Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Gladiator vs Braveheart

profile picture
SkeetMasta
Posts: 197 - Karma: 13
1+Braveheart
Mar 18 2006 8:04PM
3 0
profile picture
Crock360
Posts: 2100 - Karma: 23
Oh God, no comparison. Gladiator is a good movie, but Braveheart is an amazing film, and yes, there is a distinction. Example:
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a good movie, and Schindlers List is a great film.

Gladiator is one of the most historically innacurate movies i've ever seen, but for over all entertainment value, it does it's job. It's fun to watch.

Braveheart is just epic. Great cinematography, awesome acting, just a beautiful piece of cinema.
Mar 18 2006 11:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Knewnews
Posts: 2093 - Karma: 477
braveheart for sure
Mar 19 2006 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
hellmut
Posts: 1460 - Karma: 29
Both films arent that historically accurate. Did you know that william wallace once skinned an english commander alive and later wore the skin as a belt. All films like these have to be altered a bit. And whats so wrong historically with gladiator. All I noticed was that christianity would have had more of a presence. I dont know much about the time period though. Both very good movies anyway.
Mar 19 2006 4:09PM
0 0
profile picture
1-pippin
Posts: 1741 - Karma: -2
yeah braveheart was a little better but gladiator is pretty close.
Mar 19 2006 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Blademan
Posts: 137 - Karma: 10
Braveheart owns
Mar 19 2006 6:43PM
0 0
profile picture
coordy12
Posts: 1285 - Karma: 10
neither movies make claims to be exactly historically accurate.

both movies rule, but braveheart was the first mover
Mar 20 2006 10:38AM
0 0
profile picture
FUUUCK
Posts: 18426 - Karma: 4,888
braveheart wins
Mar 20 2006 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
.John.
Posts: 6943 - Karma: 14
Braveheart
Mar 20 2006 1:37PM
0 0
profile picture
Lord_Piot
Posts: 3727 - Karma: 13
braveheart would kick the shit out of him.
Mar 21 2006 7:56PM
0 0
profile picture
skier_boy26
Posts: 11295 - Karma: 502
both have great scores
both have deep endings, middles, beginnings
both have intense action
both are dope
both are epic

braveheart has the advantage of 7 years though.
wallace is a bit more savage though.
however, maximus killed an emperor.

tough call
cant choose
Mar 21 2006 9:24PM
0 0
profile picture
resnick13
Posts: 1147 - Karma: 23
Braveheart because Mel Gibson is off his rocker.

http://meat.chattablogs.com/archives/images/mel.jpg
Mar 22 2006 12:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Ryanvdonk
Posts: 12811 - Karma: 1,971
i wouldn't put too much into the accuracy of braveheart, mel was a terrible pick to portray william wallace if it wanted to be correct, the real william wallace was like 6'5" 260lbs, just an ugly beast of a man.
Mar 22 2006 1:24AM
0 0
profile picture
Jaskittin
Posts: 5606 - Karma: 195
^But Mel Gibson is one hell of an actor when it comes to roles like that. I really like the way he played William Wallace acctually. Screw historical accuracy, I don't watch movies to be taught a history lesson, I watch them for entertainment. Both are very entertaining, but I would probably pick braveheart over gladiator.
Mar 22 2006 1:59AM
0 0
profile picture
Schoening
Posts: 14332 - Karma: 1,268
braveheart most def
Mar 22 2006 9:40AM
0 0
profile picture
poor@$$skibum
Posts: 1625 - Karma: 40
both are incredible movies, but they are just that: movies. if you want historic accuracy, watch the history channel. If you want a good movie, go to the theater. And yes, braveheart is the shit.
Mar 22 2006 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Snubluck
Posts: 2192 - Karma: 11
I doubt the film would have been as popular if the role had been played by some 6'5" 260lb. scottish monster of a man.
Mar 22 2006 7:25PM
0 0
profile picture
masterexploder
Posts: 477 - Karma: 11
freeeeeeeeeedom
Mar 23 2006 10:35PM
0 0
profile picture
fappy
Posts: 2960 - Karma: 15
gladiator a millon times over
Mar 24 2006 12:41AM
2 0
profile picture
max3907
Posts: 150 - Karma: 37
that was sick
Mar 24 2006 10:28AM
0 0
profile picture
Ski-hobo
Posts: 7121 - Karma: 15
good speil

