Best of the modern ANCIENT epics....
- Thread starter DACrowe
- Start date
Movies205
Corporate Money
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,512
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I guess I can't choose Ben-Hur (1959) which would seem modern in relation to original Ben-Hur (1925)
Edit: Bah there was no poll b4!
Ranked
Gladiator (2000)
Braveheart (1996)
King Arthur: The Director's Cut (2004)
Troy (2004)
Alexander: The Director's Cut (2004)
I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut (2005) yet... But King Arthur in my opinion was quite good, I don't get where all the hate came from.
Edit: Bah there was no poll b4!
Ranked
Gladiator (2000)
Braveheart (1996)
King Arthur: The Director's Cut (2004)
Troy (2004)
Alexander: The Director's Cut (2004)
I haven't seen Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut (2005) yet... But King Arthur in my opinion was quite good, I don't get where all the hate came from.
The Chairman
Pimps' Main Prophet
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 18,814
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Gladiator, though I haven't seen Braveheart.
L
LastSunrise1981
Guest
Braveheart and Gladiator are my favorites out of the bunch.
The Dark Defender
Unite and Fight
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Other than Kingdom of Heaven(where I found the DC even less involving than the already massively disappointing T-cut), all are very good to great, but Braveheart blows them all away.
The Dark Defender
Unite and Fight
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Movies205 said:
Holy ****, we agreed on something.
U.S War Machine
Hail to the king
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 7,728
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Forrest Gump
The Dark Defender
Unite and Fight
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
livrule said:
That really has nothing to do with how good it is.
Isildur´s Heir
Avenger
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 19,493
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Though call between Braveheart and Gladiator, both are just amazing.
I go with Gladiator, because of the two of the greatest line in a movie, "What we do in life, echoes in eternity" and "Death smile to us all, all a man can do is smile back".
I go with Gladiator, because of the two of the greatest line in a movie, "What we do in life, echoes in eternity" and "Death smile to us all, all a man can do is smile back".
The Dark Defender
Unite and Fight
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Isildur´s Heir said:
That second line is just a slight rewording of a Sophie Marcaue line in Braveheart, which had absolutely perfect dialogue from beginning to end, and it's been emulated in one way or another in just about every ancient epic since.
DACrowe
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2000
- Messages
- 30,765
- Reaction score
- 624
- Points
- 78
Well I figure it is safe now to put mine in:
1. Gladiator: This is one of those few films that are perfect. The casting is perfect, the diologue and screenplay is perfect (and that comes from rewrites and Scott just as much as from the somewhat limited Foranzi IMO), the cinematography is classic, the production scale is calssic and it just hits every mark imo with flying colors from the music to the editing. Just a brilliant piece of entertaining filmmaking and art in the mainstream.
2. Braveheart: A classic by any means. Gibson knows how to work a camera quite well and it is a moving journey on this one man's life. However, I think it has a few problems that keeps it from reaching Gladiator. Historical inaccuracies aside (none of these films are very accurate, oddly Alexander coming closest) the diologue was a little too Hollywood at times especially for Longshanks and some things just didn't ring quite right like Robert the Bruce actually wearing English armor into battle against the Scotts (betraying Wallace is one thing, betraying the country he wants to be king of is quite another) or Wallace knocking up the princess of England and having his heir be king of England, cheesy happyish ending. But it is very moving with great actin, cinematgoraphy, costumes and just the whole thing works as a great amovie really. But on the other note it is overindulgent in length and gore IMO.
3. Kingdom of Heaven (the Director's Cut): I know the complaints toward the theatrical cut which are quite valid and some are still present here, but if you haven't seen the director's cut do yourself a favor and do. It is 50 minutes longer but it just not more gore and sex (though there is a lot more blood spurting, we actually see the decapitations of the Muslim messanger and later Renyald and more nonnude sex with Eva Green) but organic characterization. It really puts the heart into this movie letting it pace right. It is a long epic but it feels correct and you give a damn about these characters now because they are developed instead of being the cardboard stand-ins they were in the TC. Just another movie that Fox has mutilated (who keeps hiring these guys who make these decisions). Now rrestroed you see what Scott wanted to make and it is a beautiful movie with great visuals (best cinematography of the lot IMO), music, and now characters. For example did you know at the beginning the priest that "mutilates" the body of Bailian's wife is Bailian's brother? Or that Sybilla (Eva Green) has a son who is crowned king after Baldwin IV's (Edward Norton) death but contracts lyproacy? I mean this is great stuff just gone, the movie now breathes again instead of being fast and paceless like Fox's other butchered baby recently, X3. It is good to see what was meant to be. And while not LOTR, the final siege of Jerusalem I would say is the best of the large scale battles in recent memory.
