>Rated 54% on Netflix
>70% on RT with critics saying it's too white
Are beta males and roasties destroying cinematic history, Sup Forums? Every good "white" movie seems to be getting absolutely demolished by these cucks, especially historical and war films.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
Braveheart is 10/10, the bad reviews are retcons based on hatred of Mel Gibson.
Name a movie with a better soundtrack.
I really like this film because Gibson doesn't stand out. He has an excellent cast of supporting actors who really chew up each scene they're given.
It wasn't.
youtu.be
legends of the fall
french kiss
last of the mohicans
youre welcome
Let them have this propoganda 'art' known as motion pictures.
Literature will always be the haven for the educated black pilled white man.
The Patriot was the better mel gibson 'fuck the brits' """historical""" movie. Also, I thought netflix reviews were curated so you never actually saw the real numbers, just the reviews from people with viewing habits like you
>expecting historical accuracy in a Mel Gibson period action movie
Are there any patricians left on this board?
This guy is such a hypocrite.
He praises 300 and Alexander for the same reasons he trashes on Braveheart and Apocalypto.
I don't even dislike 300 and Alexander, but holy fuck you'd have to be such a pleb to not appreciate Apocalypto.
Netflix scales it's ratings, so you see ratings from people with similar taste to you. Looks like you're the soyboy
>He praises 300 and Alexander for the same reasons he trashes on Braveheart and Apocalypto.
I'm not trying to start an argument here since I don't watch this sort of YT shit in the first place, but what are those reasons anyway?
Surely no "history buff" is saying that 300 was accurate.
sounds like hes got a dog in this fight...
>300 gets everything wrong, down to costumes, battle numbers, hoplite tactics, geography, etc.
>History Buffs excuses it and calls it a 'stylistic choice' or whatever
>Apocalypto is mildly ambiguous about Maya/Aztec depiction and isn't clear what year it's supposed to be because Gibson likes to show, instead of telling
>History Buffs spergs about how the movie is wrong wrong wrong and therefore impossible to enjoy, like he's some C grade college professor that is hated by his students
Gotcha.
I'd really like a realistic version of 300. Would it even be titled 300 then?
Just a reminder that if you're on Sup Forums you're even lower than a beta
Braveheart is my favorite movie of all time and I am from Ghana
No, you idiot. Stop misleading people with your own supidity. He clearly said that the movie itself was based on a comic book, so in that way, he can't get mad at it for being historically inaccurate when clearly that wasn't the goal.
Ignore him.
>He clearly said that the movie itself was based on a comic book, so in that way, he can't get mad at it for being historically inaccurate when clearly that wasn't the goal.
Oh, shut the fuck up, History Buffs.
Being a slave to your source material is not an excuse for anything. Learn to think for yourself.
This
Its you fault retard. stop watching shit movie.
this post only exposes your movie seeing routine.
Please stop using curse words to communicate
We're better than that
The movie hasnt aged well but the dialogue and story are still great.
I'm not him but keep telling yourself that so you feel like less of an idiot. The source material is a fucking comic book. No historical helpers needed because it's an adaptation of a book with it's own established world.
If one makes an adaptation of another King Arthur story I guess you expect it to be historically accurate too? I bet you're one of those same faggots that bitch about Game of Thrones having weird battle formations that wouldn't have existed in the middle ages when the novels are clearly a conglomerate of different eras and cultures before the 17th century.
Literally your logic right now, dumbass.
LMAO
redcoat detected. The Patriot was god-tier
This guy is a cunt sometimes and in this case he's a cunt
>british
>soyboy
opinion discarded
>Let them have this propoganda 'art' known as motion pictures.
>Literature will always be the haven
it's all coming true
During the 90's people were in awe over Braveheart and Forrest Gump yet now those movies are barely holding onto a "Fresh" rating on RT.
Do they seriously allow dickhead soyboy millennial garbage to review movies and that effects the score? Braveheart was amazing, one of the greatest death scenes ever, greatest battlefield speech until Lord of the Rings probably beat it, top 10 ever soundtrack, perfect use of gore to elevate violence to make you think about the past differently, Mel Gibson created a character for the ages. Seriously just saying a movie is bad because of some trite reason like the homosexual character gets thrown out a window is just horseshit.
I refuse to believe anyone thought this was a good historical movie on first viewing let alone in 2018, I don't think Braveheart ever said "this is what happened in February, this is what happened in May" it just attempts to tell a story about the defiance of oppressed people vs. a much stronger force for strong ethical principles.
Saying its a good movie but sucks because of its accuracy is also simply Sophism.
Seriously millennials, just stop pissing on old movies, do your thing, you like your Marvels and Star Wars and Blade Runner 2049, we had our thing, don't make our movies rotten to serve your political crapola.
Even if he is, he's not wrong about many of Mel's movies factually.
