Conference bookie::movies

    Mel was asked by a fellow what he wore under his kilt....his reply was
    
    ........YOUR WIFE'S LIPSTICK!!!
    
    HORnet
    

    
    Kevin Costner had this three hours or so epic "Dances with Wolves". 
    Mel Gibson, not quite taking up a cause, has done his own epic "Dances
    with Kilts"-- er, "Braveheart".
    
    
    Now, I really, really liked "Rob Roy", but I really, really, *really*
    liked "Braveheart".  Great story, great acting, great characters,
    sweeping scenery, romantic love, fantastic battle scenes, you name it. 
    Can't find one fault in the movie (well, the dummy horse that went off
    the cliff floated in the water, kinda proving it was a dummy, and Mel's
    accent could have been better, but hey....)
    
    I've really missed the "billions of extras and horses" sort of costume
    dramas that used to be popular but somewhere got too expensive and
    unprofitable to make.  So those "billions of extras and horses" scenes
    were just icing on the cake.  
    
    Everybody in the audience seemed to enjoy themselves, too.  At 2:55 or
    so, nobody got restless, which is a good sign.  I didn't notice the
    length of the movie till I got out and saw what time it was.  
    
    A word of warning:  The aforementioned battle scenes are, while not
    over the top, realistic in their violence.  I wasn't grossed out, and
    much of what you see is half-suggested/half-shown, but it is "grit your
    teeth and wince" violence.  Billions of people and horses charging each
    other with swords and lances and spears and clubs does not make an
    especially pretty sight once they meet somewhere in the middle and
    "Braveheart" doesn't gloss over this.  On the other hand, it didn't
    seem gratutiously bloody to me, and I consider myself the "average"
    movie-goer.
    
    I'd see this again any number of times.
    
    **** out of ****
      
    kim

    
    Well, I thought this was terrific, too.  Despite the comparisons that
    might be drawn with Rob Roy, this is really a different kind of movie. 
    Rob Roy was at least in part a love story.  Braveheart is much closer
    to straight historical drama.  This is not to place one over the other
    -- it's to point out that people who saw Rob Roy and went to Braveheart
    expecting much the same are in for a surprise.
    
    I believe I read somewhere that this movie was scripted by the last
    living direct descendant of William Wallace, and it shows, because it's
    certainly a different take on this segment of Anglo-Scottish history
    than I've encountered before.  Before this, I hadn't run across an
    account that left Robert the Bruce looking so bad.
    
    Quite often, the presence of a single figure so completely dominating a
    movie is not a good sign.  Gibson directed and starred and Wallace is a
    heavy-duty role: he must be on screen for at least eighty percent of
    the movie and there isn't a minute where he's not completely engaging. 
    Everything that happens to him is interesting.
    
    There was one point in the first part of the film where I couldn't
    decide if the editor was asleep at the switch or if it was just the
    first manifestation of an effect that occurs later in the movie --
    where Wallace's legend grows to far outstrip the man, which is doing
    something, if Wallace did half of what the film has him doing.  And the
    credit for this has to go to Gibson as an actor.  Some time before the
    filming of Lethal Weapon he acquired this aw shucks smile and he puts
    it to excellent use here, as well as a number of other moods.
    
    Gibson would have looked too isloated without a strong supporting cast,
    and here the script and the actors deliver.  There's no one who looks
    plastic.  One reviewer accused Braveheart of being homophobic because
    of the so flagrantly homosexual and so negative picture of Edward II. 
    I didn't think so, but of course, I'm a straight white guy of
    Anglo-Saxon descent.  Let's be glad the story chose not to describe how
    Edward II purportedly met his end.  Kudos, too, to the woman who
    portrayed the Princess of Wales.  It would have been easy to look
    strong next to Edward II, but she looks strong compared to Patrick
    McGoohan's forceful Edward I, and Gibson's Wallace.  I thought all
    Wallace's companions were great, and all the villians villianous
    without being cardboard.
    
    As for the violence, I didn't find it gratuitous, because war is a
    messy business and the further back you go in history the messier it
    tends to be.  Anyone who found what went on in The Last of the Mohicans
    or Rob Roy hard to take will be squirming at this one, too.  And
    there's no denying the movie is sad.  There's no attempt to dress up
    Wallace's fate, though thankfully, they don't dwell on the mechanics of
    it.
    