I love both movies, however, I find Gladiator a bit more re-watchible, as it is a "fun" movie to watch.
Mar 25 2006 12:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Kajex
Posts: 1069 - Karma: 178
all braveheart man... gladiator had its great moments...but 99% of braveheart was a great moment
Mar 25 2006 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
holyDINOSAURS
Posts: 7038 - Karma: 639
im gunna disagree with all of you and say Gladiator. i cant stand mel gibson though.
Mar 25 2006 5:04PM
1 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
Braveheart all the way. Maximus, we cant even be sure that he was even a real person. Now, william wallace, he is totally factual and is Scotland's national history. All of the battles and tactics are accurate in that movie, and that shit really happened to his wife. I read the William Wallace biography, written by his like, great great great great great grandson, malcolm wallace, so i trust it. Anywho, wallace is just a beast and was perfectly portrayed by Mel, awesome choice.
Nov 5 2006 12:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr_Bojangles
Posts: 2585 - Karma: 16
If William Wallace and Maximus got into a barfight, who would win?
Nov 5 2006 7:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
Wallace by far, even though maximus is a little bigger, wallace is scottish, so he wins hands down.
Nov 5 2006 12:23PM
0 0
profile picture
LooSe_GRaNuLar
Posts: 152 - Karma: 10
yeah you cant really argue that scottsmen are the best barfighters in the world
Nov 5 2006 3:13PM
0 0
profile picture
ninjea
Posts: 2083 - Karma: 28
both are great movies. but i'll have to go with gladiator, because Russel Crow is a better actor.

heres anther one:

 The Godfather  vs Scarface
Nov 5 2006 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
jimmychung
Posts: 6857 - Karma: 25
never seen gladiator, so i'm going to have to say braveheart. although, by what the rest of you have said, sounds like i'd still say braveheart even if i had seen gladiator.
Nov 5 2006 6:51PM
0 0
profile picture
LooSe_GRaNuLar
Posts: 152 - Karma: 10
oh pleasy how could you possibly compare those two they're not even the same kind of movie if you said casino vs the godfather maybe. but since you asked the godfather
Nov 5 2006 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Delphi
Posts: 3748 - Karma: 36
russel crowe is a tool. You cannot deny, no matter where your heart lies with Mel gibson, that he absolutely nailed that part. He was so sick in Bheart.
Nov 5 2006 11:32PM
0 0
profile picture
PEJibber31
Posts: 358 - Karma: 11
As a film major Im going to say that Gladiator is better. Plus I like Russell Crowe a lot better, Maximus would have owned Wallace in a bar fight. Wallace just had to own pussy ass british pricks, Maximus owned all of Europe, especially Germanians and then Gladiators. I loooove them both, but Gladiator has the edge for me, both cinematically and acting wise.
Nov 5 2006 11:50PM
0 0
profile picture
cmeriptahoe
Posts: 1785 - Karma: 12
braveheart eassssyyyy. not even a question. cinematography is better and the battle sequences are insane.
Nov 6 2006 12:44AM
0 0
profile picture
cab_D
Posts: 1602 - Karma: 51
Braveheart for sure, beginning of awesome battle scenes i reckon.
Nov 6 2006 4:17AM
0 0
profile picture
PEJibber31
Posts: 358 - Karma: 11
I respect everyone's opinions because i think both movies are unbelievable, however I think it's probably best if people stop using the term "cinematography" if you dont really know what it means. I feel like most people are using it just to sound like they know more about film. As amazing as Braveheart was, the cinematography was simple and plain compared to that of Gladiator's style. Both are high quality films, but if Gladiator has nothing else on Braveheart, it easily has the cinematography.
Nov 6 2006 3:06PM
0 0
profile picture
brokebutitsworthit
Posts: 2279 - Karma: 27
god i hate braveheart, i enjoyed the acting but its sooo inaccurate that it just frustrates me too much to enjoy. Whatever the guy up there said about it being real is bullshit. I have been to bannock burn, i have been to Stirling bridge, none of that shit that happened is even close to being realistic. There is no guy with leprosy, king Edward was not evil, that thing about fucking the women of Scotland was pure fantasy, Wallace was the son of a knight not a farmer, he had 3 brothers not one etc etc. Look it up if you dont believe me. Oh and having a Aussie play a Scot for a movie filmed in Ireland, that sounds accurate eh?