I can say that and still enjoy The patriot even though I know has plenty of flaws(movie wise as well). You can like his movies and his acting but please do not make the movies out to be great. They're really not.
The soyim care what other soyim think. They are a weak race who require constant approval of others so they are not left without protection of the herd. These soyim cattle are not our kin.
Not a millennial:
>revisionist history
>Jesus allegory
>cucking themes
>kilts 'n dicks faggotry
>5 minute battles with swords as primary weapons
>Scots portrayed as good gus
Only thing nice about this movie was the soundtrack.
>Not a millennial:
certainly a jew
LoTR
yeah, he could have at least made it more compelling and have the Scott's bad side(which did exist) rather them being "le gud guyz through and through."
Let's not even get into the cucking nonsense and weapons used.
The Scots did not have a bad side, revisionist fag.
Now user...you know that there are two sides to every conflict. Human's in general have this pride and insatiable greed thing going on. Europeans have an especially nasty history of this, more so after they got their hands on Chinese gun power but I digress.
I'm not saying the Brits weren't assholes in many ways but let's not write the Scottish off as totally peaceful people who sat by campfires every night singing cumbiya(which they are not).
Mel certainly didn't do this with the Meso Americans in Apocolypto so what's the excuse here? Btw, that movie also has many flaws(mainly the Spanish somehow coming before their time and villagers dying of smallpox).
>Battle of Stirling Bridge with no bridge or even a fucking river
>Wallace was a bald man yet Gibson got too triggered and needed a mane
>Wallace didn't get as far as York or even Newcastle and didn't succeed in annexing anything
>Robert The Bruce reduced from the true equal of Edward I in battle and instead shown as weak leader
>Edward I dying even in the same year as Wallace, let alone same day
they got Edward II right at least
Braveheart is absolute patrician kino.
Mel's lion-mane heroism, spectacular landscapes, great cast and music, awesome performances by McGoohan, Macfadyen, Cosmo, Gleeson, O'Hara, perfectly directed massive battles, just the right amount of cheese...
Of all the directors working today, Oberfuhrer Gibson is the one who best understands how to put the viewer in the heat of battle with maximum clarity and impact.
Yeah, it's a great film with wonderful performances and nice shots. Not sure why you're using that Nazi talk, though, when the politico-philosophy of Nazi Germany is evil and something my fucking grandfathers DIED fighting to oppose. Not sure what you're doing there, but otherwise, spot on.
Just making a passing reference to Gibson's unjustifiably tarnished reputation in Hollywood. They made it seem as if he were Hitler reincarnate, but he was just trying to give us premium cinema.
>movie about Scotland
>too withe
Are thies people retarded
The guy's a drunken menace and a racist (an hilarious one). His reputation is fairly-earned. I'm glad he's back. He could have come back sooner -- he owns a production company and is a billionaire -- but, according to him, he only wants to pursue film projects if it's done using other people's money.
Mel Gibson is based af but let's not pretend he's pristine or has been handicapped from pursuing filmic projects when he's a billionaire with his own studio and distribution company.
The homosexual angle with prince Edward has hundreds of years of rumors behind it, so complaining about that is stupid. After he was king, least two of his advisors (both of whom met violent ends) were, in fact, alleged to have been sexually involved with him.
The only part I can really object to is the angle with Isabella of France and the insinuation that her child is really Wallace's. The real Isabella was 9 or 10 years old at the time and didn't come to England to marry the prince until three years after Wallace's execution.
It's essentially merging Wallace with Roger Mortimer, who did apparently become Isabella's lover late in Edward II's reign. But it doesn't really work. That whole romance was a unnecessary angle, IMO, and a little too cute from a narative standpoint. When you think about it, making Edward III really Wallace's son greatly reduces the significance of Bruce's eventual victory at Bannockburn.
Merging Robert the Bruce and John Comyn into one character, I can deal with a lot easier.
In the end I think it's a decent film, but not an all-time great. I used to think it was better, but in retrospect, I'm not sure it was worthy of Best Picture (then again, I'm not sure it wasn't, either, unlike, say, Gladiator, which should absolutely not have won, especially not over Crouching Tiger). I'm not a millennial saying this, either: I'm (late) Gen-X.
Also, please don't ever compare BR2049 to Marvel capeshit or nuWars again. BR2049 was fantastic: literally the first film I've gone to see in the theater multiple times in two decades.
>70% on RT with critics saying it's too white
So a movie about Scots, Brits, and Irish in the 14th century is too white? Holy fucking mother fucking fuckers.
A movie set in medieval times about Scottish English and Irish is too white? American SJWs are going to crash Hollywood with no survivors.
Hive mind.
William Wallace should be played by a black guy according to the BBC (British Broadcasting (Corporation?))
