Gladiator vs Braveheart

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.
 
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.
 
neither movies make claims to be exactly historically accurate.

both movies rule, but braveheart was the first mover
 
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
 
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.
 
^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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
good speil

I love both movies, however, I find Gladiator a bit more re-watchible, as it is a "fun" movie to watch.
 
all braveheart man... gladiator had its great moments...but 99% of braveheart was a great moment
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
"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

 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top