Two Robert the Bruce movies coming out: Outlaw King and Robert The Bruce

[Guest]

On 11/9/2018 at 3:46 PM, Elmer_Fudd said:

Think it's supposed to hit theaters in a couple of weeks.

I watched it yesterday.  Very glad I did not purchase a ticket to do so.

Kept waiting for it to get good.  It never quite got there, IMHO.

[Neonmoon 38130]

I liked it a lot too. I actually don't get why people didn't like it. it was well written, acted, and executed. Douglas might have been a touch over the top, but overall it was very good. 

[52-80 19271]

9 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I liked it a lot too. I actually don't get why people didn't like it. it was well written, acted, and executed. Douglas might have been a touch over the top, but overall it was very good. 

wasnt bad by any measure at all.  simply that the density of the material wasnt served properly by fitting into a 2 hour movie.  you didnt get a proper cinematic build up of the story line and arc.  everything just... happened. 

they really couldve milked it better by doing Pt1 as the struggle and Pt2 as the redemption

 

all the talks of nudity i was expecting game of thrones level stuff.  there was 1 single romance scene and 1 of ole blue eyes skinny dipping in the lake.  whats the big deal?

[gsoda3 3283]

it kinda sucked. no character depth.  no story arc.  truncated ending.  needlessly dramatized and fictionalized events.  cool battle scene though.

[Knoxtnhorn 6066]

Loving the movie so far but quick historical question.

Recalling what I do from Braveheart, Robert the Bruce and fam kind of screwed Wallace over wanting post-war favor with King Edward.  I guess they realized the Scots weren't going to win.

Fast forward to this movie.  Bruce sees Wallace's mutilated body and that pisses him off enough to start another war in which the Scots are a big underdog?  What am I missing?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4979]

Braveheart is considered one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever, so I wouldn't worry about comparing this to it.

[LCHorn 2632]

14 hours ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

Loving the movie so far but quick historical question.

Recalling what I do from Braveheart, Robert the Bruce and fam kind of screwed Wallace over wanting post-war favor with King Edward.  I guess they realized the Scots weren't going to win.

Fast forward to this movie.  Bruce sees Wallace's mutilated body and that pisses him off enough to start another war in which the Scots are a big underdog?  What am I missing?

In the movies’s logic, Bruce isn’t responding to his own shame about Wallace, he’s remarking on the fact it so upset the people.  Basically, the people had more fight left in them and would be receptive to a leader rebelling again.

[Bateshorn 9942]

It was fine.  I wouldn't pay money to see it, but is was an enjoyable way to kill an afternoon.  Excellent gore factor. Florence Pugh had more of a set on her than I expected.

 

They at least got in the ballpark on the historical aspects, as opposed to Braveheart, which was borderline fiction.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Bateshorn

[Fart 111]

On 11/16/2018 at 11:45 PM, Knoxtnhorn said:

Loving the movie so far but quick historical question.

Recalling what I do from Braveheart, Robert the Bruce and fam kind of screwed Wallace over wanting post-war favor with King Edward.  I guess they realized the Scots weren't going to win.

Fast forward to this movie.  Bruce sees Wallace's mutilated body and that pisses him off enough to start another war in which the Scots are a big underdog?  What am I missing?

The Bruces were simply trying to play their cards right in currying favor from Edward for the Scottish crown.  Finally, Edward once remarked to Robert (in real life), "have we nothing but to win kingdoms for you?" Around 1304, Robert saw that Edward I had no intention of helping out the Bruces with re: the crown but conquering Scotland and making it a province.  

 

Wallace and Bruce didn't really interract that much (at least not on record) but it is assumed Wallace chided Bruce after Falkirk in 1298.   

[notre dame joe 197]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:22 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Braveheart is considered one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever, so I wouldn't worry about comparing this to it.

It never really came across as a historical movie to me as much as a Scottish King Arthur legend.

[futureman 22557]

On 11/17/2018 at 1:22 PM, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Braveheart is considered one of the most historically inaccurate movies ever, so I wouldn't worry about comparing this to it.

actually, guy, braveheart is 100% factually accurate from the word go.  historians from england will call me a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes. 

[kingkoopa6 8378]

Tits chick has a wrestling movie coming out next year with the rock.