Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/15/2001 5:15:13 AM EDT
One of my friends was trying to tell me they are basically the same movie since there is a guy fighting for his family, killing, freedom, etc. I can kind of see that, but think that Braveheart is WAY better when it comes to the finished product. What do you think.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:24:15 AM EDT
Braveheart is 10 times the movie Patriot is. Patriot was enjoyable, but silly. You can't compare the battle scenes -hands down, Braveheart. That crap in Patriot about the slave and the southerner who grew to respect him, and the little slave camp made me want to vomit. Braveheart contained none of this PC crap. I know many of us love Patriot because there was a tiny little pro-gun message. That just ain't enough for it to compete with Braveheart.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:28:43 AM EDT
The one-liners were better in Braveheart. Really though, it is a tough choice. Both were pretty good.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:37:15 AM EDT
I second Major-Murphy's opinion.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:37:45 AM EDT
Braveheart more clearly commincates the principles of freedom. At any cost. William Wallace had no qualms about the price freedom demands. The protagonist in the patriot did.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:44:49 AM EDT
Dang!!!!!!! I agree with Major Murphy. PROOF POSITIVE that there IS a God. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 5:49:08 AM EDT
I think we have to remember, too, that we're comparing movies, not political philosophies. We shouldn't fall into that same trap that the left does. The left will criticize and condemn a good movie for it's political content. This is the root of "political correctness". If we adopt this same idea, just with a different concept of what we consider "correct", then we're no better than they are. All the pro-gun speeches in the world will not make Ted Nugent a better guitarist than Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:01:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: I think we have to remember, too, that we're comparing movies, not political philosophies. We shouldn't fall into that same trap that the left does. The left will criticize and condemn a good movie for it's political content.
View Quote
Actually, I'm comparing the messages communicated. The vehicle used (a Hollywood creation) is irrelevant. A vehicle that communicates the right message I enjoy. A vehicle that commincates the right message in a more effective, powerful manner, i enjoy more. A vehicle that communicates a wrong message I dislike. Which explains why i dislike 95% of Hollywood's creations. If that makes me like "the left" in some twisted way, whatever. Actually, I think it makes the left like me. [:D]
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:18:24 AM EDT
Braveheart was PANNED by the Villige Voice because of it's "treatment of homosexuals".
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:29:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: Braveheart was PANNED by the Villige Voice because of it's "treatment of homosexuals".
View Quote
And I liked its treatment of homos. [}:D] Village Voice is free to "pan" any movie they want, based on any criteria they want, including but not limited to their PMS-based logic. its only a movie after all. To me, its about the ideology. The Hollywood flick itself is irrelevant to me. I'm free to voice mine in whatever manner I choose, as are they. I don't fear their panning opf a movie, mostly because their ideology CANNOT withstand logical scrutiny. God made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve. Penises amd vaginas go together. Any fool can tell you that. If Hollywood disappeared from off the face of the earth, my only response would be "Can we tear those stupid letters off the hillside, and build a nuclear energy plant there finally?" [:D]
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:35:41 AM EDT
The stupid thing about the Voice's review, was that if they did research, they would have found that the prince in Braveheart was described as "very attached to his male aid, and more concerned with fashion than affairs of state". garandman, you only see the messege and not the vehicle? If that's so, then that means you are not capable seeing any "art". I think you are, though.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:46:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Major-Murphy: garandman, you only see the messege and not the vehicle? If that's so, then that means you are not capable seeing any "art". I think you are, though.
View Quote
Its not that I'm not CAPABLE of seeing the vehicle, its that the vehicle is SECONDARY to the meassage communicated. take your house sized figure eight painting. Obviously, you have talent, skill, manual dexterity, the ability to keep at a large task, and many other positive qualities that enabled you to complete that work of "art." However, as it presented what is to me a cacaphonous "message" its not the type of "art" that suits me. The type of paintings I like, the music I enoy, the theatre I prefer ALL are determined by the sensibility (open to W-I-D-E interpretation, I admit) of the message they communicate. If I believe that the message is correct, then the vehicle is unimportant with regard to whether or not I "like" the particular form of art. I expect my "art" to be uplifting, principled, harmonious and in the long run constructive, with a CLEAR meassage. Any art that makes me ask "what is it?" is just too much work. This formulates my personal defintion of "good" or "bad" art.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 6:55:56 AM EDT
ahhh.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 7:30:53 AM EDT
I wish I could change my vote. To me the difference is similar to the hamburger and a well prepared steak. The first is easy to consume rather quickly and several times a week while the second is not necessarily better in magnatude but must be worked with and contemplated. I have watched The Patriot numerous times and Braveheart only a few. They ingest differently. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:23:39 AM EDT
Odd man out, I really enjoyed The Patriot. Braveheart was great and arguably better for the above reasons. But here is why I liked The Patriot. It showed that sometimes you have no choice but to fight. And him arming his two children really made the liberals run around and pee on themselves. That alone was worth the price of admission and popcorn.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:27:34 AM EDT
Hands down The Patriot. This Steven Segal vehicle really speaks to what the USA is going through right now, bio-terrorism. Mr. Segals use of his hands against militia men armed with full auto weapons is really an eye opener.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:29:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: And him arming his two children really made the liberals run around and pee on themselves. That alone was worth the price of admission and popcorn.
