Braveheart vs. Rob Roy
Chooi Siew H.
costumed-war-movies. So I went to see Rob Roy last night at the dollar
cinema, hoping that it would be as good as Braveheart. It has got good
reviews and Siskel and Ebert said that it had a marvelous sword-fighting
scene. I was so disappointed with Rob Roy.
Rob Roy has the most trite plot, and it is so BORING. Even though
Braveheart was three-hour long, I never felt bored for a minute. Rob
Roy, however, has a thin story line, and you can expect what would happen
next always.
I don;t know why the critics like Rob Roy so much. Liam Neeson proved
that he is not a good actor. I didn't feel that he was a hero at all
after seeing the movie. This is different from Mel's acting. I was
touched and moved by Mel's portrayal of Willaim Wallace, but Neeson's Rob
Roy was so cold and woodend, and I started to see why Rob Roy was a flop
inthe box office.
The final sword scene--nothing special at all. Wasn't exciting, wasn;t
realistic, adn it was a big disappointment.
The only good thing that happened to Rob Roy was Tim Roth's villian. But
that didn't help the weak plot and deja vu story......
--
Howard Beale
ii...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Chooi Siew H.) wrote:
>I was so glad I saw Braveheart because I didn't really like
>costumed-war-movies. So I went to see Rob Roy last night at the dollar
>cinema, hoping that it would be as good as Braveheart. It has got good
>reviews and Siskel and Ebert said that it had a marvelous sword-fighting
>scene. I was so disappointed with Rob Roy.
Actually, as "bagpipe westerns" go I liked it better than
Braveheart. For one thing, Liam Neeson does not hog every
frame of the flick, the way Gipson tends to do. Secondly,
it's not overly long. Lastly, it is not near as filled with
historical inaccuracies as Braveheart.
I mean, really - bagpipes in the 14th Century? They might
have just as easily been playing saxophones. And then there
is the matter the Princess of Wales getting pregnant by
William Wallace, AND Wallace taking York, AND being betrayed
by Robert the Bruce, none of which ever happened. Not to
mention every English character is either a rapist or butcher,
or at least in cohoots with them. Oh, well, maybe it's best
not to know too much Scottish history before seeing these things.
Lastly, from a sheer storytelling view, Rob Roy is much
easier to identify with. His goal is simply to raise his
family and be left alone, with no grand plans for the future
of his country. No royal plots, counter plots, factionalism
and alliances. On that level it works quite well, and doesn't
drown you in extended - tho quite well done - battle scenes
the way Braveheart tends to do.
IHMO, that is.......
Howard Beale
Chooi Siew H.
> Actually, as "bagpipe westerns" go I liked it better than
> Braveheart. For one thing, Liam Neeson does not hog every
> frame of the flick, the way Gipson tends to do. Secondly,
> it's not overly long. Lastly, it is not near as filled with
> historical inaccuracies as Braveheart.
1. Even though Rob Roy is shorter than Braveheart, the former made me
feel emotionally detached and empty. I kept looking at my watch and hope
it would end ASAP. Rob Roy was a major failure.
2. Looking for historical acuracy? Pu-leeze! You should use your CD rom
Encyclopedia instead of going to see movies.
> I mean, really - bagpipes in the 14th Century? They might
> have just as easily been playing saxophones. And then there
> is the matter the Princess of Wales getting pregnant by
> William Wallace, AND Wallace taking York, AND being betrayed
> by Robert the Bruce, none of which ever happened. Not to
> mention every English character is either a rapist or butcher,
> or at least in cohoots with them. Oh, well, maybe it's best
> not to know too much Scottish history before seeing these things.
See #2 above....
> Lastly, from a sheer storytelling view, Rob Roy is much
> easier to identify with. His goal is simply to raise his
> family and be left alone, with no grand plans for the future
> of his country. No royal plots, counter plots, factionalism
That's the problem. The script of ROb Roy was written so badly that I
felt like I have seen the plot hundred times before. The director didn't
even bother to tell it in a more interesting way. We expected Mary to be
raped. We knew that the "sidekick" (sort of) would fire at the British
Soldiers and make a mess. And I really couldn't stand the "Rocky"-type
sword-fighting that the director put at the end.
