Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 2 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 83% |
Arguments: | 7 |
Debates: | 0 |
Braveheart is a better movie.
1) It came first. This is simple. I believe Ridley Scott even said that he was influenced by some of the camera jerks and shots in Bravheart.
2) It is more influential. Like I said with Ridley Scott, countless other directors have said they were influenced by the film -- Steven Spielberg (for Saving Private Ryan) is a notable example.
3) Its emotional intensity is much stronger. This is mainly thanks to the music from James Horner, which is regarded as one of the best soundtracks of all time, but also the reason is Mel Gibson's directing. The scene after Stirling Bridge was made to perfection. It was profoundly bittersweet: Wallace's bloody face, and the dying men, coupled with the beautiful music and cries of victory from Wallace/his men was a very strong scene in particular that I don't think any point in Gladiator matched.
4) It had better characters. Maximus wanted revenge and was hurt by his family's death, but beyond that, the characters were pretty dull. With Bravheart on the other hand, you have Wallace's deep need of freedom mucking through all of the deceit and blood, Robert the Bruce's conflicted loyalties, Longshanks' awareness and indifference to the fact that he's heartless, etc.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |