A beautiful film. I saw it at the cinema on limited release. The cinematography is breathtaking- the choice of locations allowed the director to show his love for Scotland. There are so many rich characters. poignant scenes and the right touch of mirth. I cried and laughed and was very moved by the wonderful score. The gorgeous attention to period detail was so good to see. James Cosmo moved me to tears with his brief but utterly convincing scene with the charismatic Chris Pine.- one of many highlights for me. I LOVED it.
Thought this movie was excellent . The attention to detail is astonishing -cinematography great , acting esp from AT Johnston Chris Pine and the star that is Florence Pugh on a high level . Only complaint I had was that it is too short . But it has everything-great battle and action sequences-a tender love story and some very tear-jerking scenes. The mark of a good movie is how it affects your emotions-me and my wife watched it and both of us were moved by that scene at the end where King Robert is given his crown back by the young lad. All in all a great nights entertainment
I thought it was a bit flat - let down by the dialogue and not-brilliant character building. They didn't really persuade me that Bruce was especially heroic, or someone so inspiring that the Scottish lords would follow into *another* rebellion after spending 8 years on one that failed.
I enjoyed it. Had a more realistic & gritty bent to it, which I much appreciated. Also happy they did a historically proper scene of Edward granting knighthood. Highlighting the 'brevet', the part which most movies neglect, with the slap or strike and "let this be the last blow you receive unanswered".
I really liked it. I didn't expect to be so emotionally involved by the stories and the characters. Plus it was very well shot, had fantastic battle sequences and an excellent score
I agree with that. It did have some emotional impact. Some scenes where brilliant, like most scenes with Florence Pugh, and the cruel execution of Roberts brother. But the rest was a bit flat. While Braveheart was too bombastic, and too much of everything, this was too little.
I was an extra in this movie and I was in the front line of the army inbetween James Cosmo and Aron Taylor Johnson and Cosmo said to me "what are you doing here how'd you manage to worm your way to the top?" "Just lucky I guess" i quipped.
@Peter Hunter I'm bed next to Johnson when Pine dose the pre battle speech in next to him. The man in the silver helmet right of ATJ in blue with 3 white stars.
One think I really enjoyed was the clothing and many of the props were not as dreadful as is often the case in historically set movies, in fact the rich colourful clothing of the nobel men and women were good, it was great to see colours in place of the black and brown in most middle age set movies, super rich people wore fabulously ornate expensive clothing,but when all is said and done I agree with Kermode, I kept waiting for the movie to really engage me emotionally but that never happened.
The rich did indeed have 'fabulously ornate expensive clothing', however they did not have ability to clean them very effectively. Even kings would have looked pretty scruffy and mucky by today's standards.
@@PNETriffid where did you get that idea? You think the King's of Europe went around in dirty stained clothes? You must be having a laugh. Ever heard of a washer woman?
@@twoonthewall Clearly you don't have much understanding of the period. If you think even kings could change their clothes every day you are ignorant. If you think kings just turned up after travelling on muddy roads in pristine attire you are not the brightest. Do you think said washer woman was using anything more than hot water and fat? Elizabeth I used to bathe four times a year. So in answer to your rhetorical question, yes they generally went around in stained, stinking clothing, oh ignorant one.
They cut 24 minutes from the film. In Toronto at the film festival they showed the uncut version. I think if they would have left that in, it would have been better. Hopefully the Bluray release will have the full uncut version.
I watched this on the big screen at the GFT and absolutely loved it. The cinematography really captured the landscapes and locations very accurately, down to the subdued, but beautiful, grey sky lit countryside. I thought for a film that was obviously going to be likened to Braveheart and other swords and battlefields films it done so very understatedly, which I understand seems like a strange thing to say for a film of that genre. The reason I think this is because brasher films excite you in the moment and then the excitement is over very quickly and you can leave the cinema feeling cheated, but this has stayed with me since viewing it and I have been reading about Bruce and the time. I tried to watch the film again at home but gave up as it in now way looked or had the same impact as it had on the big screen. The only criticism I have is that the story deserved at least a trilogy if not a mini series.
