Braveheart vs. Gladiator
Braveheart
Side Score: 13
|
 |
Gladiator
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
Are you f-ing sh-ting me? http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ Top three kick ass balls to the wall action movies in order are 300, Braveheart, and Gladiator. At this bar I go to now and then they have TV's showing the real just kick ass clips while playing ACDC and other cool rock. It's crazy, I love it. Not a very peaceful place though as you might imagine. Side: Braveheart
1
point
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. Side: Braveheart
|
Maximus would definitely dominate William Wallace. Wallace, while definitely a badass himself, always fought with an Army. Maximus had to fight for his life on a daily basis against lions, arrow wielding marksmen, and outnumbered 10 to 1. Even when stabbed and bleeding to death he was able to crush Commodus. Wallace would have no chance against Maximus! Side: Maximus
I would think that Maximus would take down William just because he had better training even tho they both where famous generals of war ,but he doesn't seem to be fighting as much in the movie as William did. I think that roam would have been much worse for a slave knowing that you are not important and you could die any day; he was so well trained that he could withstand all brutal battles he faced. PS: nice topic sis Side: Gladiator
Maximus lead one of the largest Army's in the history of mankind. William Wallace lead a bunch of hooligan's who were not professionally trained warriors. There is no comparison, Maximus' troops were better prepared, more strategic, and superior to the Scots. "On my word, unleash hell" Side: Maximus
I dislike your premise. You're saying because Maximus lead a larger army he's better? The movie didn't get good until he lead no army, he was a slave. That aside, I'm curious what makes you feel that a movie kicks more ass based on the power of the army featured? Or is this debate about who's army would win? I think not. It's about the movie. And manly kick ass movies. And which manly kick ass movie kicks more ass. Am I wrong? If it's about the army then Starship Troopers beats out both. (Though that is the most very most underrated and under appreciated movie ever) No one would argue it's better than either Gladiator or Braveheart would they? Don't get me wrong, both are awsome. But I think taken strictly as individuals, without armies to back them up, Wallace is a bit more awsome than Maximus. Side: Braveheart
1
point
|