    I was also very impressed with James Horner's score -- one of his best
    and most original efforts.  I'll be going to see this again before it
    leaves theatres, and it's defintiely on my video acquisition list.
    
    DFW

	Although I haven't seen the film, I understand that the only 'flaw' was
	Mel Gibsons height ... he is 5'10 while Wallace was actually 6'6

	... apparently MG had to stand on boxes in some scenes to make him
	look taller.

	So, for the sequel, Mel will need to grow another 8"   :-)

	Donald

    
    Fantastic movie.
    
    I looked up the history of William Wallace. Some things were changed
    for the movie and dramatic effect, but overall it's appears to
    generally follow what happened. But who cares right?
    
    If anybody ever wondered what they wore under those kilts, this 
    movie will answer that question.
    
    Dave
    
    

    Re some notes back. I understand from some friends that the scenery was 
    actually that of Ireland, not Scotland (maybe they were filming Rob Roy
    there), and the extras were of the Irish Army.
    
    Marilyn

    re .1 "You wife's lipstick"
    
      Actually it was the other way around, Mel asked one of the extra's
    and that was the answer he got. (I'm a night-owl and saw the interview,
    Letterman I believe, just after they cut the legs off of MG's pants to
    make them shorts).
    
    Chuck 

    The credits at the end of the film reference both places.  And 
    if you see it, it would make sense that the battles, using the 
    Irish extras, were filmed in Ireland.  I don't know that Ireland
    has the peaks that are shown in some shots...I figured those
    were the Scottish bits.
    
    Sue
    

    According to Entertainment Tonight, Mel had 1700 Irish Army volunteers
    as extras for the battle scenes.

    His epic at 2:59 comes in three minutes under Kevin Costner's Dances
    with Wolves.

    Lisa

    hummm, I didn't like this at all.  I found the most scenes to be
    overlong - whether they be battle, torture, or romantic interludes.
    I spent a lot of time checking my watch during this.  I came away
    genuinely confused by the hype for this movie.   
    
    I also question the portrait presented of Robert the Bruce.  He
    may have been a pragmatist, but I doubt he was the wimp portrayed here.   
       
    
    *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ***    
        
    The bit of fiction between Wallace and the Princess of Wales was
    thoroughly off-putting after the supposed realism of earlier scenes.
    
    Wallace's final scene seemed to go on so long it became more laughable 
    than horrific. 
    
 

    I haven't seen this Movie yet but I am so glad that Hollywood have
    started to realise that there is a huge audience wanting to see this
    type of History.It seems as though 99% of the movies made in the last
    decade have all been about America and lets face it America's History
    dates back only a couple of centuries.This type of Movie shows to
    americans that other countries have most to offer about History/Ancient 
    Living and Hollywood should try it's best to produce movies of this
    nature, Also it is a good history lesson for all.
    
                                          Scottish Punter.

   >>This type of Movie shows to
   >>americans that other countries have most to offer about History/Ancient 
   >>Living

	gee, there's a revelation, eh? ;>

    I haven't seen this yet, but have heard a lot of good things about it,
    and am interested in its accuracy, being of direct scottish background
    myself.
    
    Joe McClain
    

    I can't attest to its historical accuracy, but this is one terrific
    movie! We saw it yesterday, and I can honestly say I was disappointed
    it ended. This after a running time of app. 2:55. There is not one
    moment of this movie I would have cut. 
    
    By far, the best movie I've seen this year.
    
    
    **** out of ****
    
    
    Marilyn

    I think there's a possibility there was a great movie somewhere in all that
    footage, but Mel needs to acquire better skills in the cutting room. I
    found myself bored enough in some of the overlong scenes to begin mentally
    editing the film myself. The result was that I didn't really get caught up
    in the story. I wish that I could have.

    The excessive insistence on realism in the battle scenes, mixed with all
    the make-believe elsewhere, also betrayed Mel's amateur standing as a
    director. It's what I classify as "uneven" direction.

