Conquer Club

Best.Movie.Ever.

Damn, I wish I was Scottish.....

No. 300 is better.

I wasn't a huge fan of Braveheart, but I definitely loved 300!

Haven't seen it.
Heard it is a completely biased movie in favour of Scots.

Minister Masket wrote:Haven't seen it.
Heard it is a completely biased movie in favour of Scots.

Oh shutup. Of course its biased in favor of the Scots! Its a moive about their freedom! England was a ruthless monarchy to its foes and its people, no getting around it.

jnd94 wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Haven't seen it.
Heard it is a completely biased movie in favour of Scots.

Oh shutup. Of course its biased in favor of the Scots! Its a moive about their freedom! England was a ruthless monarchy to its foes and its people, no getting around it.

As a scot, i thank you.

There is a statue to Wiliam Wallace in the town centre where i live, and the scene in the movie where he burned the English troops alive is actually based on an actual event that happened outside my town.....The true story is that he burned them alive while they slept, but hey! That's artistic lisence for you

And now, just after the aniversary of Bannock burn (Robert the Bruce, not william wallace), a Scot is running Britain again ........gotta love it

Minister Masket wrote:Haven't seen it.
Heard it is a completely biased movie in favour of Scots.

Not only biased, but largely untrue

It's obviously biased, it's a frickin' movie not a documentary. Not to mention I'm pretty sure Mel Gibson hates England. I mean, look at the Patriot. The war crimes certainly weren't as terrible historically as they were made out to be.

Nonetheless, let's keep in mind that the middle ages were barbaric times, and I personally am very willing to believe that the atrocities depicted in the movie truly could have happened.

And it was a hell of a good movie. One of my favorites. And 6.022 x 10^23 times more historically accurate than 300.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:And 6.022 x 10^23 times more historically accurate than 300.

Damned moles...

... I liked the film, if just for the carnage. But that entire romantic sub-plot really turned my stomach.

... "Longshanks" King Edward I was not quite the evil bastard seen in the film, though.

... Edward I was voted (in 2002) one of the greatest Britons who ever lived.

....

300 was poorly connived tripe that offered nothing but slow motion decapitations. It's a shame the director couldn't come up with anything better than a weak combination of Gladiator and Lord of the Rings.

Braveheart on the other hand was a fantastic movie. One of my all time personal favourites (stuff the inaccuracies, it wasn't a bloody documentary).

jnd94 wrote:Best.Movie.Ever.

Damn, I wish I was Scottish.....

I liked Gettysburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (as played by Jeff Daniels) was finally given proper credit in that movie based on THE KILLER ANGELS book.

BAYONETS!

luns101 wrote:

jnd94 wrote:Best.Movie.Ever.

Damn, I wish I was Scottish.....

I liked Gettysburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (as played by Jeff Daniels) was finally given proper credit in that movie based on THE KILLER ANGELS book.

BAYONETS!

another good Civil War Movie would have to be Glory.

Gotta say I liked "Braveheart". "Rob Roy" with Liam Neeson was good too.

I could go through the film and list all the basic truths about it, the battles, the means of his eventual death. In truth, it is a drama based around actual events, and if you are looking for attrocities against the Scots, the battle of Culloden and it's aftermath is a more recent and more haenous event.

One thing that William Wallace did do though was change the face of battle in europe, that scene where he uses spikes to defend against the heavy horse is entirely true, and was called "the shiltron".

The truth is, however, that it was not used at the battle he won, but at the battle of Falkirk, and was decimated by the Welsh archers. Later in the battle of Bannockburn, Robert Bruce used the same "shiltron" except in an attacking mode......from that day the Pike was a military tactic in all wars of western europe.....until the invention of the gun.

300 and braveheart=F*cking awesome movies

I'm actually decended from Robert the Bruce and William Wallace.

the film itself is as always extreamly biased. England was never more oppresive than the next European. It was still a good film though, although it would have been better if they had got scottish actors.

