.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,644
Location
Melbourne
He’s good at it though, nothing wrong with that.

Both films are great - is there a historical epic to match them?
Spartacus is great, so is Julius Caesar with Marlon Brando playing Mark Antony.

When it comes to Roman history TVs are better, both the BBC’s I, Claudius as well as HBO’s Rome are excellent watch.
 

Redplane

( . Y . ) planned for Christmas
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
10,348
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
Spartacus is great, so is Julius Caesar with Marlon Brando playing Mark Antony.

When it comes to Roman history TVs are better, both the BBC’s I, Claudius as well as HBO’s Rome are excellent watch.
Ben Hur (the original) definitely deserves a mention as well in that case, or even The Ten Commandments.

I, Claudius in some ways should go down as one of the most underrated TV shows of all time, and Rome could have been one of the greatest if only it had continued longer.
 

Mr Pigeon

Illiterate Flying Rat
Scout
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
26,258
Location
bin
Gladiator, because half the fuds where I live think Braveheart is a Call to Arms. Great film, mind.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,644
Location
Melbourne
Yet if you take those elements away you are still left with a lot more historical accuracy than in Braveheart - where the main character was in fact a real figure where almost nothing was true to actual events. Not to mention the shameful way they portrayed Robert the Bruce. The portrayal of life and war in Gladiator by almost all accounts seems way more accurate as well.
How is it more accurate? Even if Mel Gibson was made out to be a demigod and English occupation of Scotland was exaggerated to decades (actually more like a few years), the rough timeline of events were still accurate, Wallace did rebel, did win a great victory, he did lead an incursion into English territories(nowhere near Leeds, mind), before being defeated, captured and executed, and Scotland did win independence after his death.

Compare that to Gladiator, Maximus didn’t exist, there was no question over Commodus’s succession, there was no takeover by the Senate after his death, instead the Roman world descended into chaos with the Crisis of the Third Century. It was a well made film with a clear and engaging narrative but the historicity is bungled badly.
 

RedPed

Whatabouter.
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
14,558
Gladiator by far because of Braveheart's shitty accent.
 

sherrinford

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
1,196
Spartacus is great, so is Julius Caesar with Marlon Brando playing Mark Antony.

When it comes to Roman history TVs are better, both the BBC’s I, Claudius as well as HBO’s Rome are excellent watch.
As in, the 1960’s Spartacus film? Never seen it. Have watched season 1 of Rome and really enjoyed it. I also liked the more recent Spartacus TV show but it was a bit of a guilty pleasure.

Both Gladiator and Braveheart are excellent films and great entertainment.
 

InfiniteBoredom

Full Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
13,644
Location
Melbourne
That's not fair. The Kingdom of Heaven director's cut is one of the best films ever.
The last fight between Balian and Guy felt really superficial.

The biggest problem with that film is that Balian was too much of a Mary Sue, the dude despite a lowborn bastard birth (which in Middle Age Europe means you are more likely than not to be illiterate) was a master at siege warfare, agriculture and swordmanship, the last of which he mastered in about 2 sessions.

It redeemed Eva Green, mind, she was very good in that film but her character got mishandled terribly by the theatrical cut.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
27,678
Braveheart is a decent movie that hasn't aged well whilst Gladiator is as good as it was the day it was released -- man was it fecking good!
 

Cole9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
923
Set up a poll? I'd go for Gladiator. It has the better acting, directing, score, and cinematography. Braveheart is obviously a good film but doesn't compare.
 

AaronRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
9,563
Gladiator for me. Better plot and Villain. But I like the overall characters more in Braveheart.

We need to do more vs with movies!
 
Last edited:

Redplane

( . Y . ) planned for Christmas
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
10,348
Location
The Royal Kingdom of Trumpistan
How is it more accurate? Even if Mel Gibson was made out to be a demigod and English occupation of Scotland was exaggerated to decades (actually more like a few years), the rough timeline of events were still accurate, Wallace did rebel, did win a great victory, he did lead an incursion into English territories(nowhere near Leeds, mind), before being defeated, captured and executed, and Scotland did win independence after his death.

Compare that to Gladiator, Maximus didn’t exist, there was no question over Commodus’s succession, there was no takeover by the Senate after his death, instead the Roman world descended into chaos with the Crisis of the Third Century. It was a well made film with a clear and engaging narrative but the historicity is bungled badly.
By your logic then only Braveheart can be historically inaccurate because it's based on real events, whereas, as you pointed out, Gladiator was not.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
I like both films but Phoenix's hackneyed role was a waste of his talent, IMO.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,148
Gladiator by far because of Braveheart's shitty accent.
Nah the accents in Gladiator were way worse. None of the main cast sounded remotely Spanish or Italian.

At least Mel made an effort to sound Scottish.
 

Organic Potatoes

Full Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
17,152
Location
85R723R2+R6
Supports
Colorado Rapids
If we’re judging it by quality of accents then surely it’s Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood for the win.
 

Irwin99

Full Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Messages
9,290
Both films had villains that were more interesting than the protagonists. I loved the insecurity and creepiness of Commodus. I know Gladiator isn't exactly historically accurate but I can't help wonder how this great philosopher emperor Marcus Aurellius could have made such a mistake with his son.
 

RedPed

Whatabouter.
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
14,558
Nah the accents in Gladiator were way worse. None of the main cast sounded remotely Spanish or Italian.

At least Mel made an effort to sound Scottish.
Yeah that's the point. In Gladiator, they didn't even try so accent was kinda irrelevant. It wasn't really necessary anyway. In Braveheart, it was just a tad offputting.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
33,981
They've both aged quite shit.

The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a better film than both.
God knows why they chopped and screwed so much for the theatrical release. Orlando Bloom being dwarfed by the Titan level cast didn’t help either.
——
On topic, Gladiator. It just has a higher level of quality to it in near enough every facet.
 

Old Ma Crow

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
1,958
Gladiator - better production, score, direction and acting. I love watching it, but Braveheart was special too.
 

stevoc

Full Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Messages
20,148
Yeah that's the point. In Gladiator, they didn't even try so accent was kinda irrelevant. It wasn't really necessary anyway. In Braveheart, it was just a tad offputting.
To be honest mate I was taking the piss.

To go authentic in Gladiator they would have had to get the actors to speak in Latin and subtitle it. I think we can all agree it wouldn’t have been as good or well received had they done so.
 

RedPed

Whatabouter.
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
14,558
To be honest mate I was taking the piss.

To go authentic in Gladiator they would have had to get the actors to speak in Latin and subtitle it. I think we can all agree it wouldn’t have been as good or well received had they done so.
Ha fair enough. That's what I meant though.
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
13,898
Location
Florida, man
What don't you understand? Gladiator is easily the better film. By Braveheart is close behind
I just don't understand how something can be clearly better than another when the other is close behind. It implies that's it's farther behind.
 

SteveJ

all-round nice guy, aka Uncle Joe Kardashian
Scout
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
62,851
Meh, I reckon Braveheart is more entertaining. Besides, Gladiator is really only memorable for Maximus's famous quote:
Maxy said:
"I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom I can tell you I don't have money, but what I do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you, but if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you and I will kill you."