Trick question... Braveheart was clearly the better movie, but I enjoyed Sith much more... Will you buy me a Shelby Mustang GT500?
Braveheart, like most Mel Gibson movies not a part of the "Mad Max" or "Lethal Weapon" series, was mediocre at best. Most movies made by actors that choose to combine the roles of producer, director, and star end up being underacted and over the top.
Because you won't let me post since I haven't seen either movie/ And I had a good one!!! Oh well.....
Neither were great movies. Braveheart was more boring and longer. The story in ROTS wasn't convincing, but most of the action scenes were entertaining, so I'll go with that.
Please. Braveheart over ROTS any day. Although I will say that this a bizarre poll. Why are we comparing these two films? Episode II, I could maybe see. That had a love story subplot and large scale land battles. ROTS didn't.
Wow, I am surprised by all the Braveheart hate. Even if you hate the historical inaccuracies, it didn't have any more sappy dialogue than ROTS and had fighting at least as good...plus better looking women.
I can't believe ROTS is winning. The dialogue is so CHEESY. I was laughing so hard during some parts I spilled my popcorn. Some may argue that Braveheart's dialogue was contrived, but at least the actors did a good job pulling it off. The actors in this movie seemed to be trying to control their own laughter while spewing out the crap that Lucas wrote. Dialogue: Braveheart. VIsuals: Even. Both are great for their genre Sound: Even. Acting: Braveheart, by far. Story: Even, but only because ROTS finishes the trilogy. By itself, it's not as good. Movie flow: Braveheart. ROTS had way too many transitions. Overall: Braveheart.
People actually liked ROTS enough to seriously rank it ahead of another movie? Jesus Christ! They CRAMMED in a Chewbacca cameo for LITERALLY no reason other than to remind people that Chewbacca exists. Yet after spending about 4 seconds with him, Yoda will miss Chewie. Uh, yeah. And exactly WHY did Padme die? This movie was complete dreck that couldn't even be saved by about 30 six-second lightsaber duels. Wow, way to really make General Grievous pay off-- he's killed in 8 seconds! I was a huge Star Wars fan as a kid and still enjoy the original trilogy, but the prequels have been unequivocably terrible. TERRIBLE. Braveheart, on the other hand, was pretty damn good. The gory battle scenes haven't been topped by a decade's worth of Troys, Galdiators and Alexanders. The story actually made sense for the most part and managed SUCCESSFULLY to draw out the action over a comparatively long period, whereas is ROTS Anakin finds out Padme's pregnant and then two days later everybody's dead and he's a cyborg. The acting is, of course, no contest. George Lucas should be pretty embarrased to have been out-directed by Mel Gibson. Is Braveheart's story trite? I suppose it could be perceived as such, but the fact that Wallace is executed at the end instead of whipping the English's asses keeps it real enough for me. If you want to talk "trite," we can discuss "The Patriot." Seriously, though, there's no comparison. ROTS is a joke on every possible level.
ROTS.. I prefer the story over Braveheart. ROTS was a much more visual experience. Sound was great. The writing and acting of Braveheart can't overcome the experience of ROTS.
bravehart but, who can forget soon to be classic scenes in ROTS like when Vader lemented "NOOOOO!" if Lucas wins an oscar for best director... i donno what to say...
I used to be a Star Wars nerd myself and after episode 1, it all went downhill for me. But ROTS made me realize something: Star Wars is about fun. About just being able to sit there, enjoy a movie, and be done with it. You want plot and dialogue, go watch The English Patient or something. Lucas never really said that Star Wars was going to be some overdrawn movie with thick plot and haughty dialogue. Just enjoy it for what it is. That's why I like ROTS so much--it just makes you remember the first time you saw Luke Skywalker trying to defeat the evil empire when you were a kid.
I think Braveheart is the better movie overall, but ROTS was far more enjoyable and more if your'e a Star Wars fan.
You guys have to admit ROTS is worse than Braveheart if you only look at ROTS and not the whole 1-6 saga.
I liked both of them, I own Braveheart on DVD, and I will certainly be buying ROTS when it is released. Having said that, I liked Sith far more than Braveheart. It is stupid to argue with people over what movie is better than another, as there is no objective measure, just which movie you like more. If you liked Braveheart more, good for you, watch that. If you liked Sith more, that is fine too. I'm sure that many people enjoyed both, like me. I know my mother doesn't like either. Different strokes for different folks.
You really put some of us in a quandary, DD. Sith was far and away the best of the second three Star Wars flicks, although you could fly the Hindenburg through the holes in the plot and Lucas should be castrated for what he's done to the franchise, in my opinion. I think Braveheart is a much, much better film. Much better. Did you get that? B.E.T.T.E.R. Better acting, better plot, better dialogue, better direction, and I have a lot of Scotch blood in me, so I cheered when they gave the bloody English hell. (I'm decended from the Stuarts. Mary, Queen of Scots, is a relative, though dead, I'll admit. ) The quandary is that it's so apples and oranges. Now, if you compared Sith (and yes, Sith most defintely happens, bro) to a really superb SF flick, the finest ever made, the gold standard of SF wonderfulness, never to be topped... in short, Blade Runner ...then your poll might have been a bit better as an idea.
Hey any movie that has the prima nocti doctrine rules...Lucas could have used that concept, say like Obi Wan claiming prima nocti on Padme over Anakin...