Balsiefen wrote:I'm actually decended from Robert the Bruce and William Wallace.

I've never heard a non-American say this before.

@ Stopper (its funny 'cause its true!)

Then....arghhh. Bloody Mel Gibson - he comes from the "butchers" school of history. Don't get me started on "the Patriot" (Freed the slaves?! The slaves joined the British in hugh numbers to fight against their oppressors)

And Braveheart - there wasn't even a bridge in the battle of Stirling bridge for f*ck's sake. And those napam fireball thinks he made - Jesus, Hollywood can't make a film without an explosion...

Huckleberryhound wrote:I could go through the film and list all the basic truths about it, the battles, the means of his eventual death. In truth, it is a drama based around actual events, and if you are looking for attrocities against the Scots, the battle of Culloden and it's aftermath is a more recent and more haenous event.

I disagree with your last statement. The Jacobean war was in reality a Civil War, many Scots and English fought on both sides - it was not a war for independence but a war of succession and religious politics. I think you are confusing "Scots" with "Highlanders".

OnlyAmbrose wrote:It's obviously biased, it's a frickin' movie not a documentary. Not to mention I'm pretty sure Mel Gibson hates England. I mean, look at the Patriot. The war crimes certainly weren't as terrible historically as they were made out to be.

Nonetheless, let's keep in mind that the middle ages were barbaric times, and I personally am very willing to believe that the atrocities depicted in the movie truly could have happened.

And it was a hell of a good movie. One of my favorites. And 6.022 x 10^23 times more historically accurate than 300.

The atrocities in the middle ages were every bit as bad that the film depicted. Or at least, things like that happened often enough.

It was a film ment to entertain, not educate. The Battle of Stirling was supposed to have been on a bridge. Gibson used creative licence there, why not elsewhere?

And 300 was based on a Marvel comic based lousely on the real battle.

the trouble is - i believe that most americans receive all their non-american history through watching american made movies - such as braveheart.
this results in a cliched, over-simplified, and sometimes totally untrue view of events, often confused with historical fact.

so it does matter - that a film that supposedly portrays historical fact
should be as accurate as possible - would that be so bad - and then perhaps
the american audience would better informed, and better able to understand
the rest of the world.

If you want entertainment then would it matter if, say, braveheart was
re-titled and based entirely on a fictional character?

BTW this is not a slur on americans - my knowledge of american history
is largely drawn from cowboy films ...

luns101 wrote:

jnd94 wrote:Best.Movie.Ever.

Damn, I wish I was Scottish.....

I liked Gettysburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (as played by Jeff Daniels) was finally given proper credit in that movie based on THE KILLER ANGELS book.

BAYONETS!

Funny, I was just watching this movie last night. It is a good movie.

luns101 wrote:I liked Gettysburg. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (as played by Jeff Daniels) was finally given proper credit in that movie based on THE KILLER ANGELS book.

... Anybody know where one can download this movie, Gettysburg? It's an older film... surprised I couldn't find it, looking around - Veoh, DailyMotion, DivX, even YouTube... nada (found the first 30 minutes or so of it... just makes it worse I cannot find the rest!)

... (and no, it's not in the rental shop here)

Braveheart was a great movie. I know its not historically acurate. I also loved Apocalypto.

jnd94 wrote:

Minister Masket wrote:Haven't seen it.
Heard it is a completely biased movie in favour of Scots.

Oh shutup. Of course its biased in favor of the Scots! Its a moive about their freedom! England was a ruthless monarchy to its foes and its people, no getting around it.

Um ... the only reason England attacked Scotland in the first place was because the Scots kept raiding England. Besides, Wallace was just as bad as Edward I in terms of human rights atrocities.

Fact is that most countries were pretty brutal at that time.

Also remember that Wallace wasn't fighting for the Scottish people, he was fighting for Scottish royals. Scots would still have been oppressed, just by different people