I'm a history minor, this shit just fucking gets on my tits, all those movies are sooo wrong its frustrating, watch Rob Roy, its at least not as bad.
Nov 7 2006 2:02PM
0 0
profile picture
Crock360
Posts: 2100 - Karma: 23
hey sparky...no movie is real. 
Nov 7 2006 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
mark.p
Posts: 1422 - Karma: 10
Gladiator > Braveheart

even though I think both are amazing
Nov 7 2006 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
mark.p
Posts: 1422 - Karma: 10
^shit... my 1000th post. Only took me three years...
Nov 7 2006 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Djphantom
Posts: 124 - Karma: 10
Here's another one which is gonna be good: The old Casino Royal VS The new Casino Royal
Nov 7 2006 10:25PM
0 0
profile picture
PEJibber31
Posts: 358 - Karma: 11
The new bond looks fucking amazing i really like the gritty direction they're taking it.
Nov 7 2006 11:42PM
0 0
profile picture
cmeriptahoe
Posts: 1785 - Karma: 12
haha i love how you just want to try and tell everyone they are wrong because they are using a term that u know that u assume no one else knows. the spacial relationships of braveheart such as the epic proportions used in relation to the landscapes is one of my favorite used in any movies. so go pretend to know more than everyone else somewhere else.
Nov 8 2006 1:25AM
0 0
profile picture
PEJibber31
Posts: 358 - Karma: 11
rofl with exception of the cliff climbing scenes, the actual filming of braveheart is simple and normal. It's a good thing, it gives the movie a personal feel. Nevertheless, the cinematography is not something you notice while watching braveheart. You definitely notice it in Gladiator. So many movies have been trying the actual filming effects (not cgi effects) that Gladiator had since and have not succeeded. Ridley Scott's style is far superior than Mel Gibson's when behind the camera, end of story. I was not pretending i knew more than everyone else I'm just sick of reading in every fucking post "the cinematography is really good" when it's not. Good for you, you liked the way Ireland looked when it was supposed to be Scotland, it doesnt make the art of the filming any better.

The problem with this debate is they're both amazing movies so i dont want it to sound like i like either one less, i'm just simpling saying one part of one of the movies was better than the other. This one might not sound as important (but it definitely is) but Braveheart had far better comedic relief (the irish dude, the beastly father and son, etc). Off the top of my head, Gladiator didnt have much at all (the only scenes i can really think of are the queer giraffe's and the pretending to choke on the food scene).
Nov 8 2006 12:57PM
0 0
profile picture
cmeriptahoe
Posts: 1785 - Karma: 12
haha ^^^ ok you win. you obviously have a vastly superior knowledge of all things film related. but fyi... just cus its complicated and hard to do doesnt make the cinematography better. obviously you are biased cus u liked gladiator better and i like braveheart more so theres no point in arguing. and i didnt ever say that the cinematography was better i just said it was good.
Nov 8 2006 7:38PM
0 0
profile picture
LooSe_GRaNuLar
Posts: 152 - Karma: 10
it doesnt really matter to me how it was fillmed all that i care about is how much you enjoy watching it

i liked gladiator better but they're both fantastic movies
Nov 8 2006 9:12PM
0 0
profile picture
PEJibber31
Posts: 358 - Karma: 11
lol yeah that's what ive been trying to get at. I actually feel like the style for braveheart was perfect because the simplicity gave it a gritty feeling to it, which was a lot better for the Scots than the Gladiator style would have been.

Nevertheless they're both best picture movies for a reason. They're both amazing.
Nov 8 2006 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
AtomicTweaker
Posts: 2341 - Karma: 16
"Fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!"

Hell Yes, Braveheart




Nov 8 2006 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
ECfreeski3
Posts: 12019 - Karma: 126
ah i just cant stand mel gibson
Nov 9 2006 2:42PM
0 0
profile picture
LooSe_GRaNuLar
Posts: 152 - Karma: 10
yeah i'm getting alittle annoyed with his antics too
Nov 9 2006 4:40PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51514 - Karma: 160,924
I think I like gladiator better. Reminds me of my grandma.

But braveheart has the advantage of time being 5 years earlier.

Both have great screenplays, great scores, phenomenal acting, cinematography.

I think I like the screenplay of gladiator better, score of braveheart better, acting in braveheart better, and cinematography in gladiator.
Apr 29 2015 8:56PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)