Rob Roy was a big embaressment. Liam Neeson might look like a hero, but
he couldn't deliver the feeling. He CAN'T ACT despite all his stage
experience.
> and alliances. On that level it works quite well, and doesn't
> drown you in extended - tho quite well done - battle scenes
> the way Braveheart tends to do.
> IHMO, that is.......
> Howard Beale
--
Chooi Siew H.
On Mon, 3 Jul 1995, D.N.Jackson wrote:
> In article <3t8pgs$5...@hermes.acs.unt.edu> you wrote:
> : Howard Beale (be...@onramp.net) wrote:
>
> : Rob Roy was a big embaressment. Liam Neeson might look like a hero, but
> : he couldn't deliver the feeling. He CAN'T ACT despite all his stage
> : experience.
>
> I am absolutely astonished that you should say Neeson can't act!!!!! Consider his brilliant portrayal as Schindler - he should have won the Oscar for the best actor not Tom Hanks. I thought Hanks won only
> because he is American! at this stateme
Huh? I am absolutely astonished that you accused the Academy for giving
the oscar to hanks because he is American. Gee, get a grib. there was
no discrimination when they gave away the award last year. If doubt,
please look back the prior years: Anthony hopkins, Jeremy Irons, daniel
Day Lewis etc etc......
And Liam Neeson's acting is still bad--that's why he lost last year to
Hanks, and sucked in Rob Roy.
> :wq
>
> :
> : > and alliances. On that level it works quite well, and doesn't
The Morgenstern Under the Mountain
> In article <3t6gku$g...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
> ii...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Chooi Siew H.) wrote:
>
>>I was so glad I saw Braveheart because I didn't really like
>>costumed-war-movies. So I went to see Rob Roy last night at the dollar
>>cinema, hoping that it would be as good as Braveheart. It has got good
>>reviews and Siskel and Ebert said that it had a marvelous sword-fighting
>>scene. I was so disappointed with Rob Roy.
>
>
> Braveheart. For one thing, Liam Neeson does not hog every
> frame of the flick, the way Gipson tends to do. Secondly,
> it's not overly long. Lastly, it is not near as filled with
> historical inaccuracies as Braveheart.
>
> have just as easily been playing saxophones. And then there
> is the matter the Princess of Wales getting pregnant by
> William Wallace, AND Wallace taking York, AND being betrayed
> by Robert the Bruce, none of which ever happened. Not to
> mention every English character is either a rapist or butcher,
> or at least in cohoots with them. Oh, well, maybe it's best
> not to know too much Scottish history before seeing these things.
>
> easier to identify with. His goal is simply to raise his
> family and be left alone, with no grand plans for the future
> of his country. No royal plots, counter plots, factionalism
Really? I kind of thought Rob Roy had quite a bit of political intrigue
in it (not that I minded, being a poli sci major and all). The whole point of
Rob's problems stemmed from the conflict between the two noblemen, and the
loan troubles that ensued.
Az
John J Smith
>Encyclopedia instead of going to see movies.
Then why was it based on Rob Roy rather than Jimmy McTavish?
Smid
Lori M. Hahnel
the Oscar for Philadelphia because it dealt with one of the P.C. topics
of the moment.
Sharon J Choi
: On Mon, 3 Jul 1995, D.N.Jackson wrote:
: > In article <3t8pgs$5...@hermes.acs.unt.edu> you wrote:
: > : Howard Beale (be...@onramp.net) wrote:
: >
: > : Rob Roy was a big embaressment. Liam Neeson might look like a hero, but
: > : he couldn't deliver the feeling. He CAN'T ACT despite all his stage
: > : experience.
: >
: > I am absolutely astonished that you should say Neeson can't act!!!!! Consider his brilliant portrayal as Schindler - he should have won the Oscar for the best actor not Tom Hanks. I thought Hanks won only
: > because he is American! at this stateme
: Huh? I am absolutely astonished that you accused the Academy for giving
: the oscar to hanks because he is American. Gee, get a grib. there was
: no discrimination when they gave away the award last year. If doubt,
: please look back the prior years: Anthony hopkins, Jeremy Irons, daniel
: Day Lewis etc etc......
