IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> ZULU vs BRAVEHEART, 2006 first Versus
Which Do You Like Best?
Which Do You Like Best?
ZULU [ 21 ] ** [60.00%]
BRAVEHEART [ 8 ] ** [22.86%]
Both are cock [ 6 ] ** [17.14%]
Total Votes: 35
Guests cannot vote 
Sostie
post Jan 4 2006, 05:49 PM
Post #16


"Mus" gauche, "TANG"
******

Group: Senior Moderators
Posts: 15,567
Joined: 11-November 04
From: London
Member No.: 2,740



Zulu is accurate from what the "histroy" was believed to have been at the time the film was made. Its only later been seen as a propaganda story - the events happened mainly as told, and the soldiers named were present - but apparentley the truth was that some of the officers involved were inept or showed cowardice and the main reason they were given VCs was that, it was not considered proper to give awards to the "regular" soldiers and ignore the officers.

The oddest thing about Zulu is its a rare war film in that there are no real baddies. Both sides (and the film) show their respect of their opponents in direct and indirect ways.

The problem with Braveheart is that re-writes known history to create a piece of entertainment - Wallace's background, the events at the Battle Of Sterling Bridge, the time line itself, his relationship with the Queen, the relationship with the king and the woad amongst other things....all untrue. At least it has made more people seek out the truth about an historical figure which few people knew of outside of Scotland.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ingram
post Jan 4 2006, 05:53 PM
Post #17


.
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 6,111
Joined: 27-February 05
Member No.: 3,514



Zulu gets my vote in this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DazDaMan
post Jan 4 2006, 06:11 PM
Post #18


It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3,714
Joined: 30-March 05
From: Penicuik - ass-end of beyond
Member No.: 3,744



QUOTE (Sostie @ Jan 4 2006, 06:49 PM)
Zulu is accurate from what the "histroy" was believed to have been at the time the film was made.  Its only later been seen as a propaganda story - the events happened mainly as told, and the soldiers named were present - but apparentley the truth was that some of the officers involved were inept or showed cowardice and the main reason they were given VCs was that, it was not considered proper to give awards to the "regular" soldiers and ignore the officers.

The oddest thing about Zulu is its a rare war film in that there are no real baddies.  Both sides (and the film) show their respect of their opponents in direct and indirect ways. 

The problem with Braveheart is that re-writes known history to create a piece of entertainment -  Wallace's background, the events at the Battle Of Sterling Bridge, the time line itself, his relationship with the Queen, the relationship with the king and the woad amongst other things....all untrue.  At least it has made more people seek out the truth about an historical figure which few people knew of outside of Scotland.
*


I agree with this chap!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Douglas Nicol
post Jan 5 2006, 12:26 AM
Post #19


Four Pinter
****

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 2,843



True, Braveheart takes some major liberties with history. A bit aside though, two events in the movie, the nobles hanging in the building at the beginning of the movie, and the burning of the english soldiers in a barn are based on historical events, though in reality, the Scots nobles that were hung were arrested, tried and hung at an official building, and the burning of the Barns took place in Ayr against an English garrison force, though it had absolutely nothing to do with any supposed meeting with a member of royalty.

More liberty was taken with the blue face paint, by that time, the Scots had abandoned that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johny Alpha
post Jan 5 2006, 12:43 AM
Post #20


Johnny Alpha
*

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 20-September 05
Member No.: 4,470



I have to vote for Zulu, because without Zulu we would never have had DogSoldiers biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maian
post Jan 5 2006, 01:46 AM
Post #21


Bully for you
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 20,419
Joined: 25-February 05
From: behind a desk, sitting very still
Member No.: 3,498



I went for Zulu. Putting aside my dislike of Mel Gibson post-1990 (or thereabouts) Zulu has always seemed a better film for me. The battles may not be as spectacular as Bravehearts but it is a more even handed film, less sentimental, has better performances and has a really uplifting ending. Very good 'war' film.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svein
post Jan 5 2006, 03:04 PM
Post #22


I'm sorry; I meant, "Drop dead, *comrade*."
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4,352
Joined: 21-January 05
From: CTU
Member No.: 3,252



The history of Braveheart is laughable (I loved the liberties with the Queen), although certain aspects, like the ruthlessness of Edward I and the promise of Edward II not being long on the throne were accurate.