Ah, but don't you understand that it was supposed to do what Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves did and have the token "Moorish" sidekick.
BBC is now putting black people in Victorian England and telling the audience that they were always there and that history whitewashed them away. They're literally rewriting history.
We were always here. Try actually researching history.
people really call the 90s' move set in 13th century scotland too white? this is the last drop
huh, didn't know braveheart was a documentary
The Greatest Showman
You weren't in high society England.
no nigger, you werent.
Friend tells me this is one of the first films to shoot a battle sequence the way it does. Influences future films like LotR, Saving Private Ryan, etc.
True?
Yes. We was.
Critics are turned off by the lack of pretense and sincerity of it all. They want irony and subtlety for the sake of it.
Hollywood has either forgiven or completely ignored much worse behavior than Mel has displayed in the past.
I think he was given so much flak because of the Passion, the pressure he got from making it and his subsequent DUI-related comments on the tribe...
I never said that he was pristine, I just think that he'd been disproportionately ostracized for years and that hating him was the "right" thing to do in Hollywood...
That said, his star power and overall presence are absolutely royal. He can even easily make a crappy scene in a shitfest like the Expendables 3 play out like part of a proper film.
>make a movie set in Scotland in the medieval times
>critics complain it's too white
Why anybody would take these people's opinions seriously is beyond me.
how many times have you seen matrix lil white boi
I love this dichotomy game. Just because something is X means that it can't be/have Y too.
It doesn't have to be perfect accuracy; obviously if it did that, it would alienate the audience completely and they would be better off just picking up a documentary. They would have more explained to them that way and thus learn more anyway. It should have a certain level of accurate to be considered a movie "based on a true story."
Take Rome for example, it has an all white main cast but handles the subject matter in such a way where you feel like you're in Rome and the people still act human(flaws and all), not like total archetypes. Though yes, some archetypal qualities will be present in characters to a degree. Yes they still took liberties, but it wasn't a mess, with one of the driving plot points based on something completely made up.
like desu, if he made a fantasy movie that was drawing the Scottish war of independence as a frame work the same way GRRM used the War of the Roses as a frame work for the war of the 5 kings, it would be more compelling. But no, he wants to attempt to retell an actual event.
If it makes you feel better, history buff offered similar criticism to the Last Samurai for white washing the Samurai and making it look like their cause was 100% noble and not at all selfish(it wasn't, they also wanted to keep some of their historical privileges/prerogatives). Not to mention the gun aversion. Holy fucking shit samurais were using guns since Sengoku period. Hell even before!
I just didn't like It because the real story is better
nice blog post. have you ever heard of dramatic license? kill your self, you faggot you.
ENOUGH!
It's time to fire back my fellow pepes!
I'll set up the bots you write some interchangeable generic review templates.
HAIL TRUMP
reminder that because of censor trigger-happy buttblasted victim merchants we lost an entire decade of potential mel kino. i hate jews so much.
Fuck off, kike.
one of the best films in the last fifty years. op
>300 is great because it's not historically correct but gets the story and the tone of a tale that's been told from one side right
>braveheart is shit because that's not what actually happened
did you even watch the movie you pleb.
scots selling out Wallace
scots trying to assassinate walllce
the bruce's old man making deals with longshanks behind the whole of scotlands back.
LANDS AND TITLES SELL OUT YER FELLOW MAN AND BROTHER FOR
LANDS AND TITLES.
>t. English bastard
>critics saying it's too white
i bet
Nobody gives a fuck that your grandfathers died for nothing but the destruction of their own civilizations
being a child - Want to be like willy wallce
being an adult - Want to be like Larry Longshanks
good old larry longballs
Honestly who gives a shit about that?Its just a fucking movie,have fun with longshanks throwing fags out of windows
>historical
It's been named the most historically inaccurate movie ever
How would Longshanks feel about how his beloved kingdom has turned into a giant gay love in
and furthermore, because it gets Scotland dead wrong on an absurd level. Fuck off OP
History is written by the WINNERS
youtube.com
one of the best gibson movies.
Braveheart, Patriot,Apocalypto
All such great movies for men.
I would die to protect his laugh
...
...
So wich one is better,braveheart or gladiator?
I wants to kill them all myself.
The Trouble with Sup Forums is that its filled with Sup Forums if Sup Forums cant get them out we'll meme them out.
braveheart trumps gladiator but its close real close.
Mel can direct the shit out of romantic and violent scenes but tends to just check out for the boring stuff. It's pretty noticeable in Braveheart though it's still a fine film. he's gotten better over time too
>critics saying it's too white
I give up on this world.
Reminder
Just
Red coats are mad because Scotland can't stop producing kino.
Not true tho
I still want to be like William Wallace.
*bash Gibson for years*
*ignores Hacksaw Ridge*
the best scene has barely any dialogue
youtube.com