This match up has done before, but let's do it again. Both won Best Picture, yet have lost luster over the years. Nowadays, no film critic considers either a great.
Two interminable, ham-fisted, melodramatic portentous bores starring mugging Aussie cunts Gimme the absurd mangling of the life of William Wallace, which at least has a few seconds of levity here and there
LOL, CDoggs no fun sometimes. I liked them both a lot when they first came out, but am much more likely to watch "Gladiator" nowadays.
I agree with all responses. I think Braveheart is probably the better movie, but Gladiator is certainly more rewatchable.
Both movies I enjoy....but only certain spots....Braveheart is good for the first 20-30 minutes.....then shit/boring/dragging for 20 minutes...then back to good...then shit again... The Gladiator is the same thing first 20-30 minutes excellent...then up and down....
Gladiator may be more of a "fun" movie, but Braveheart is a better one IMO. They're both largely "style over substance," though.
Braveheart I can’t believe people actually find Gladiator not only more rewatchable than Braveheart but rewatchable at all. I find Gladiator so repulsively boring and overrated that I prefer 300, Troy, Kingdom of Heaven and lots of other films from this genre more rewatchable. I guess it’s just me but I wonder if any of you have actually rewatched Gladiator or if you’re just going off the hazy memory of your first viewing.
I like the fact Richard Harris and Ollie Reed are in Gladiator. Ollie actually kicking the bucket while in the midst of shooting it on Malta.