View Quote
I'll agree with that. BEST part of the movie. I think I even HEARD some libs tight butt cheeks grinding together in the theatre at that point.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:33:29 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman:
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: And him arming his two children really made the liberals run around and pee on themselves. That alone was worth the price of admission and popcorn.
View Quote
I'll agree with that. BEST part of the movie. I think I even HEARD some libs tight butt cheeks grinding together in the theatre at that point.
View Quote
On my third viewing in a theater with my buddies, some stupid bitch actually started crying when the little kids started shooting Brits. Of course she didn't cry when they shot his first kid.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:37:52 AM EDT
I think both are excellent movies, and I own both on DVD. I don't think either has a stronger or better message over all. Both communicate the importance of freedom. In the Patriot, he loses two sons, all his worldly possesions, and almost his entire family. In Braveheart, the story was purely about Wallace and the politics of the time. Not so in The Patriot, as we saw many lose their families and all they had for their beliefs. Both show freedom at any cost and at great personal risk. The only real difference is that in one the hero dies and the other he doesn't. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:49:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: Both show freedom at any cost and at great personal risk. The only real difference is that in one the hero dies and the other he doesn't. God Bless Texas
View Quote
I'd say that's a pretty significant difference. "greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend." If that "friend" is freedom, then the ultimate sacrifice has been made. Yup, pretty significant difference. My $0.02
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 9:56:02 AM EDT
Garandman, Wallace was captured and killed, as any of the patriots during the revolution would have been. The difference is Wallace was betrayed, captured and executed while the guy in The patriot wasn't. Both were willing to die. Because one actually did doesn't make him better. It only means the circumstances were different. Anyone fighting a war simply to die will not accomplish anything he set out to do. Would our founding fathers have been better off if they had become martyrs? Who would have been left behind to run things when it was over? God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 10:21:44 AM EDT
I guess i really shouldn't compare the charachters, as you not really a better patriot JUST because you are a DEAD patriot. Its just that Wallace, being put to the ULTIMATE test, as his internals are being displayed like a high school science project, given the opportunity to recant, screams "Freeeeeeedoomm!!" as his dying breath. Powerful stuff. And it connects more deeply with me as I wonder, put to the same test, either for my faith in God or for my love of country and freedom, would I hold up as well. Like I say, powerful stuff. The Patriot did NOT present such a moral dilemma. I guess I was disappointed in the Patriot as they had the opportunity to make a "William Wallace type movie" about MY country, and kinda fumbled the ball on the 1-yard line, and had to kick a field goal. But then, these "artsy" things are open to interpretation.
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 11:08:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I guess i really shouldn't compare the charachters, as you not really a better patriot JUST because you are a DEAD patriot. Its just that Wallace, being put to the ULTIMATE test, as his internals are being displayed like a high school science project, given the opportunity to recant, screams "Freeeeeeedoomm!!" as his dying breath. Powerful stuff.
View Quote
I will certainly agree with that.
The Patriot did NOT present such a moral dilemma. I guess I was disappointed in the Patriot as they had the opportunity to make a "William Wallace type movie" about MY country, and kinda fumbled the ball on the 1-yard line, and had to kick a field goal.
View Quote
I guess I will also have to agree that The Patriot was also anemic when compared to Braveheart. I still thoroughly enjoyed them both. When John (I believe that was his name) comes home to find his wife and child murdered, his farm plundered and he is so distraught that he takes his own life is also pretty powerful. I'm sure watching his own son die in his arms was pretty powerful as well, as not every patriot was initially motivated by the sheer love of freedom. Some were looking for revenge and others were looking just to fight. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 11/15/2001 1:46:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: I second Major-Murphy's opinion.
View Quote
Third. The Patriot was so totally preposterous (the ambush scene was the worst) that I ended up leaving about a half hour before the movie ended.
Top Top