Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a history buff, but I liked both movies just fine despite the inaccuracies. Hollywood changes lots of things, be it history or book plots. I just shrug because they're trying to tell a sweeping story in two to three hours, so some things are going to be changed to squeeze in as much emotion and punch as they can. It's not just Mel Gibson, it's all of Hollywood.
I liked Braveheart a lot. Other than Scotland being green and wet, there wasn't a historically accurate scene in the entire movie. The entire portrayal of William Wallace is 100% anachronism. But it was still a fun movie. Some of the best battle scenes ever filmed.
But something about The Patriot rubbed me the wrong way. Not sure what it was, but I found myself rolling my eyes more often than being drawn into the story. The one brilliant scene in that movie is when Gibson has his son help him during his first ambush. That scene is brutal and chilling in its brilliance. The rest of the movie? Not so much. Maybe it's because it was directed by Roland Emmerich, who wouldn't understand subtlety if it ran him over in a Mack truck.
I'm a history buff, but I liked both movies just fine despite the inaccuracies.
You are more tolerant of such things than am I. The Princess Isabella was only a child of 3 or 4, not even in Scotland or England, and was not a beautiful young woman with whom Wallace had a romance. The Scots had not painted themselves blue like Picts since the Roman occupation, would not wear kilts for another 300 years, and King Edward I did not die until two years after Wallace. Wallace himself, from what historians have determined, was quite different than portrayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
I liked Braveheart a lot. Other than Scotland being green and wet, there wasn't a historically accurate scene in the entire movie. The entire portrayal of William Wallace is 100% anachronism. But it was still a fun movie. Some of the best battle scenes ever filmed.
One of things the film got right was how unpleasant it was to get hit with an arrow. The English longbow was just coming into it's own as the weapon that would play a major role on the battlefields of Europe, and the skill and deadliness of the English archer was correctly shown.
Quote:
But something about The Patriot rubbed me the wrong way. Not sure what it was, but I found myself rolling my eyes more often than being drawn into the story.
Gibson for sure was no Francis Marion, mostly just plain wrong. Banastre Tarleton did not die in the American Revolution. He went on to have a long and distinguished career, became a MP, and died at the age of 78.
Mel Gibson is an enormously talented actor who has had good and bad movies along the way, just like all the rest of them. I loved Braveheart, the first two Lethal Weapons, The Patriot, and Ransom. I also thought he was great in Signs, and The Man Without A Face was excellent, and I even liked Forever Young. I know, not a very good flick, but I liked it any way. On the other hand, the Mad Max/Road Warrior stuff was only good until I turned 16, and after that I realized how bad they really were.
As for Mel Gibson the person, well, we've all said and done things we wouldn't want on the front page of the newspaper at one time or another, haven't we?
That is the only part of your post I totally disagree with. Mad Max and Road Warrior were awesome Australian exploitation genre action movies. They, no doubt, had a bigger impact on me seeing them the first time as a young teen but I saw them each a few more times after and never thought either one was bad in any way. As dated as both may seem, I still find them both very enjoyable.
I've never seen his (former) appeal. I think I've only liked one movie of his (The Patriot), and I think that was actually a case of liking the movie in spite of him. lol
Perhaps you never saw him when he was young, and pretty damn good-looking.
It was "Signs", excellent movie. Check out "The Man Without A Face", which was another movie he was fantastic in.
Oh yeah, Man Without a Face was really good. Very unconventional script, pointing out how easily society gets suspicious of a deformed man befriending a teenage boy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
