|
Post by LG Martial Arts on Jun 8, 2019 1:49:48 GMT
If you liked Braveheart, the sequel (Robert the Bruce) will be out in theaters on June 28 Some of the “hero” swords in the movie feature fittings made by LemuelTheLemur’s “The Printed Armoury”, sold by LG Martial Arts
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Jun 8, 2019 2:23:55 GMT
I really liked Outlaw King. It will bd interesting to compare.
|
|
reptaronice1
Member
Tell Me... Friend... When Did Saruman The Wise Abandon Reason For Madness?!
Posts: 2,360
|
Post by reptaronice1 on Jun 8, 2019 3:43:35 GMT
whats it rated?
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 8, 2019 6:50:06 GMT
Honestly? I think Braveheart was a big stinking pile of excrement with good music and a still charming Mel Gibson. On the bright side, I can't see how this could possibly be worse. At the very least, some of the props will be better!
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jun 8, 2019 10:47:51 GMT
I'm much jaded nowadays when it comes to a historical based Hollywood movie being anything more than a modern story set in medieval times. No doubt it will be oozing with modern social commentary, CGI explosions, ninja battle fights, and have very little to do with Robert the Bruce.
I hope I'm wrong. But Hollywood's track record is well established.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jun 8, 2019 16:17:05 GMT
So aside from Angus Macfayden reprising the role, is there anything else placing this as a sequel to Braveheart? Doesn't look too bad from the trailer. Seems it's set as more of a inside story than a battle epic like Outlaw King was. Also now it makes sense why Windlass made that Robert the Bruce sword they've been selling, its the Bruce's sword in the movie!
|
|
|
Post by LG Martial Arts on Jun 8, 2019 22:36:26 GMT
So aside from Angus Macfayden reprising the role, is there anything else placing this as a sequel to Braveheart? Doesn't look too bad from the trailer. Seems it's set as more of a inside story than a battle epic like Outlaw King was. Also now it makes sense why Windlass made that Robert the Bruce sword they've been selling, its the Bruce's sword in the movie! From Michael Bergstrom, the main armorer for the movie: “A couple carry over actors and it's an almost real time follow up to the events of Braveheart with an actor that's the proper age. We do have a "storyteller" that jumps us back 10 years for some fighting. Historically storywise it's more accurate to the events as well as showing some of the myths and legends about his missing years. Its a much more heartfelt story and not as much about the battles. It's not the how...its the WHY that's explored in the film. There are no ninja fights no CGI, written by a Scotsman [Angus Macfayden]. The Windlass sword was the starting place for his swords in the movie. I want to do a tutorial on how to make a screen accurate version when the time comes.”
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Jun 10, 2019 16:37:22 GMT
The costuming is pretty dubious, and the very brief flashes of armor raise some questions (why wristbands? why so many carpets over the shoulders?).
I rewatched Braveheart and found it to be less horrible than I remembered. The history is of course mangled, but the overall themes are on point. And McGoohan's Edward I was fantastic. Gibson reworked the mythological version of Wallace to try to capture the main issues. So while Wallace never yelled "Freedom!" the 1320 declaration essentially did. And we can see the difficulties of trying to be more historically correct with the poorly received "Outlaw King".
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jun 10, 2019 18:43:08 GMT
Honestly? I think Braveheart was a big stinking pile of excrement with good music and a still charming Mel Gibson. On the bright side, I can't see how this could possibly be worse. At the very least, some of the props will be better! Rob Roy was better, but Braveheart was still good by any measure, though perhaps overrated (Oscar for picture, director, cinematography). Now Travolta's Battlefield Earth, so bad it was actually entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 11, 2019 0:30:38 GMT
I just find Braveheart outright insulting, both to us in the audience and the actual, real historical people it claims to portray - besides aggressively brainless and relentlessly formulaic, it's also dishonest, and that's one of the absolute worst things a piece of fiction can be.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jun 11, 2019 1:53:33 GMT
Most Hollywood "historical" movies are utter garbage, and are far less interesting than the actual history they are trying to portray. Do we even need to bring up "Troy" as an example of taking a 2,500 year old classic story of bad-assery and totally gutting the entire contents of the story and making it into a mindless action flick with some dudes wearing old fashioned looking costumes? Or that other abomination "Robin Hood 2018"? Oh my, the list goes on.
I wish they would make a movie out of a classic story or event and show the story for what it was. Imagine an accurate portrayal of the battle of Thermopylae with thousands of combatants on both sides in a life or death struggle- the desperation of the Greeks trying to hold back the Persians with not only the 300 Spartans, but the 700 Thespians, 900 Helots,and 400 Thebans (the 7.000 Athenians were sent home earlier in the day). That's a somewhat sizable army, and not at all what is ever shown in movies. And still plenty of manly virtue and heroics on display to make a very interesting story.
I hope I'm wrong about this "Robert the Bruce". But movie history is against it.
|
|