Chen G.

Kinda. The way both melodic lines open is kind of similar, and of course some of the instrumental choices are close. But I don't know how much of it was temp-track emulation and how much just comes down to the "celtic" quality that both tunes are supposed to posses. I should however mention that there isn't any one Shire leitmotif, per se. Its a tune that Shore twists into several themes: with a functional harmony, its the Shire theme; backed by hymn-like chords, its essentially Frodo's theme - which is perhaps the one that feels most like the Braveheart material; folksy and adorned by grace notes its a theme for Hobbiton; playful and reedy (come The Two Towers) its a playful theme for Merry and Pippin, etcetra. And of course the Shire theme has that lush B-phrase.

To me, the measure of a film's visual style is less in the color palette and more in the filmmaker's choices of how to stage the frames, where to place the camera and when and how to move the camera. It may be less easy for the uninitiated to hang onto (at least conciously) but none the less these are the bare essentials of directing, NOT the choice of saturation level. In those senses, David Yates is a good filmmaker. Yes. Appropriately so!

Well, the director did reference Braveheart as a strong influence on the films. You can really see it, too: some of the imagery, the staging of the large-scale action sequences; even some thematic elements - Boromir (and Thorin after him) weren't as overtly patriotic in the book. At one point Patrick McGoohan (who played Edward Longshanks) was considered for the role of Gandalf, as well. So, naturally, Jackson also gravitated towards James Horner when he was looking for a composer - having in fact contacted him in 1997 - a full three years before Shore was - thank all things holy - chosen for the project. Jackson also admitted to have temp-tracked parts of the film with Braveheart. Its even evident in the diegetic music (which mostly wasn't Shore's). Plan 9 who composed these pieces very early on, didn't originally concieve the diegetic Shire music as particularly celtic, and from the finished piece of "Flaming Red Hair" its clear to me that Jackson had Braveheart's "Scottish Wedding Music" on his mind as he guided them down that path. Some have even pointed a similarity between the Dwarves' song in Bag End and the love theme from Braveheart (the opening's the same). I'd actually be quite interesting to know what parts of the film were temp-ed with what music. On the other hand, being that the Hobbits naturally suggest celtic music, I don't know that some melodic, harmonic and certainly instrumental similarities were ever truly avoidable, and some of what I pointed out may well be coincidental. At any rate, the popularity of Shore's Shire music really owes to scores like Braveheart and Titanic for having popularized the celtic sound. At the same time, however, its clear to me that Shore was very intentionally avoiding a lot of Horner-isms, especially with regards to instrumental colors: he planned on using a pan-flute for Gondor very early on (as we know from an early mock-up) but ended up waiting until the third film (when the scores stood on their own) to introduce the instrument. He avoided bagpipes (although one of the instrumentalists on the score is credited for playing "drones") until The Hobbit, instead opting to use whistles and - for Rohan - a hardanger fiddle to a similar effect; Thematically, too, Horner always made a point out of using a very small number of leitmotives (Bravheart has about four or five) whereas Shore went completely the other way. On the whole the similarity is slim enough that it doesn't feel at all deriviative, but at the same time appearant enough that's its kind of nice to have two excellent scores and films have this shared connection. All the more reason to love Braveheart: its influence gave me my favorite film and favorite film score.

I don't think that they look bland in the slightest: his framing is great, and he isn't too extreme with the digital grading - that dishonor goes to The Goblet of Fire. I especially like some of the photographical choices in his Deathly Hallows Part 1. The more frenetic camerawork serves as a good visual representation of the characters' wandering, and I like some of the small touches like the harsh, fluorescent light during the fight with the snake. I think lots of people around here mistake grim and depressing for "lifeless" or "souless". That a story is a downer, doesn't make it a lesser.

JWFan would explode!

I'm not entirely sure that I like Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban more than Yates' Order of the Phoenix. And as the films progress, it holds that this magical world would be presented in a more matter-of-fact way. I find it much more effective than Columbus' camera closing-up on every bit of magic and every magical artifact.

Again, not true. While Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban is the most inventive with regards to camera movement, its David Yates' Half-Blood Prince that boasts the most well-composed imagery, with regards to framing. And like @Bilbo I enjoy it when a single filmmaker is allowed to craft a franchise in its entirety: both on the grounds of consistency, and by simply allowing such a filmmaker to paint on such a large canvas.

Nonesense: he's made two of the very best Harry Potter entries.

I loved that film ever since I rediscovered it two years ago, but I haven't got around to watch it too many times: its much too grim to be revisited all that frequently.

Braveheart really isn't that long: it flows quite nicely. The odd thing is that it shouldn't. If you really think about this movie, its three-hours long, out of which it takes over an hour until you have any semblence of plot, and after the Battle of Falkirk, it kind of puts the plot on hold again until Wallace's capture - it shouldn't work at all. But it does!