: And Liam Neeson's acting is still bad--that's why he lost last year to
: Hanks, and sucked in Rob Roy.
Oh...is THAT why it happened...gee, and the academy always has
the last word when it comes to quality don't they; so I guess you feel
validated in the extreme when your favorite performance of the year nabs
the oscar, and change your mind completely when they award somebody who
wasn't your favorite in another year or category. "Huh, well, they won,
so golly, I guess I was wrong...they WEREN'T the best!"
By the way, Nesson's AND Hopkin's AND Day-Lewis' were all more
impressive showcases than Hanks uninspiring work.
IMHO...of course.
: > :wq
: >
: > :
: > : > and alliances. On that level it works quite well, and doesn't
: > : > drown you in extended - tho quite well done - battle scenes
: > : > the way Braveheart tends to do.
: >
: > : > IHMO, that is.......
: >
: >
: >
: > : > Howard Beale
: >
: >
: >
: > : --
: >
: >
: >
Dolores Fortino
Sharon J Choi <sc...@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
>Chooi Siew H. (ii...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
>
> By the way, Nesson's AND Hopkin's AND Day-Lewis' were all more
>impressive showcases than Hanks uninspiring work.
> IMHO...of course.
>
There seems to be a pattern in your choices.
Linda J Holland-Toll
ljht
BUKHARI SYED W
>I was so glad I saw Braveheart because I didn't really like
>costumed-war-movies. So I went to see Rob Roy last night at the dollar
>cinema, hoping that it would be as good as Braveheart. It has got good
>reviews and Siskel and Ebert said that it had a marvelous sword-fighting
>scene. I was so disappointed with Rob Roy.
>Rob Roy has the most trite plot, and it is so BORING. Even though
>Braveheart was three-hour long, I never felt bored for a minute. Rob
>Roy, however, has a thin story line, and you can expect what would happen
>next always.
>I don;t know why the critics like Rob Roy so much. Liam Neeson proved
>that he is not a good actor. I didn't feel that he was a hero at all
>after seeing the movie. This is different from Mel's acting. I was
>touched and moved by Mel's portrayal of Willaim Wallace, but Neeson's Rob
>Roy was so cold and woodend, and I started to see why Rob Roy was a flop
>inthe box office.
>The final sword scene--nothing special at all. Wasn't exciting, wasn;t
>realistic, adn it was a big disappointment.
>The only good thing that happened to Rob Roy was Tim Roth's villian. But
>that didn't help the weak plot and deja vu story......
>--
HEY HEY HEY
what r u doing man?
u r comparing ROB ROY with BRAVEHEART?
man gimme a break
u r simply disgracing BRAVEHEART
rob roy is no where near BH
if u wanna compare it with any movie
compare it with BEN HUR
Laurence of Arabia
cheers
BABA
Gregory B. Goodwin
morge...@blah.bsuvc.bsu.edu (The Morgenstern Under the Mountain) writes:
:>
:>In article <3t6qks$g...@news.onramp.net>, be...@onramp.net (Howard Beale) writes:
:>> In article <3t6gku$g...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>,
:>> ii...@jove.acs.unt.edu (Chooi Siew H.) wrote:
:>>>I was so glad I saw Braveheart because I didn't really like
:>>>cinema, hoping that it would be as good as Braveheart. It has got good
:>>>reviews and Siskel and Ebert said that it had a marvelous sword-fighting
:>>>scene. I was so disappointed with Rob Roy.
:>>
:>> Actually, as "bagpipe westerns" go I liked it better than
:>> Braveheart. For one thing, Liam Neeson does not hog every
:>> frame of the flick, the way Gipson tends to do. Secondly,
:>> it's not overly long. Lastly, it is not near as filled with
:>> historical inaccuracies as Braveheart.