My main issue with the film was the pacing. It felt rushed and jumped from location to location far too often. For this reason there wasn't nearly enough time for character development. This story would have been better told over the course of three films, or a mini series. So much material was either skimmed over or skipped completely, which is really disappointing! For those who want to read more about King Robert, I strongly recommend 'The Bruce Trilogy' by Nigel Tranter.
It was a good film with fine performances & great scenery. However at times it suffered from feeling like it was edited in the style of a TV show, scenes were too short & in conflict with longer moments such as the fantastic opening sequence. All-in-all definitely a step above much of the dross that has characterised 2018 in film
As much as I appreciate this man's critique of cinematic productions past and present, I disagree that you need to be entertained at every point (American style 🙄). It's like music - you don't enjoy the continuous single note do you. You enjoy the silence in-between...the pauses.
Overall I really liked it, thought the actors did a good job (Stannis finally became king 😂), the action was great, and it told a good story. Although I feel that it was a bit rushed and need about 15-20 minutes worth of dialogue more to smooth it all out. I’d say it’s a must watch.
I found the opening quite effective in terms of dialogue. The dynamic between the Scottish Lords and the English, was quite well played out. This had me hooked at first, however I will say as the narrative progressed it felt like key plot points were being rushed through. My main issue is the duration. I feel for a historical figure of this magnitude and the events that took place - there could have been more time taken to get the character established and let us soak in what was going on in Scotland/England at that time. Not a bad effort by any stretch, but definately feel in terms of the script more time could have been put in to develop this. Tonally I had no issues with it, and thought the cinematography and acting was well done.
I enjoyed it - it maybe didn’t have the braveheart appeal because they didn’t just juggle all the playing pieces up to fit a crowd pleasing formula. It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but I think it portrayed the history well enough.
The epic poem 'The Brus' was written by Archdeacon John Barbour around the mid 1370s. I think if the film producers had stuck more closely to pace of that narrative, which is the source material, it would of made a more appealing film. The first half of the film was slow and much of the time wasted. The other half felt rushed. At the end of the day the film was OK, and is still worth the watch. They got so much right, it had the potential to be epic, yet the film crossed the line a number of times into fantasy. Nor more so than Edward II being at the battle of Louden hill, and even having a duel with Bruce. Crazy stuff and not needed.
Watching it now. I had to pause. The scene with Comyn( John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch) starting at 27:50 and ending at 29:50 is epic. The END of that scene may just be the best scene ending ever written and filmed. No spoilers. But come back and upvote if you agree. Hint. There was a SIMILAR scene in the TV show Firefly concerning Mal and a real (in his mind) bad dude.
I really enjoyed this film. Gritty, downbeat, historically grounded (though not afraid to take dramatic liberties if required), great cinematography and costumes and quality performances throughout (but as others have said do have some quibbles with the somewhat rushed pacing). Would be very interested in seeing the original longer cut.
Also - it suffered mightily from the fact that the first two books of GoT, with Young King Rob and the rebellion in the North, were heavily inspired by the Robert the Bruce story, and those excellent works of fantasy-realism have very recently been dramatised to superior effect (complete with giant dogs, wolves biting off fingers, and generally a lot more bonking).
100% agree with this. I didn't have a great deal of expectation for this movie so, in a way, it surprised me positively. It was beautifully shot, had great casting, the battle scenes were well done, but I found it not to be very moving. About this last point, I think they failed to use the full potential of Tony Curran for example, who is a brilliant dramatic actor that can express great emotional depth, but in this movie was relegated to be the sidekick with no particular function except to be close to Chris Pine and it kind of annoyed me very much.
I feel that a film review programme wouldn't review the small screen Netflix version, when a cinema version is available. Good film, it drew me in, and it looked excellent.