(this is where it starts to go downhill)
4. Troy: A very solid and fun entertaing movie. But it is based on The Illiad and we expected more than what we got. What we got was a movie that was great fun t owatch but if it weren't for Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana doing their darndst to make them mcare about their characters and their plight (which they succeed at) we wouldn't have remembered this movie at all. Great visuals and some pretty good costuming as well as the best one on ones in sword fighting I may have ever seen (in a traditional non-wire sense) and that Diane Kruger ain't bad on the eyes either. A vacant but enjoyable thriller harkening back to the days of '50s epics (before Ben-Hur and Sparticus) but after Gladiator our standards are a little higher.
5. Alexander (The Director's Cut): What a potentially good movie. It has a few good performances (most notably Val Kilmer) and great costuming and authenticity, but the movie just doesn't click. Call it the clunky diologue, the clumsy editing, the intrusive narration or the bad acid trip at the end, but it just doesn't work. But there are a few great parts like the score, cinematography again is top notch and the final battle in the jungle is one to be remembered, especially with the red blood filter at the end. An interesting mess worth one visit anyway.
6. King Arthur (the Director's Cut): I can't explain why I don't like this movie, I mean it never reaches the lows of Alexander but really has no saving graces either. I mean here we have a top notch cast and cinematography and score but the story is boring. It is unfaithful to history but beside that (and it was marketed as historical), it has bad writing and characters who are 2 demensional and meaningless IMO. I mean 3 of them die and I didn't care about a single one of them. The director's cut if I remember gave it a little more breathing room but it was just as boring and dull by the end though. The acting and fighting in the final scene though is laughable and the fact that they have to resort to painting the Saxons as such barbaric empty and souless thugs shows a real lack of imagination or pure laziness by the writers.
Sorry didn't mean that to be so long but this is a good genre and even the bad ones I seem to have to critique.
1. Gladiator: This is one of those few films that are perfect. The casting is perfect, the diologue and screenplay is perfect (and that comes from rewrites and Scott just as much as from the somewhat limited Foranzi IMO), the cinematography is classic, the production scale is calssic and it just hits every mark imo with flying colors from the music to the editing. Just a brilliant piece of entertaining filmmaking and art in the mainstream.
2. Braveheart: A classic by any means. Gibson knows how to work a camera quite well and it is a moving journey on this one man's life. However, I think it has a few problems that keeps it from reaching Gladiator. Historical inaccuracies aside (none of these films are very accurate, oddly Alexander coming closest) the diologue was a little too Hollywood at times especially for Longshanks and some things just didn't ring quite right like Robert the Bruce actually wearing English armor into battle against the Scotts (betraying Wallace is one thing, betraying the country he wants to be king of is quite another) or Wallace knocking up the princess of England and having his heir be king of England, cheesy happyish ending. But it is very moving with great actin, cinematgoraphy, costumes and just the whole thing works as a great amovie really. But on the other note it is overindulgent in length and gore IMO.