:>>
:>> I mean, really - bagpipes in the 14th Century? They might
:>> have just as easily been playing saxophones. And then there
:>> is the matter the Princess of Wales getting pregnant by
:>> William Wallace, AND Wallace taking York, AND being betrayed
:>> by Robert the Bruce, none of which ever happened. Not to
:>> mention every English character is either a rapist or butcher,
:>> or at least in cohoots with them. Oh, well, maybe it's best
:>> not to know too much Scottish history before seeing these things.
:>>
:>> Lastly, from a sheer storytelling view, Rob Roy is much
:>> easier to identify with. His goal is simply to raise his
:>> family and be left alone, with no grand plans for the future
:>> of his country. No royal plots, counter plots, factionalism
:>> and alliances.
:>
:> Really? I kind of thought Rob Roy had quite a bit of political intrigue
:>in it (not that I minded, being a poli sci major and all). The whole point of
:>Rob's problems stemmed from the conflict between the two noblemen, and the
:>loan troubles that ensued.
:>
:> Az
:>
:>
:>> On that level it works quite well, and doesn't
:>> drown you in extended - tho quite well done - battle scenes
:>> the way Braveheart tends to do.
:>>
:>> IHMO, that is.......
:>>
:>>
:>>
:>> Howard Beale
:>>
:>>
Personally, I loved Braveheart. After all, the film is entertainment, its
not a documentary of the life of William Wallace. Of course artistic
license was taken as with most stories of this type.
As with most motion pictures that are based on real characters, the
screenwriter often fills in or adds details that may or may not be
true. The emphasis should be on how well the story is told, not
whether each and every detail is historically accurate.
There is probably no film based on real people that is historically
accurate in each and every detail. Screenwriters use the generally
known facts about the life of the subject and tend to fill in other
details to add to the story.
That's why its called entertainment. The objections as to
Bravehearts's historical accuracy would be valid if this was a
documentary.
=======================================
From the desk of Gregory B. Goodwin
Principal Software Engineer
MICROWARE SYSTEMS CORPORATION
Internet: gr...@MICROWARE.COM
=======================================
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Howard Beale
One more note for the history buffs -
The "drawn" in "hanged, drawn, and quartered" refers to
the practice of dragging the poor wretch over four miles
of cobblestone streets to the place of execution. Behind
a team of horses running at full gallup, of course. Has
nothing to do with being stretched.
The disemboweling part, unfortunately, is accurate.
Howard Beale
BRANDON IVIE
They're both tough badass scottish boys, good with swords, and not
sqeamish when it comes to killing people. However!
Rob was kinda forced into the killer thing by the rape of his
wife and stuff, otherwise he probably would have remained a sheepherder
and never would have developed into the manly killer that he became in
the movie.
Bravheart was kind of a killer in the first place and so
butt-kicking would come more naturally for him.
I'm gonna go with Braveheart on this one, but let me add that if
Braevheart were to Rape rob's wife before the fight then Rob would
Definitely have the edge nand would most likely kick Braveheart's butt.
Brandon
Howard Beale
:
: Which one would win in a fight? That's a damn good question!
:They're both tough badass scottish boys, good with swords, and not
:sqeamish when it comes to killing people. However!
: Rob was kinda forced into the killer thing by the rape of his
:wife and stuff, otherwise he probably would have remained a sheepherder
:and never would have developed into the manly killer that he became in
:the movie.
: I'm gonna go with Braveheart on this one, but let me add that if
:Braevheart were to Rape rob's wife before the fight then Rob would
:Definitely have the edge nand would most likely kick Braveheart's butt.
Where in Braveheart did you see him engage in any one-to-one
swordplay? Apart from the confused melee of battle, that is.
He may have been a good rabble-rouser and leader of men, but
for individual combat skills, Rob Roy takes the prize.
Besides, look at their weapons. A heavy two handed broadsword
is no match for a lighter and more accurate Claymore.
Howard Beale
Keith Ferguson
>As for what did and did not happend in the 14th century does anyone know
>for sure?
The movie is essentially correct, although I think several battles
may have been condensed into one or two. William Wallace did lead a
rebellion, and did capture York, and was caught and drawn and quartered.