'Forgettable' is the word I would use to describe this film. Unlike Kermode, I love Braveheart, despite its often silliness. I think the reason I didn't connect with this film in the same way I did with Braveheart is the fact that in Braveheart they spend a good amount of time SHOWING us what is being taken, and maybe more importantly, showing us how it's being taken from the characters. In Outlaw King they just talk about how they need to regain control. We (or maybe just I) needed to SEE more about their reasons why they had to fight back in order for us to root for them more. It being a true story isn't enough to make it simply work on film. The Douglas character was the only one who will probably stay in my memory, I actually felt like he had lost something and understood exactly why fighting back meant so much to him. The rest of them were fighting because the script told them to. Maybe being Scottish helps a person to enjoy it more, but I'm just English scum (well, I'm Cornish, but ya know, same thing I guess).
Loved it. A good solid 7.5 out of 10 from me. Entertaining. Looks good. Yeah its you. Great little movie and a netflix treat! And....best heavy horse charge on film yet. Makes bravehearts charge look pathetic. All 9 horses of it!!
I totally agree with Mark on this. After 20 minutes I thought, can i be bothered to continue and stuck with it to try to find out why it wasn't more impactful. It wasn't the story, acting, cinematography, attention to detail, scale - all of those were good and it was only towards the end that I realised the biggest problem is the soundtrack. The songs the actors sing are nice but the score itself is almost entirely missing. If there was ever an argument for the likes of Hans Zimmer to justify his fee cheque it would be this film. I was talking about it with someone today and I suggested (jokingly) that he watch it with the soundtrack of Braveheart or Gladiator or Lord of The Rings in the background and it would make the experience of watching this film so much better.
Aye, I think it was OK. I agree it was a bit of a slog to get through. I know the history which made it easier. I'm so glad they stuck to the history (more or less)! One thing it does show is that historical movies are slightly duller if they stick to facts rather than get Gibson and Haggis to reinterperet the past. At the very least we would have got a spider and cave scene with a cheesy rising optamistic underpinning score! The thing that I noticed (of course) was the music. I think music plays a big part in informing the emotions of the viewer. There was no real thematic hook like there is in Braveheart (which is an obvious comparison). I find a lot of movies nowadays have a generic musical texture underpinning a scene, but the music could be from any movie. The music in Outlaw King is subtle, but other than the Gaelic songs, a wee bit of drumming and church music the rest of the music is a bland non event. I'm kind of glad that most of the movie has no music at all if that's what we are getting. Didn't need a grand Hollywood score, but a wee bit of effort would have made the world of difference. Of course that not the movie composers fault (it will be the director or some other bod who points a lot and demands coffee!) They missed a trick because the songs during the credits are incredible.
The film was recut actually. MacKenzie realized, halfway through the world premiere, that the film wasn't working and he cut out 23 minutes from the film for the wide release. I wonder if Mark saw the festival cut or the re-edited footage.
@@NefariousKoel exactly, they cut it as the Bruce stabs Comyn in the neck and looks him dead in the eye as he bleeds out, not one for the beeb maybe...
The editing made it feel like massive chunks, in the first half, were cut out. It took me out of it a bit. The second half was better though. Also, why were there black people in 14th century Scotland? It was a small because they were extras but it stood out.
There's almost no narrative drive in the movie (and a ridiculous narrative choice at the end) and all the historical detail and accuracy and beautiful cinematography (especially the opening One Shot) can't make up for those narrative failings.
It felt kinda sloggy to me too. I liked Braveheart and was excited for this movie because I thought it would be ( and it was ) more historically accurate. I liked all the actors in the movie and the scenery was beautiful. I think maybe it was the tone for me, in the movie you pretty much watch a guy loose everything for two hours and even his victory at the end seemed somewhat tragic and then the last two minutes show that everything turns out alright for him. I think the movie would have benefited with more of an arc by showing his downfall and his climb back up to into power more evenly. I heard that they might make this into a trilogy and I think that would be great. I went into this movie knowing that the Scot's were going to win and I just wanted to see more of how they won.
