best and worst movie

what is the best and worst movie you have saw so far, it doesnt have to be related to world war
my choice would be
best: stalingrad, miracle (i hope the canadian version come out soon), terminal, resident evil 1, I robot

okay: resident evil 2, spiderman (so predictable), windtalker (pace is not intense enough), titanic, finding nemo (although i watched it with my cousin, i find it not bad at all), forrest gump

worst: saving private ryan (in the beginning scene, waste too much time on battle, extremely boring), pearl harbour, blade:triinty, charle angel, shrek (plain stupid movie), enemy at the gates (extremely boring with extremely bad ending), X-man 2 (boring, x-men 1 is good though), the Hulk (boring), any movie by van helsing

Best: Bourne Supremacy, Hostage, Miracle, Longest Yard

Ok: Titanic, Pearl Harbor, I Robot, Starwars III, Matrix Trilogy

Bad: Napoleon Dynamite

Pending: War of the Worlds

best 4 me is: A Night At The Roxbury :lol: ,it makes me laugha lot.
and i liked saving private ryan (except for the germans soldiers,they were idiots in the movie).

it´s okay: The aviator

worst: charlie angels

Best for me: Power of one, Oceans 11, Braveheart, (Damn I forgot the name) (Damn, I forgot the name)…
Ok: (i will edit)
Worst: Many! why do I have to remember the names of the worst movies?

best: pulp fiction, saving private ryan, enemy at the gates, full metal jacket, mafia, casino, lock stock and 2 smoking barrels, bourne 1, oceans 11

ok: snatch, bourne 2, oceans 12

worst: kill bill 1/2, napoleon dynamite, farenheit 9/11

What is good about Braveheart? I think the only accurate part is that it involved Scotland and England and one or two other facts that Mel could not massage to warp history. The worst thing is that the statue to William Wallace is Mel himself.

What is good about Braveheart? I think the only accurate part is that it involved Scotland and England and one or two other facts that Mel could not massage to warp history. The worst thing is that the statue to William Wallace is Mel himself.

[/quote]

I do not know if it is a Historical accurate movie, but its a good movie is it not? (I do not go to every movie theatre with a big World History book!)

It is a personal thing SAM, I was not getting at you. :slight_smile: It is just another rewriting of history by the dream factory and Mel slant on the English (his other warping of history eludes me). Many Scottish Nationalist now believe that it was all true ref the statue.

The other bit of nasty Digger chippiness you’re thinking of is The Patriot.

thanks

What was inaccurate about Braveheart except for the fact that like most films, many of the microevents in the film are interpretation of events? The story line is true is it not?

Lots to read here.

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/wallace/

Still a bit of a Scottish bias I guess, but looks very well researched.

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.

The author of that site says Wallace never died in English captivity. He leaves us believing the the remainer of his life was spent living free. Is that what you mean? All other sources seem to state that he was executed by Longshanks. I am inclined to believe the numerous other sources rather than the author of that page. It seems like wishful thinking. All historical sources say that he was “hanged, drawn, and quartered” (a particularly gruesome and cruel English punishment not outlawed until 1843), and his head was placed on a spike on London Bridge where it was later joined by his brother’s and others. I believe that is the truth of his death.

so you are a hockey fan too?

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.
[/quote]

It’s covered at length in that link - especially those events nearer the start of the film - e.g. who he is in a detailed sense. Where he came from. His background. His family. His motivations. The politics of the time (well worth reading… quite a chain of events!).

The problem with Hollywood is that your hero has to sell and sell well. Which all too often means the truth doesn’t sell quite so well.

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.

The author of that site says Wallace never died in English captivity. He leaves us believing the the remainer of his life was spent living free. Is that what you mean? All other sources seem to state that he was executed by Longshanks. I am inclined to believe the numerous other sources rather than the author of that page. It seems like wishful thinking. All historical sources say that he was “hanged, drawn, and quartered” (a particularly gruesome and cruel English punishment not outlawed until 1843), and his head was placed on a spike on London Bridge where it was later joined by his brother’s and others. I believe that is the truth of his death.[/quote]

There is no doubt that Wallace was executed on 25th August 1305 and that he was indeed hanged drawn and quartered.
His head was displayed on London Bridge and his right arm on the bridge at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, his left arm at Berwick, his right leg at Perth, and the left leg at Aberdeen.
Some of the films inaccuracies are just foolish and unimportant, such as Wallace painting his face blue.
Woad had gone out of fashion quite some time before, like 1200 years before. :slight_smile:
The French Princess Isabelle, with whom the film showed him having an affair, and implied the resultant child was to become King of England, was 11 years old when Wallace died.
They never met.
The mass hangings which feature in the early part of the film, during Wallace’s childhood never happened, since the English had only occupied Scotland a year before the battle of Stirling Brig (which was filmed without the bridge) :slight_smile:
The Battle happened, certainly, but not the way portrayed.
The Scots basically ambushed the English as they attempted to cross the river.
Wallace never supported Bruce’s claim to the Scottish throne, he supported his opponent, Balliol.
Bruce’s father is shown in the film as a leper.
He wasn’t, although Bruce himself is said to have died of leprosy.
Wallace wasn’t betrayed by Bruce, he was betrayed by a common soldier.
And there hadn’t been “100 years of English tyranny” at the time.
England and Scotland had been (relatively) at peace until the unexpected death of the Scottish King Alexander, and Edward was asked to adjudicate on who had the best claim to it.
He picked himself :slight_smile:
I’ve included a picture of The Wallace Monument, built in the 19th Century on Abbey Crag overlooking Stirling (it’s a bugger to climb, I do know that), and a picture of Wallace’s sword which is on display in the Monument.
The sword is 5’4" long, and weighs 6lbs.
The other pic is that of a reenactor who gives guided tours of the battlefields.
His dress and weapons are authentic reproductions.



(edited for spelling error)

As a Night (Sir William Wallace) would he have fought on foot in kilt with the presents? Although not a landowner, youngest son, he was landed gentry and wealthy. As was tradition he was heading for the church not some back of beyond croft as in the film.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=18747.html

You may find this of more use.

Highly unlikely he would have worn a kilt or “filleadh beag”, or even more unlikely the “great kilt” style plaid.
These were pretty well restricted to use by the highlanders, which Wallace most certainly was not.

As I understand it the original kilt was a general all-purpose garment used as foul weather coat, sleeping rug. Can’t remember the length, 5 yds?

I already know who he is, and I knew before I saw the film. BTW, he spent a little time in Tullock Castle near Dingwall; a little fact most people are not aware of. But how was the movie Braveheart innacurate about the historical events regarding Wallace? That’s my question.
[/quote]

It’s covered at length in that link - especially those events nearer the start of the film - e.g. who he is in a detailed sense. Where he came from. His background. His family. His motivations. The politics of the time (well worth reading… quite a chain of events!).

The problem with Hollywood is that your hero has to sell and sell well. Which all too often means the truth doesn’t sell quite so well.[/quote]

Well said that man. The problem with Braveheart is not the movie of itself, its the total historical innacuracy of it all. William Wallace did not live in a mud hut in the Highlands. He never wore a damn kilt and certainly didnt paint his face or any other part blue. Where was the bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge? That was absolutely pivotal to the victory.

Rant grrr mumble vent fume!