Robert the Bruce did finally lead the Scottish to independence, but I
believe it was several years after Wallace's death. Robert's son the
15th(?) Earl of Bruce lost Scotland back to the british, *I think*. So
the general story is fairly accurate. As to how accurate some of the
details are, i.e. the King's son being gay, the affair between the french
princess and Wallace, etc.., who knows? I'd guess there was some liberties
taken with this kind of stuff. Also, I don't thing the Irish sided with
the Scottish as shown in the last battle. I *think* that the Welsh came
in on the side of the Scottish. I know that Wallace traveled to France to
ask for their aid, but I don't think anything came of it. This may have
been the inspiration for the liason with the french princess.
KF
nancy e phend
to be in every frame. As for the English being portrayed as all villans,
as far as the people of Scotland were concerned they were.
As for what did and did not happend in the 14th century does anyone know
great to see the Scottish people win for a change. I've been to Scotland
and the English still aren't that popular there.
A Scottish Lass
Michael Kaufman
> Where in Braveheart did you see him engage in any one-to-one
> swordplay? Apart from the confused melee of battle, that is.
Towards the begining of the film. When they attack the fort (?) after his
wife is killed. The fight starts out with him killing three or four of
the English dogs. Come to think of it, didn't he overcome a few more of
them in the scene before that one as well? Plus, he was right in the
thick of things during the "confused melee of battle". It wasn't like he
was just directing things from the sidelines.
>Howard Beale
Are you still mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore?
Michael
--
| I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
Michael L. Kaufman | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
kau...@mcs.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
| All those moments will be lost in time - like tears
| in rain. Time to die. Roy Batty - Blade Runner
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
: :
: : Which one would win in a fight? That's a damn good question!
: Besides, look at their weapons. A heavy two handed broadsword
: is no match for a lighter and more accurate Claymore.
I could be wrong her, but I thinmk that Claymore is Gaelic for 'heavy two
handed broadsword'
At leats al the claymore I have seen in Edinburgh Castle are stonking
large two-handed swords!
--
__________________________________________________
Steven Pirie-Shepherd
sr...@galactose.mc.duke.edu
"Insert your own pithy phrase just about here!"
Howard Beale
nep...@usa.pipeline.com(nancy e phend) wrote:
:
:I thought Braveheart was a great film. Mel Gibson is a good enough actor
:to be in every frame.
I cannot think of *any* actor that is good enough to dominate
every frame of a picture - at least not a picture that I would
care to see.
As for the English being portrayed as all villans,
:as far as the people of Scotland were concerned they were.
Please bear in mind that originally Edward I was *invited*
to come to Scotland to settle the dispute as to who should
lead the country. That he eventually became a heavy handed
tyrant is not disputed, but he did have *some* legitimate
claim to be there. Also bear in mind the constant raiding parties
of Scots that would sweep into England and make off with as much
plunder and cattle as they could. Not shown in the movie,
of course.
:As for what did and did not happend in the 14th century does anyone know
:for sure? This movie was for entertainment purposes and I thought it was
:great to see the Scottish people win for a change. I've been to Scotland
:and the English still aren't that popular there.
:
:A Scottish Lass
True enough. I am always glad to the see the flag of Scotland
being flown and shown in vastly more numbers than the Union Jack.
In fact, it amazes me that the Scotish National Party does not
do any better in local elections than they do. Most all Scots
I have met favor independence - but they don't seem to vote that
way.
Odd.
Howard Beale
Jacob A Hester
> As to how accurate some of the
> details are, i.e. the King's son being gay, the affair between the french
> princess and Wallace, etc.., who knows? I'd guess there was some liberties
> taken with this kind of stuff.
Yeah, there were liberties taken. According to the CD Grolier
encyclopedia (I used a friends' after the movie, so I don't have exac
dates & names here),
1) Yes, the prince (and future king) was quite flamingly gay. He was also
the very first English king to be deposed. He generally proved to be
cruel, insensitive, and a poor politician on the home front, and a
general pushover abroad. The pope wasn't too fond of him. The end
result: a breif reign.
2) The love affair with the princess was a big artistic liberty: the
king's son didn't get married 'till four years after Wallace's death.
Don't remember much else....
