darko

Ive said in another post somewhere that I really disliked this movie and thought it was overhyped....but, most people disagree. I just thought it was kind of silly.

I actually thought it was kind of shitty. So much amazing character development; then poof, a slapstick murderous last 45 minutes that just felt ridiculous.... I dunno, he's done a lot better in the past.

Can't wait to see the Departed

The other thing that was obviously an unconscious (or conscious) Gibson moment: Edward I kills Edward II's fictitious gay lover. In reality, homosexuality was actually very well tolerated in England until the 18th century. This felt like GIbson's own prejudices. ALso, anyone here a fan of Marlowe? I was surprised that Gaveston wasn't the gay lover Edward II had. It was the likely choice if anyone has read Edward II the play.

Yeah I agree with most of what you said. And I have no problem with liberties like the ones you mention. However, I just think that making Edward III Wallace's son served absolutely no purpose except to say "Fuck you!" to the English. I mean, for me, I like historical fiction that doesnt turn history into "good" and "bad" oppositions. He could have done ALL the same things and made it just as well if he had humanized (instead of animalized) the English. It just becomes utterly formulaic at that point. Not that this bothered me in particular, but I had heard a lot of people were annoyed that Edward II was portrayed as stereotypically homosexual. He blatanly was, any thoughts on that? PS: As well, you say there isn't enough info to make a 'factual' movie. Completely true (to an extent, at least; its not even clear why Wallace began his crusade).

Its not about the accuracy so much as it is about insulting a people's entire history......I have no problem with historical fiction, I hate unnecessary liberties that add nothing to a plot, but insult history. Don't get me wrong, I didnt 'hate' the movie. It's rather good. But it kind of seemed silly to make the creative choices he did. Especially since any uneducated person or naive person watching it might have a really skewed view of English history.......anyway, thats just my annoyance with cliched story-telling.

Well, it doesnt have to be 100% accurate. Everyone takes liberties. I think to 100% insult the English bloodline is a little silly, and Gibson has a tendency to make Scots 100% right, English 100% wrong. Which is frankly, not at all how it was, and Edward I was actually a very passionate king, not a madman as they portray him......Like I said, historical inaccuracy is one thing, but to flat out villainize and patronize history is unnecessary. It would have been equally interesting if it had been done that way.

I didnt mind his accent. I was more bothered by the ridiculous ending that implies Edward III was Wallace's son, despite the fact Isabella had never even met Wallace. That was one of a million poor plot choices.... but yes, the mace in the face is excellent, mostly because it rhymes.

No I bought the DVD, which I now regret, because I swore I'd never have anything to do with Gibson again.

sweeeeet

Um, actually it's almost entirely untrue. The only true things about the movie are the battle names and the fact that Robert the Bruce, Edward I, Edward II, Isabella and William Wallace were living people. Everything else is completely false.

It was a good movie, but I was really bothered by how ridiculously innacurate it was....especially since it insists at the beginning that it is all true.

I watched Braveheart yesterday for the first time in many years. I remember liking it a lot, but rewatching it after many years, I realized that this movie is terribly, terribly flawed. I mean, I can totally understand why the English were completely offended by it; it is complete fiction. Virtually nothing in that movie is even remotely true historically, yet (unlike historical fiction like Gladiator, etc) it purports to be a real look at William Wallace.... moreover, the movie starts with this line about how the English would call the movie's narrator a "liar"...well, um, rightfully so.

Well, I think Unbreakable deserves more credit than it gets. It was a big risk to make a movie like that, and I think it was wholly original. The ending was a bit of a let down, but everything else was pretty well done. Signs, while not a great movie, was pretty good, despite a few major flaws and paper thin characters. Village, I agree, was total shit.

The Truman Show

Did something happen after the credits?

I really didnt like Saw I at all, I thought it was so over hyped and I have no idea why anyone likes it. The twists make no sense and a whole lot is left unexplained at the end. I actually thought Saw II was (barely) its superior. Neither movie is that great, and I dont know why they are wasting time and money to make a third episode. Why on earth does everything have to be a trilogy these days?

re: Pirates 2, That whole cannibal sequence had NOTHING to do with anything, and could have made the movie a more survivable 2 hour length, instead of 2 hours 40 minutes had it been cut out. The fight scenes were slapstick more than exciting, and Orlando and Keira had virtually no chemistry or ability to act.... I did find the Davy Jones parts really well done, but it's like, once they got away from the only interesting part in the movie, they made some silly comic bookish cartoon adventure with a sappy music track.

I saw Pirates 2. It was absolutely shit. Besides Lady in the Water, I havent seen a worse movie in a while.

I think my joke kind of went over Garsk's head.

I accept the apology. But let's try to stay on topic.... So where did the word apology come from? Did you guys know it used to mean "a defense"? Socrates's apology is the famous case. Socrates invented the Socratic Method, didnt ya know? There were more interesting philosophers though. Whatever happened to Stoicism?

As far as I know, Oswald in fact worked on a military base, but his expertise didnt go beyond basic training as far as weaponry. Nonetheless, whether the angle is impossible or not (which i have never heard, but ive never been there), Oswald (and marksmen in general using the same rifle, who tried to recreate the assassination) could not have fired 3 shots with accuracy in under 6 seconds, and definitely not 4 even inaccurately. It implies that there was another shot, at least one more if not two or three, and another shooter. Otherwise, the wounds simply do not make sense.

Im not sure if you really understand the facts. First off, Stone didnt invent anything in B4thofJuly. It was based on an autobiography written by a Vietnam Vet, Ron Kovic. Second, as far as JFK goes, Stone did take liberties (some creative, some interpretive facts), but his theory is no less crazy than the "official" theories that are out there. And as far as what you're saying about the bullet, I dont think you get that either. Stone didnt invent the magic bullet, it was a real explanation brought by the Warren Commission (buy the report if you dont believe me) that said that three bullets made some ridiculous number of wounds (i think about 9 or so?) in two people. Their explanation was that the bullet must have made a 90 degree turn in mid air, after hanging in the air for about a second (which for a bullet is an eternity) and then proceeding to go through a number of vital organs and exit in such a way that it would be impossible for a bullet to do so. For sake of argument (a pointless argument really), your 'straight' bullet theory makes no sense, because it would only cause about 2 entry wounds and 2 exit wounds. The reason they came up with the magic bullet theory was because they realized it was impossible for any sniper to fire 4 bullets in under six seconds, so they had to make it three bullets in six seconds, otherwise there would be no chance of the public believing the report. The Magic Bullet was hushed hushed in order to point the finger at Oswald (who himself had no rifle training and would likely find it impossible to fire even 3 bullets and aim accurately in under 6 seconds). Before you start bashing Stone's presentation of events, I highly suggest you do a bit of research yourself.(for instance, JFK wasnt sitting in front of anyone, he was sitting behind a governor.)

No one even expects or needs scary from him anymore. He doesnt have to keep pulling these shitty twists (IE the Village) to wow us. He complains how people harped on him for not making Unbreakable scary, but then he comes back to the same formula every time.

I dont know what ppl are talking about.....Oliver Stone has done a ton of movies that are factually based and pretty historically accurate. Born on the 4th of July for one, JFK is truth in the sense that it's an historical interpretation (which frankly makes more sense than the other shit that's out there). Alexander, though terrible, was historically accurate. Ppl vs. Larry Flynt as well. Anyway. JFK may not be hard fact, but it's based on a lot more than other reports on Kennedy's death are. I've researched Kennedy a lot and there's very little that comes to mind as being 'a lie' in that movie. There was no Deep Throat character, because he was based on a real life guy that came to Oliver Stone, not to Costner's character.