True. It adopts some tropes, and eschews others. I don't take an issue with the affair with the princess. She feels so caged in England, and so it holds that Wallace's philosophy of freedom would appeal to her, and so will the man himself. I love the scene where she hears about his exploits: its very economical way to tell the story - because it was originally going to be a large action setpiece - while also revealing something of the princess' character. I'm also so very impressed with the way the character is played by Sophie Marceau. There are so many close-ups of her talking with Wallace or Longshanks, where she's just staring at them, and yet what she's feeling is incredibly clear to the audience. I couldn't care less for its faithfulness to history (and I'm saying that as someone studying for a post-graduate in history). Adapting historical events is like adapting a book - you make whatever changes you need. Accuray is for documentaries - not narrative works. Absolutely. I said the Battle of Stirling is the best large-scale sword fight in cinema history and I absolutely stand by it, because of one word: buildup. Gibson just takes so much friggin' time between the English captain calling for archers and arrows actually hitting the Scots; and than again, with the cavalry charge - it seemingly takes forever until they clash with the Wallace's Men, and than again with the infantry. If you take away all the buildup - there are a scarce few minutes of actual fighting. Its a masterclass of buildup, and it also happens with the infantry charge in Falkirk (which was NOT scripted), with the attack of the English garrison in Wallace's town (especially) and with Wallace's execution. In that regard, Braveheart has more in common (in the best possible way) with a Leone spaghetti-western than it does a Cecil B. Demille epic. By far the biggest inaccuracy in the film isn't woad, kilts or grown-up princesses, but the fact that Randall Wallace attributes patriotic motivations to the Scots - notions that would not exist until the modern era, centuries later. But than, he wasn't writing a script for 13th century audiences - he was writing it for a modern audience, so it only makes sense.

Its actualy not at all like the old epics. Some have criticised Braveheart for the simplicity of its script (as far as characterization goes) but I think major kudos are in order for Randall Wallace for the way in which he kind of tempered with the tropes of the 60s epics: again, with the very contemporary dialogue (juxtaposed with the awful faux-biblical stuff that passed for dialogue in the old epics), including injections of irreverent comedy, as well as crudity and profanity. I think its the best film in the genre.

Yeah, but like I said - the pipes kind of stretch the credulity of this about as far as it goes. For crying out loud, the film originally ended with bagpipes! But then, its just such a beautiful instrument. I dunno.

I don't think that's why Horner went the Celtic route. After all, the film isn't about those passengers: even Jack's friend Fabrizio (the closest we get to knowing anyone in steerage) isn't Irish. The main story (that being, the love story) has nothing to do with Irland. Its just that Celtic music, in Horner's own words, has a "wistful quality" that Horner (and indeed myself and many others) found to be effective in conveying the romance and tragedy of the story. It still stretches credulity with the use of bagpipes - although I do love their sound so I'm kind of in two minds about this.

More than just the pipes, its just this Gaelic influence that rests on both scores (and really, to be fair, on most of Horner's body of work). James Cameron is reported to have loved the score to Braveheart, and if we're to assume that he temp-tracked his film with that music - that'd explain Horner's infusion of Celtic elements into a story that otherwise just doesn't warrant them. It also had a strong presence in the temp-track to The Lord of the Rings. So much so, in fact, that Jackson phoned Horner in 1997 - long before contacting Shore in around 2000.

Empire Strikes Back (*****) > Star Wars (****1/5) > The Force Awakens (****) > The Last Jedi (***1/5) ≥ Revenge of the Sith (***1/5) > Return of the Jedi (***) > The Phantom Menace (***) > Attack of the Clones (*).

Hymn to the Sea and the main love theme from Braveheart sound quite similar, to my ears. I’ve often called Titanic (more with jest than with actual intent, though) Braveheart 1.5.

Chris Hartwell just published a good examination of The Last Jedi: not at all apologetic of its flaws, but also not overlooking some of its high-points. I’ll wager he still likes it more than I do: at the time, it was one of his favorites of the year. I only watched it once, so I'll probably have more to say on this later. Of the top of my head, Hartwell attributes Lucas with making the Jedi deeplye flawed, making justified Johnson’s choices regarding Luke (which I don’t mind). But since those flaws weren’t necessarily presented as flawes, I think it’s fairly disingenuous to look on Johnson’s choice as if it were building upon this foundation, which in reality is much more shaky than Hartwell (a fan of all the original sextet, I should add) will care to admit. Also, he seems to hang on to his assumption that Kylo Ren will indeed be redeemed in IX, which I don’t think is a warranted choice anymore.

Barely so.

I don't think they shrugged it off so very lightly, though. It was embarassing enough that Iger had to say that they're "slowing down".

Especially in tandem with the OST, Rarities and Fan-credits. The CR isn't meant to replace any of those. Its meant to sit besides them.

True. Even though it is a spinoff, it slots into the series much more naturally than Solo: its essentially episode 3.5.

Its not quite a kids' film in the same way that the original is. I know because didn't grow up with it. I watched it as an adult, and while the "kids' film" aspect of the original and of course the first two prequels kept me from ever fully engaging with them, this film didn't have that problem. It was one of those movies where I didn't realize how much more I was into it until it ended. I wouldn't say its truly perfect, though: having not grown up with the character I found C3PO kind of annoying, but being that he's an heirloom from the previous film I'm more than willing to excuse it; and of course there are some retroactive changes to the film that I don't care for.

Hey, I was as skeptical as you going into it. It was everything its reputation suggested and than some.

Yes. That would be "The Empire Strikes Back". No. That would be 1999-2002.