Jake
Hugh Duggan
: Howard Beale (be...@onramp.net) wrote:
: : In article <3ts7n0$q...@news.cc.utah.edu>, bji...@u.cc.utah.edu (BRANDON IVIE) wrote:
: : :
: : : Which one would win in a fight? That's a damn good question!
: : Besides, look at their weapons. A heavy two handed broadsword
: : is no match for a lighter and more accurate Claymore.
: I could be wrong her, but I thinmk that Claymore is Gaelic for 'heavy two
: handed broadsword'
: At leats al the claymore I have seen in Edinburgh Castle are stonking
: large two-handed swords!
: __________________________________________________
: Steven Pirie-Shepherd
: sr...@galactose.mc.duke.edu
: "Insert your own pithy phrase just about here!"
Claymore is Gaelic for "big sword". It is usually used to refer to the
hand-and-a-half sword of about 4.5 feet in length, though some people also
apply the name, (incorrectly, in my view) to the much later basket-hilted
broadsword (3 feet long).
Hugh
Hugh Duggan, | h...@hplb.hpl.hp.com
HP Labs, | switchboard: (0117) 979 9910
Filton Road, | direct : (0117) 922 8723
Bristol BS12 6QZ, | fax : (0117) 922 8128
England. |
terry king
<Pine.OSF.3.91.950716...@hubcap.clemson.edu> Jacob A
Hester, jac...@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>1) Yes, the prince (and future king) was quite flamingly gay. He was also
> the very first English king to be deposed. He generally proved to be
> cruel, insensitive, and a poor politician on the home front, and a
> general pushover abroad. The pope wasn't too fond of him. The end
> result: a breif reign.
Ponder. I wouldn't consider two decades "brief" - Edward II reigned
1307-1327. Have to agree on the pushover part, though. The Bruce
couldn't've consolidated his position without Ed's lack of interest.
Loved the movie, giggled helplessly at the history, and came away
convinced Angus McFadyen's career is one to watch. As much as I
relished David O'Hara's turn as the mad Irishman, McFadyen had more to
work with and his performance was the best in the film.
| For the great Gaels of Ireland
Terry King | Are the men that God made mad,
prea...@mit.edu | For all their wars are merry,
| And all their songs are sad. - Chesterton
GSS w+ v++(*) c++@ N+++ M+$ t+ 5++ b+++ B--- e+ u**(*) x? <*>
DNRC: Sublime Guardian of Paradox, Anachronism, and the Absurd
0dennis Rygiel
: This is going to sound really offthe wall but I have been searching
: every single Braveheart reference I can possibly get my hands on and
: ....do you know anything about Angus MacFadyen(Robert the Bruce) or
: Brendan Gleeson(Hamish)? Anything at all. (BEsides whats already onthe
: inernet) THankYou!!
You might have already done this, but try the British television groups.
Folks there might know something about these guys.
KB
Tanya Reyes
Tanya Reyes
Braveheart resource I can find. No one seems to have information on
Angus MacFadyen or Brendan Gleeson. (Except the bare minimum found on
the cast page of the internet) Do you know anything or know where I
can get information? It is quite important that I get this info.
Thanking you in advance for your reply, Tanya
Tanya Reyes
allother sources of info. Do you happen to know anything about Angus
MacFadyen or Brendan Gleeson? Any info you have will be greatly
appreciated!
Tanya Reyes
Internet (plus various other sources) to find info on Angus MacFadyen.
Do you have any info or know where I can find some? I am also quite
quite interested in Hamish(Brendan Gleeson). Anything on him either?
Please respond. You are my only hope.
Tanya
Howard Beale
terry king <prea...@mit.edu> wrote:
:
:Loved the movie, giggled helplessly at the history, and came away
:convinced Angus McFadyen's career is one to watch. As much as I
:relished David O'Hara's turn as the mad Irishman, McFadyen had more to
:work with and his performance was the best in the film.
Who was the woman that played Wallace's "wife"?
Howard Beale
BUKHARI SYED W
Her name is CATHERINE McCORMACK
and she is also appearing in another movie with Christopher Lambert
the movie's called "NORTH STAR"
cheers
BABA
> Howard Beale