Best of the modern ANCIENT epics....

[Phaser]

Because heaven forbid they make an ancient epic that has mass appeal ....

Mass appeal does not make Gladiator a better film.

...and I must have dreamed about the oscars it won.

Braveheart won just as many.

 

[Dr. Fate]

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 restored yo usese what Scott wanted to make and it is a beautiful movie with great visuals, music, but 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 (best cinematography of the lot IMO) 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.

It's cool, you reviewed them well.

King Arthur must have been one of those films that had problems from day one. It had a potentially interesting idea, examining the history that may have inspired the myth of King Arthur, which is what the whole pitch of the ad campaign was, or at least half of the pitch, the other half being the sight of Keira Knightley in a leather chest thong (I found her more appealing in that white virginal under-dress from Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl), but instead they settled for being just a generic period action piece, and not even a particularly inventive one at that. In the end, even the man-who-could-have-been-Bond Clive Owen couldn't save it.

BTW, refresh my memory, did Keira Knightley get a Razzie for her performance in KA?

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know. I wouldn't call her that bad (this was the year of Alexander and Catwoman among others) so I doubt she would have gotten a Razzie (that went to Halle Berry). But I think the picture deserved a nomination though.

 

[The Dark Defender]

Oh yes .... right.

Because heaven forbid they make an ancient epic that has mass appeal .... and I must have dreamed about the oscars it won.

No, heaven doesn't forbid it, and I didn't say it's not a good/great movie. If you feel it is, that's fine, but mass appeal has nothing to do with it, nor do Oscars.

That's making the all too common mistake of confusing popularity for quality.

 

[whitecrawler-->]

Troy is the most awful movie i've ever seen in my life-i thought it ended at least 8 times,Bloom's acting was horrific and i've never been so bored out of my skull-failing my maths exam was more fun

 

[SuperFerret]

Braveheart is the only one out of the choices I find watchable.

 

[Cinemaman]

Gladiator was the best! I loved this movie!

 

[thealiasman2000]

Given that they both won Oscars (and winning Oscars means that they superior movies), I guess it's between "Gladiator" and "Braveheart".


I choose "Braveheart". More bloody, more fun, and it even had a tragic ending. Brilliant movie.

 

[Rac]

Braveheart. Gladiator would be the second.

King Arthur was poor, both versions. Troy was okay. Alexander was meh, haven't seen the DC. And KoH was just too damn short. I hope the DC is much better.

 

[grey_jeanie]

Gladiator

 

[livrule]

No, heaven doesn't forbid it, and I didn't say it's not a good/great movie. If you feel it is, that's fine, but mass appeal has nothing to do with it, nor do Oscars.

That's making the all too common mistake of confusing popularity for quality.

Sometimes you must give the general public a bit of credit.

Gladiator was not PERFECT ... but it was very well made.

To take a subject like that and create a movie that was enjoyed by many is not easy.

It IS possible to have a movie that is popular AND high quality!

 

[The Dark Defender]

Sometimes you must give the general public a bit of credit.

Gladiator was not PERFECT ... but it was very well made.

To take a subject like that and create a movie that was enjoyed by many is not easy.

It IS possible to have a movie that is popular AND high quality!

Of course it is, you seemed to have missed my point.

I didn't say it wasn't high quality, I said it's mass appeal isn't why it's high quality. Popularity and quality are two entirely different issues.

Of course movies can be very popular and very good, they can also be very unpopular and very good. How good their is up to the viewer.

 

[*Id*]

Of course movies can be very popular and very good, they can also be very unpopular and very good. How good their is up to the viewer.

Case in point - The Shawshank Redemption. Tanked when it was in theaters, despite the fact that it's one of the best (if not THE best) dramatical films ever captured on celluloid.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Braveheart for all those luscious mullets.

 

[Downhere]

Gladiator

 

[Jonathan Archer]

No love for Clash Of The Titans?

Oh well. I voted Gladiator.

 

[CapBeerCino]

This pool made me see I don't really like ancient epics
My fav is Troy I guess...