    John
    

    I thought it was a little slow in starting out, and lost focus toward
    the end (I was convinced the diving horse bit was part of a fantasy
    sequence, at first), but for the most part, it's a rousing good movie. 
    Oddly enough, the best parts are the gory battle scenes and the warmth
    that develops amongst the good guys -- you usually don't get good
    action _and_ good emotion.  I liked the Princess of Wales (Sophie
    Marceau), but her attendant is someone to keep an eye on, too.
    
    I wouldn't mind paying full price to see it.

>    I liked the Princess of Wales

    The movie got me interested in these historical figures, so I spent some
    time looking them up in an on-line encyclopedia. If its dates are accurate,
    and I have no reason to suppose they aren't, it reveals some anachronisms.
    At the time she is first addressed as Princess of Wales, she couldn't have
    been. Her husband was the first English prince to have the title, but he
    didn't acquire it until 1301. In the movie, she is called the Princess of
    Wales before the battle of Falkirk, which took place in 1298. Of course,
    that's a minor matter compared to the fact that she didn't marry her
    husband until 1308, when he was already King Edward II and Wallace had
    spent three years in his grave!

    John
    

    
    It appears many viewers have become history buffs after seeing this
    film. 
    
    Only film out right now, that I would gladly go see again.

    .. Gibson himself says that they changed several things just for the
    sake of making a good movie...most of it is very true but he doesn't 
    claim that every reference is historically correct...in fact the battle 
    of Stirling was fought on a a bridge.....gibson decided to film it on 
    flat ground cuz he couldnt' fit something like 1500 hundred people on a 
    bridge and have it look right...you want  historically correct...then go 
    see a good documentary....you want a movie that evokes passionate emotions 
    AND makes you think...(as is obvious by everyone running out to check out 
    the real history)...then go see this one......>>possible spoiler>>
     
    
    FWIW : the princess of wales and wallace possibly never even met 
    much less had an intimate liaison.........repeat after me....."its a
    movie not a history lesson".........................................../k

    I like a good fantasy, historical or otherwise, as much as the
    next person. I think if I hadn't heard this film being touted for 
    its "realism" I would have been less disappointed (equally bored, 
    but less disappointed).  

    Don't get me wrong. I didn't judge the movie on its historical
    accuracy, nor am I suggesting that anyone should. I didn't like the
    movie when I saw it and I was completely ignorant of the history at
    that time. It just provoked me to explore some of the history and I was
    merely sharing what I discovered because I thought it was interesting.
    
    John

    re: .20 ....do you think possibly that the word 'realism' was used in
    reviews to describe the battle scenes and not necessarily the historical 
    accuracy of every piece of the plot?...that would be my
    guess..../k

    re: 21...even if you didn't like the movie....it provoked you to go do
    some historical investigation....how many movies have that kind of
    affect on most people?...i'd say whether you liked it or not, it's
    interesting that it moved you to go seek more information,that in
    itself is a win for the production..../k

    Re the last 2,
    
    Ditto! I was going to say the same things, but you beat me to it. The
    last time a movie prompted me to find out about a character was
    "Schindler's List ". That's pretty good company.
    
    More about the "real" characters after the ff
    
    
    
    
    It seems that Robert the Bruce, or Robert de Brus or Robert I, however 
    you may want to say/spell it, was the one who actually had leprosy. The
    encyclopedia I didn't  mention this about his father.
    
    Also it seems Edward I (Longshanks) died before the Prince's lover did. 
    He had been exiled by Ed I and returned to court after he died. He was 
    then left as regent when Ed II went to France to marry Isabelle.
    
    I was actually disappointed that Wallace and the Princess of Wales
    could not have met and had a child together, that would have been poetic
    justice. 
    
    Does anyone know if Steven (?) the Irish cohort of Wallace's has a
    historical basis, or is he an invention of the authjor of Braveheart? 
    
    
    

    Re: .23

    I agree. I'd even go so far as to say that the movie has a wealth of
    interesting characters and some pretty good performances. 
    
    Of course, I don't assign points to the various parts of a production,
    add them up and if the number is big enough, declare the film a winner.
    A movie can be almost perfect, but if its one flaw really bothers me,
    then I won't like the movie. I wouldn't even call this an almost
    perfect movie, but the pacing of it really bothered me. It prevented
    me from getting caught up in the action when it should have been
    helping me. In my little amateur critic's book, that's a major flaw. 