I still love it for the battle scenes. As a reenactor, they were some of the best choreographed and filmed scenes on picture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dabariocca
post Jan 6 2006, 01:20 AM
Post #23


Burly legal
***

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 454
Joined: 8-November 05
From: Tokyo
Member No.: 4,655



QUOTE (whitey @ Jan 4 2006, 03:16 AM)
Either I'm reading both of the options wrong (possible) or they are both awful (probable).
*

"What the Dueces" is a quote from Zulu. I must start using emoticons. Anyway, I love Zulu. I can forgive the inaccuracies just by reminding myself IT WAS MADE IN THE FRIGGIN' SIXTIES! For the time it was made the fact that they protrayed the Zulu's as being brave and honorable (instead of just a bunch of spear chucking savages) was quite revolutinary. For the sixties it was a fairly intelligent film. It could have been pure rule Britania, we''l show those darkies. And although he finds his courage later, Michael Caines character is intially portrayed as an arogrant, upperclass, imbecile who falls apart under pressure. Braveheart on the other hand was made in 1994/95 and was full of ridiculous stereotypes. "Hello der! Aim Sean! Aive cum all da way from Ireland fer a foight! Wheere's me lucky charms?"

This post has been edited by dabariocca: Jan 6 2006, 01:45 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Raven
post Jan 6 2006, 08:48 PM
Post #24


Space Cowboy
******

Group: Blokes in Charge
Posts: 14,572
Joined: 1-October 04
From: Mercy
Member No.: 2,262



Zulu for me!

Leaving aside the historical inaccuracy of both films, Braveheart just isn't as good a film. I've watched Zulu dozens of times but I don't have any interest in seeing Braveheart again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whitey
post Jan 7 2006, 07:11 PM
Post #25


never rub another man's rhubarb
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 5,714
Joined: 2-October 04
Member No.: 2,308



QUOTE (dabariocca @ Jan 6 2006, 01:20 AM)
I must start using emoticons.
*

Not necessary. I wasn't about to spot the reference to the film I don't really like, smiley or no.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Douglas Nicol
post Jan 10 2006, 04:48 PM
Post #26


Four Pinter
****

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 1-December 04
Member No.: 2,843



One of the few Gibson movies that I liked in recent years was We Were Soldiers.

However..back to topic. Braveheart is to history what Pearl Harbor is to WW2 history. Wildly inaccurate. I DID like McGoohan as Longshanks though, he did seem to have just the right attitude for such a feared king. And what he did to his sons lover was a funny moment, more in the way he did it, by appearing to take him into his confidence. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Svein
post Jan 10 2006, 04:56 PM
Post #27


I'm sorry; I meant, "Drop dead, *comrade*."
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 4,352
Joined: 21-January 05
From: CTU
Member No.: 3,252



I think the film captured the overall FEEL of the middle ages... it was dirty and dank... you could almost smell the shit! But there were glaring writing inaccuracies... although one should blame Randall Wallace for that one... he wrote it, not Gibson.

Technically, it is a great movie and I think deserved the multiple Oscars that it got. Haven't seen Zulu in forever to compare it to, but I still enjoy it, flaws and all!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DazDaMan
post Jan 10 2006, 06:06 PM
Post #28


It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
******

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 3,714
Joined: 30-March 05
From: Penicuik - ass-end of beyond
Member No.: 3,744



QUOTE (Svein @ Jan 10 2006, 05:56 PM)
But there were glaring writing inaccuracies...  although one should blame Randall Wallace for that one... 
*


Who also wrote another massively historically inaccurate movie - Pearl Harbor! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A Big Fat Tranny...
post Jan 11 2006, 12:15 PM
Post #29


Just one more thing...
**

Group: Senior Members
Posts: 186
Joined: 27-December 05
From: Teesside
Member No.: 4,771



Zulu.
If only for the line:

"Bitter pill. Our own damn rifles!"

Woot!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 12:32 PM