Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • NF$


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About darko

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    University of Toronto
  • Interests
    Writing, reading, literature, literary criticism, European history, historical literature, literature in Canada
  • Public Name

Previous Fields

  • Favourite MG(B) Song
  1. Ive said in another post somewhere that I really disliked this movie and thought it was overhyped....but, most people disagree. I just thought it was kind of silly.
  2. darko

    The Departed

    I actually thought it was kind of shitty. So much amazing character development; then poof, a slapstick murderous last 45 minutes that just felt ridiculous.... I dunno, he's done a lot better in the past.
  3. darko


    The other thing that was obviously an unconscious (or conscious) Gibson moment: Edward I kills Edward II's fictitious gay lover. In reality, homosexuality was actually very well tolerated in England until the 18th century. This felt like GIbson's own prejudices. ALso, anyone here a fan of Marlowe? I was surprised that Gaveston wasn't the gay lover Edward II had. It was the likely choice if anyone has read Edward II the play.
  4. darko


    Yeah I agree with most of what you said. And I have no problem with liberties like the ones you mention. However, I just think that making Edward III Wallace's son served absolutely no purpose except to say "Fuck you!" to the English. I mean, for me, I like historical fiction that doesnt turn history into "good" and "bad" oppositions. He could have done ALL the same things and made it just as well if he had humanized (instead of animalized) the English. It just becomes utterly formulaic at that point. Not that this bothered me in particular, but I had heard a lot of people were annoyed that Edward II was portrayed as stereotypically homosexual. He blatanly was, any thoughts on that? PS: As well, you say there isn't enough info to make a 'factual' movie. Completely true (to an extent, at least; its not even clear why Wallace began his crusade).
  5. darko


    Its not about the accuracy so much as it is about insulting a people's entire history......I have no problem with historical fiction, I hate unnecessary liberties that add nothing to a plot, but insult history. Don't get me wrong, I didnt 'hate' the movie. It's rather good. But it kind of seemed silly to make the creative choices he did. Especially since any uneducated person or naive person watching it might have a really skewed view of English history.......anyway, thats just my annoyance with cliched story-telling.
  6. darko


    Well, it doesnt have to be 100% accurate. Everyone takes liberties. I think to 100% insult the English bloodline is a little silly, and Gibson has a tendency to make Scots 100% right, English 100% wrong. Which is frankly, not at all how it was, and Edward I was actually a very passionate king, not a madman as they portray him......Like I said, historical inaccuracy is one thing, but to flat out villainize and patronize history is unnecessary. It would have been equally interesting if it had been done that way.
  7. darko


    I didnt mind his accent. I was more bothered by the ridiculous ending that implies Edward III was Wallace's son, despite the fact Isabella had never even met Wallace. That was one of a million poor plot choices.... but yes, the mace in the face is excellent, mostly because it rhymes.
  8. darko


    No I bought the DVD, which I now regret, because I swore I'd never have anything to do with Gibson again.
  9. darko


    Um, actually it's almost entirely untrue. The only true things about the movie are the battle names and the fact that Robert the Bruce, Edward I, Edward II, Isabella and William Wallace were living people. Everything else is completely false.
  10. darko


    It was a good movie, but I was really bothered by how ridiculously innacurate it was....especially since it insists at the beginning that it is all true.
  11. I watched Braveheart yesterday for the first time in many years. I remember liking it a lot, but rewatching it after many years, I realized that this movie is terribly, terribly flawed. I mean, I can totally understand why the English were completely offended by it; it is complete fiction. Virtually nothing in that movie is even remotely true historically, yet (unlike historical fiction like Gladiator, etc) it purports to be a real look at William Wallace.... moreover, the movie starts with this line about how the English would call the movie's narrator a "liar"...well, um, rightfully so.
  12. Well, I think Unbreakable deserves more credit than it gets. It was a big risk to make a movie like that, and I think it was wholly original. The ending was a bit of a let down, but everything else was pretty well done. Signs, while not a great movie, was pretty good, despite a few major flaws and paper thin characters. Village, I agree, was total shit.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.