    John
    

In the SCOTLAND conference, someone posted a URL for "Braveheart":

	http://voyager.paramount.com/Braveheart.html

-- Nina

    "Braveheart" did for my wife and I what no other motion picture has
    done it quite a while: enthrall, possess, move to tears...in my very
    humble opinion, it is THE movie to see...all else pales in comparison.
    
    
    A unique piece of art will effect you for countless days on end...
    this motion picture is no exception...
    
    short_and_sweet_mac

    
    Re. 24
    
    Stephen did indeed have a "historical" basis in the Wallace legend as his
    companion.  The quotes are because little of the Wallace story can be
    confirmed, and much is known to be exaggerated.
    
    The Irish joining with Scots in the Battle of Falkirk is not true,
    though.  There were Welsh, and after a nasty, apparently drunken fight
    with the English horse in their camp the night before (that took about 
    100 lives) were reluctantly convinced to fight by Edward. Some French
    troops were there, but Irish conscripts would have very difficult to
    transport, and even more difficult to train and control. 
    
    Marshall

    This was a really good film, much better than "Rob Roy", which tended
    to really drag in parts. Possible *** out of ****. 
    
    A couple of points on the battle scenes .. although very realistic in
    terms of the bloody gore and the sickening thuds , it gives the
    impression that William Wallace is the main force or thrust behind
    every battle, where he personally engages the enemy and forces them to
    give ground. Nothing can be farther from the truth. This is Mel Gibson
    showing off his macho instincts, a la "Mad Max". He does it well and
    I like him better than Sly in the same role, the difference being that
    Mel can act, can really act. Witness his performance in "Hamlet".
    
    A few more comments on the battle scenes ....
    
    Leaders and nobles rarely, if ever, engaged in personal combat and even
    if they did, there was a kind of unwritten code at that time of who he
    would fight. No foot soldier would dare attack a noble and the
    encounters, where they did occur, would be more like a test of skill or
    strength rather than actual bloody combat. Nobles from the opposite
    camp were friends before and after battle and actually entertained one
    another prior to meeting in the field. This aspect, a rather chivalrous
    one , seems to have been completely forgotten and everyone appears too
    bloodthirsty and eager to slash and kill at the slightest opportunity.
    
    The harsh reality was that the poor soldiers, most of them actually
    farm laborers and not professional fighting men like say, the Roman
    legions, would go back to their former state irrespective of who had
    won and only the nobles had the last laugh. Time and again, this theme
    has been repeated in history and while this has been a common theme as
    far as historians are concerned, this seems to have been completely
    ignored by Hollywood. Much of the cinematic excitement of the character
    would have been lost by a truer portrayal, rather than a medieval
    Rambo, which is what the film has portrayed. Hurray for cinema! Who
    wants history anyway ? The film would have been incredibly dull
    otherwise.
                                               

    
    RE:29
    
    As a Scotsman raised in Stirling I can't believe anyone thinking
    Wallace was not always in the thick of battle!
    
         A Imrie.
    

    Also RE: 29
    
    I may be wrong, and I haven't done any research, but from what I
    understood watching the movie - Wallace wasn't a nobleman.
    
    Steve

    
    If you have a Web Browser, connect to the Paramount site. They have a
    short biography. Indeed, Wallace was not a nobleman, but was a man of
    principle (something we need a little more of today). He accepted a
    title from the nobles, but was always a Scotsman before he was a noble.
    They took some liberties with the time lines to make it more dramatic,
    but the fact that these people wailed at each other with swords and
    arrows and didn't have MASH unit. The people bled to death and those
    that didn't died of mass infections (since the relationship between
    dirt and infection wasn't understood). It was a brutal life.

    
    Wallace was the son of a knight, and his mother was a daughter of a
    knight.  He was the 'middleclass' of the time.  He was definitely 
    not a peasant (or the son of a farmer as depicted.)
    
    The myth of Wallace grew out of his ferocious personal fighting ability.
    
    Similiarly Robert Bruce often fought personally.  In the real battle
    of Bannockburn, unlike the movie he rode in between the two armies
    alone, to survey the field.  His own knights were alarmed, this was not
    a wise or common thing for a king to do without his bodyguard.
    
