Chen G.

Cameron talked about this and I think he's right on the money: "Its just stupid. I mean, yeah, could Romeo have been smart and not taken the poison? I mean sure, but it kind of misses the point."

I think there's an interview of Horner's where he agrees with you. And he's....well, he's not wrong.

Yeah. I doubt Lucas would have set out to redeem Vader had he already the massacres of the prequel trilogy in mind. Its not at all clear to me that Lucas had the massacre of the sand-children and sand-women until scripting Episode II.

I just dislike that we cut back to the framing story in the mid-point. Kind of zaps you out of the events. Otherwise, I think the framing story was necessary. Its a brilliant way to lay the cards out - for those who happen to live under a rock - and create tension. And I think to refer to the love story as just a vehicle is a little much. That's like calling the love affair in Meistersingers a vehicle. On paper it is, sure, but more often than not, its what keeps people engaged. Splendid movie.

That's the thing, though: Part 1 didn't make all that much money. And while that's partially the influence of Covid and Villenueve made an excellent motion picture, its still not the most, erm, accessible of motion pictures. So yeah, I wouldn't be holding my breath for a part three. The thing that really worries me is that, with the propsect of a part three in mind, Villenueve will leave the end of part 2 in an up-in-the-air note.

Oh, you’d be amazed!🤣 Ask the Discord bunch!

There's conflicting evidence on the who would have played who, and obviously the minutiae of the casting was tentative at best. The very first idea was the four band members would star as the four Hobbits. They started carving certain roles for themselves, and even arguing on who gets to play Frodo. When Boorman entered center stage, the idea was still that the Beatles would star, now again as the four hobbits. A funny corner of history, but ultimately (like Jodorowski's Dune) one that was never actually going to get made: just a flight of fancy.

I cited Doug Adams, who I think provides a good analysis on the similarities to Holst where they appear. I've yet to come across conclusive evidence that Williams had Tcaikovsky in mind with the love theme, but I could be wrong.

The "Oh, The Empire Strikes Back wasn't well recieved in its day and look at it now!" is a bit of special pleading. Yes, it didn't have the novelty that the original did, and many critics thought it was too serious. But it still got reviews almost on-par with the original.

Yeah, it gives the film an edge.

But Wallace is already so brutal as it is. I mean, look at Gladiator: even though Maximus sets out to kill Commodus, ultimately the way its staged Maximus holds a knife to Commodus, and then Commodus makes a lunge at him and clearly impales himself on Maximus' blade. Whereas, when Wallace captures the English captain... I mean, he's disarmed and captured, and Wallace puts him to a pole and slits his neck. Not saying he's wrong: I'm just saying a traditional Hollywood movie wouldn't do it like that - in most movies, Wallace would have killed him in the heat of the battle, not after he disarmed him. Ditto the way he cracks Mornay open. And then there's that bunch of assasinations he burns alive...

Hmm, I'd probably make the prince less foppish. There was a deleted scene between him and Isabella that, at least off of the page, sounds pretty good, although it would have probably slowed the film's pace somewhat. There was also a deleted scene - it had appeared on a cut of the film that appeared on US television - where Wallace orders that, when York falls: "We will spare the women, the children and the priests. To all else - no mercy." I think that little line would have brought a lot of complexity into the film.

Like fine wine!

Yeah, Gladiator on the page has its fair share of clumsiness, too. But I feel like the raw power of the story and the strength of the performances (excellent across the board) push it to a point where those things just...don't matter anymore. There was an interview with Russel Crowe recently that I found strangely moving: "We made Gladiator over 20 years ago, and I guarentee you somewhere right now, its playing on primetime television. It has the longest legs."

Balian is from France, yes. And an inordinate and far too long part of the film takes place still in France and in Italy, before Balian gets to the Holy Land. Another one of the my issues with the film. But yes, the film takes place in the Crusader kingdom, with Morrocco standing-in for it. So Hattin is a desert plain, when in actuality THIS is Hattin:

I've heard of people sitting down to watch Braveheart - which a 172 minute affair sans credits - thinking they had only been sitting down for twenty minutes. Can't say its like that for me, but I get it...

Oh yeah! That's part of what I don't like about it. Not so much the historical inaccuracy in and of itself - although as someone who lives within 90 minutes' drive of both Hattin, Jerusalem and Ibelin, its pretty funny to see them look NOTHING like themselves - but just the lack of potential conflict. I find the King's "safeguard in particular the Jews and the Muslims. All are welcome in Jerusalem, not only because it is expedient but because it is right" hard to swallow, and likewise that the Muslim populace of Jerusalem, hearing Balian's rallying speech on the battlements, would find it at all compelling is baffling to me. They're just missed opportunities to have more conflict: the film just needed a bastard like Proximo, or at least a real-politik figure like Robert the Bruce Senior, to generate more conflict. As it is, the only conflict is with Guy and then later on with Saladin. They should have been more tension WITHIN the kingdom.

You know, I like Kingdom of Heaven, but I feel like it really doesn't compare - in any version - to either Gladiator or to Braveheart, mostly thanks to its subpar screenplay. Also, while Juaquim Phoenix and Patrick McGoohan made absolutely blood-curdling antagonists, Marton Csokas in Kingdom of Heaven is absolutely godawful, I always thought.

Jus think of it as "Game of Thrones from the 1990s", as I once heard it described.

In a thread like this, there's only one piece of advise to be given: "Braveheart - if you didn't watch it, go ahead. If you did watch it...just watch it yet again." Contrary to what the naysayers are saying, its absolutely, positivelly one of the greatest of all motion pictures.

Quite. Given that Mel Gibson had directed one - just one - movie before Braveheart, it would have been a small miracle that, in taking on this gigantic movie and unwieldy screenplay, it would have turned out just half-competent and vaguely comprehensible. That it was in fact to be so great that even Sir Ridley Scott couldn't better it (in spite of making a superb and sublime film in its own right) takes it out of the realm of a "small miracle" and into the cinematic equivalent of the parting of the red sea. I mean, imagine yourself back in 1995. There's another Scottish movie, Rob Roy, by a director with a good deal more experience, a seemingly much better cast (I mean, John Hurt, Liam Neeson AND Jessica Lange? Beside Gibson, the only person one might have recognised in Braveheart's cast was Patrick McGoohan), a script that was considered far stronger in the casting circles, was much more wieldy story-wise AND it was going to release first...anyone in their right mind would bet on Rob Roy winning that race. But Braveheart, through sheer force of its greatness, wiped the floor with Rob Roy, itself a perfectly respectable movie. And yes, it was very much a model to so much of what we know and love today in film and television: The influence of Braveheart is just about in every frame of The Lord of the Rings. Films like Gladiator are obviously modelled on it, and so are television series like Game of Thrones and Vikings.

Did you watch it?

It'd be cool if he did. But unlikely.

Well, I'll be! It is! They refer to it in the audio commentary. It never occured to me! Cool!

You know, I don't believe he is. My memory is Aragorn sits near the fireplace, whereas this guy is sitting perpendicular to it. I even think they remark on it in the director's commentary.