3. Kingdom of Heaven (the Director's Cut): I know the complaints toward the theatrical cut which are quite valid and some are still present here, but if you haven't seen the director's cut do yourself a favor and do. It is 50 minutes longer but it just not more gore and sex (though there is a lot more blood spurting, we actually see the decapitations of the Muslim messanger and later Renyald and more nonnude sex with Eva Green) but organic characterization. It really puts the heart into this movie letting it pace right. It is a long epic but it feels correct and you give a damn about these characters now because they are developed instead of being the cardboard stand-ins they were in the TC. Just another movie that Fox has mutilated (who keeps hiring these guys who make these decisions). Now rrestroed you see what Scott wanted to make and it is a beautiful movie with great visuals (best cinematography of the lot IMO), music, and now characters. For example did you know at the beginning the priest that "mutilates" the body of Bailian's wife is Bailian's brother? Or that Sybilla (Eva Green) has a son who is crowned king after Baldwin IV's (Edward Norton) death but contracts lyproacy? I mean this is great stuff just gone, the movie now breathes again instead of being fast and paceless like Fox's other butchered baby recently, X3. It is good to see what was meant to be. And while not LOTR, the final siege of Jerusalem I would say is the best of the large scale battles in recent memory.
(this is where it starts to go downhill)
4. Troy: A very solid and fun entertaing movie. But it is based on The Illiad and we expected more than what we got. What we got was a movie that was great fun t owatch but if it weren't for Peter O'Toole and Eric Bana doing their darndst to make them mcare about their characters and their plight (which they succeed at) we wouldn't have remembered this movie at all. Great visuals and some pretty good costuming as well as the best one on ones in sword fighting I may have ever seen (in a traditional non-wire sense) and that Diane Kruger ain't bad on the eyes either. A vacant but enjoyable thriller harkening back to the days of '50s epics (before Ben-Hur and Sparticus) but after Gladiator our standards are a little higher.
5. Alexander (The Director's Cut): What a potentially good movie. It has a few good performances (most notably Val Kilmer) and great costuming and authenticity, but the movie just doesn't click. Call it the clunky diologue, the clumsy editing, the intrusive narration or the bad acid trip at the end, but it just doesn't work. But there are a few great parts like the score, cinematography again is top notch and the final battle in the jungle is one to be remembered, especially with the red blood filter at the end. An interesting mess worth one visit anyway.
6. King Arthur (the Director's Cut): I can't explain why I don't like this movie, I mean it never reaches the lows of Alexander but really has no saving graces either. I mean here we have a top notch cast and cinematography and score but the story is boring. It is unfaithful to history but beside that (and it was marketed as historical), it has bad writing and characters who are 2 demensional and meaningless IMO. I mean 3 of them die and I didn't care about a single one of them. The director's cut if I remember gave it a little more breathing room but it was just as boring and dull by the end though. The acting and fighting in the final scene though is laughable and the fact that they have to resort to painting the Saxons as such barbaric empty and souless thugs shows a real lack of imagination or pure laziness by the writers.
Sorry didn't mean that to be so long but this is a good genre and even the bad ones I seem to have to critique.
The Dark Defender
Unite and Fight
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
- Messages
- 11,002
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Gladiator's plot is basically Spartacus tweaked a bit.
Braveheart is the only one of these that centers on a commoner that's easier for the audience to relate to, rather than someone that was destined to be a great king/prince/general etc... from birth.
Braveheart is the only one of these that centers on a commoner that's easier for the audience to relate to, rather than someone that was destined to be a great king/prince/general etc... from birth.
Poeman
Avenger
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 11,317
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
without a doubt braveheart.. it set the tone for the recent movies that are epics
gladiator is second. but i mean common... That FREEDOM line is one of the most powerful in film history, gives me goosebumps
followed by his emotional
it had me in tears
gladiator is second. but i mean common... That FREEDOM line is one of the most powerful in film history, gives me goosebumps
followed by his emotional
beheading
it had me in tears
black_dust
FrEaK-A-ZoId!!!
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2002
- Messages
- 18,281
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 33
None they all sucked balls
Phaser
Intellectual
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 8,191
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
I'd say Braveheart owns them all - it set the bar (and perhaps even the blueprint) for contemporary ancient epics and in many ways still is the standard. Sure, Gladiator is the only one that comes close but even then it doesn't have the heart of Braveheart nor is it nearly as inspiring when it ends. Even though Gladiator appears to be pretty much perfect, subsequent viewings glaringly reveal many of the film's flaws in both dialogue and performances. I'd go with James Horner's touching score over Hans Zimmer's epic strings anyday (though it's a tough call nevertheless). And Maximus wasn't half as charismatic or heroic a character as William Wallace.