    An English knight rode out with a full lance directly at him.
    At the last moment he wheeled his horse, dodged the lance,
    and rearranged the knight's hair style with an axe.  This happened in
    front of several thousand soldiers.  Not exactly the wimp depicted in
    the movie.
    
    By this time English Kings would never fight, but Bruce and Wallace
    did.  And this is probably the core reason why they were able to beat the 
    professional English armies where so many other Irish, Scots and
    Welsh failed. 
    
     Marshall

    I know Braveheart isn't out in the UK yet, but I had the
    opportunity to go see it Tuesday night with a "real"
    Scotsman (one without the obligatory chip_on_his_
    shoulder...that's right, he's *not* from SQF) who's
    here on business.
    
    He thought it was terrific, and has promised to rave about
    it to all his friends when he returns home.
    
    Sue 

    Sue...my husband...born and raised in Stirling Scotland ...only been in 
    the U.S. for a year, thought it was superb as well..his two friends,
    also from Stirling ('remember bannockburn')..;")....also thought it
    was very very good......./k

    He was my Grandfather's uncle - a nasty big fella wi a hauf in him &
    bolloks like turnips.
    
    Davie.

    Braveheart opened to much fanfare last Friday, Sept 8 in the UK.
    The premiere was held the previous Sunday, Sept 3 in Stirling,
    and Gibson got the red-carpet treatment everywhere.
    
    It was neat to see first-hand the fuss over the film in Scotland.
    I think it will do very well, indeed.
    
    Sue

    
    It appears to be re-opening in this country very soon as well. 
    Paramount buoyed by the reception in the U.K.  Paramount taking a page
    out of Disney's marketing strategy for The Lion King?  Who cares.  I'll
    probably see it again.
    
    DFW

    Me too.  I think Sept 15 is the date.

    Finally, Braveheart came in Switzerland last friday. We saw it last
    monday. No words to say that this movie is GREAT. The whole movie is
    perfect. Everything seems to be so real. 
    
    Probably the best movie I saw since a long time. (Humour et action) I
    think I will go to see it one more time as in french we say "on s'en est
    pris plein la vue !!!" it means that we saw a lot of things too much at
    the same time.
    
    Anyway I really like Mel Gibson's movies because they always have
    humour even if the subject is not so funny .
    
    10/10+   Flo
     

    
    Heard this morning that Braveheart garnered the most oscar nominations,
    including best picture.
    
    

    
    
    Well deserved nomination!! ;))
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    	Eh All,
    
    		Well I finally got to see this great flick on March 7, and on 
    the big screen. It was the third time the theaters in my area  (Ottawa)
    released it. I think this flick deserves to win every catagory it's
    been nominated for...It's also definately made it somewhere into my top
    three fav's of all time.
    
    	For those of you who thought it dragged on...maybe it's because the
    action packed scenes were so action packed, in comparison the rest of
    the movie seemed slow?
    
    	H.A.G.O.,
    
    		 J
    

    
    
    Been awhile since the last reply but I finally managed to see this one
    and I gotta agree with pretty much everyone in here.......GREAT freakin
    flick.  I ended up watching it twice in two days and I'm considering
    telling the in-laws that the VCR ate it so I can continue watching it. 
    Definately one of my all time fave's.  
    
    re:-1  J, had I known it was this good I woulda got around to seeing it
    alot sooner.  Tanx for the recommendation.
    
    Cya,
      Rick

    Better late than never:) I *LOVE* this movie! Mel Gibson created a near
    masterpiece with this epic! I have seen it many times and just can't
    find anything wrong with it technically. Yes, it has some flaws in
    terms of history but Gibson was at least honest enough to admit to
    making changes, for moviemaking purposes. After seeing the end result,
    I can forgive Mel for some "poetic license".
    
    "Braveheart" is beautifully filmed, well-acted, moving and has some of  
    the best battle scenes ever put on film.
    
    Simply put, "Braveheart" is one of the best movies I've seen in a long
    time and every award it got was well deserved! A definite must-see!
    
    
                                 **** out of ****
    
    
    Gary S