Not a film I’ll remember in 3 months time. I didn’t engage with the characters, I didn’t feel empathy when Roberts brother was killed, I didn’t get angry at the injustice portrayed. It was the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac and fries.
Why are people even criticising the few major historical innacuracies in an adaptation of the _Robert the Bruce legend_ of all things? That's the _most_ mind-biggling thing.
Braveheart was not historically accurate, but by God, it got me involved in the story. Even the main battle was done better. It's about the editing, and the music, and the pacing.
I agree 100%. I just wasn't moved enough. Braveheart had passion (you call it bombast). In Braveheart I wanted the Scots to win. In The Outlaw King, it didn't seem as urgent and as angry. Also, I think Pine as miscast. Despite the graying beard, he seemed boyish. When people called him, "Your Majesty," I had to suppress a laugh. He had no credentials.
It hurts me to say that because I’ve been waiting for another great historical movie for a long time but in a nutshell those were the problems I had with the movie as well
I liked the film. A few things that I didn't like where Edward 2nd portrayal, Felt like it was too rushed and to be honest I would have preferred a Scotsman to play Robert. This movie would have benefitted much more if it had played out either over 3 films or as a mini-series....the Bruces story is far too intense and has so much depth that It fell short in a 2hr film. Just my 2 pence
Weird thing, I enjoy listening to Mark, but I rarely agree with him. The subdued tone made it all seem more real, just a bunch of politicians with swords trying to achieve goals. In a great landscape. A bunch of squaddies schlepping through the moor is not particularly dramatic. The battle itself was great, as were all the killings. That was where the real drama would have been in reality. The whole thing seems focused on exorcising the ghost of 'Braveheart', keeping it real. The only bits that seemed off were the folksy interjections that threatened to turn it into a musical. And then I suspect that had you stripped all the heroic talk and patriotic pomp, and saw what really went down, judging by just the sequence of events, Bruce would have come out a right c**t.
Bit hit and miss this. Very cheesy in parts, but made up by Billy Howle's depiction of Edward II, stole the show imo. But why, when the rest of the film was quite good, although far from perfect, on the historical accuracy front did we have to endure that daft fabricated ending (re battle of Loudon Hill and its leadup)?
A pretty disappointing film I thought. Looked good, decent acting for the most part and had a great final battle but despite it being two hours long it felt so rushed. Moments of character and plot development would happen so damn quickly that they just felt like bullet points to move the story along and as a result, barely of them felt genuine.
I thought it was a pretty disjointed movie, like a jumble of scenes.didnt like the first sequence too, with a long shot with the camera running crazy in circles a la birdman. No emotional scenes too, People dying left and right out of the blue, like bruces fathers and longshanks. I liked the battle scenes and all, I mildly enjoyed watching the movie, but braveheart was much better, even with its unnacuracys and terrible love stories
Some people think what Mel Gibson did with Braveheart was easy. Well, watch this film to see how bad it can be done. Zero heart, too much singing and a wife-husband relationship that is something out of 2018 instead of the 1300th century. Terrible.
We need more historical epics, but less of these boring, almost formulaic so-so films, that have an epic scope, but feel tiny in ambition. "Not a man, an idea" Oh God, not again. Goddammit, not everything needs to be the Dark Knight!
@@walariowuzo6723 It's been ten years, hardly a timeless classic yet. Mostly because it sounds tepid when every single character is "a symbol, more than just a man". When a symbol is used unsparingly, it becomes just man.
the movie was poor on many levels, goes to show how fantastic a director mel gibson is, braveheart 25years old and miles better than this! Edwards son was awful really unconvincing. the end battle was decent
A beautiful film. I saw it at the cinema on limited release. The cinematography is breathtaking- the choice of locations allowed the director to show his love for Scotland. There are so many rich characters. poignant scenes and the right touch of mirth. I cried and laughed and was very moved by the wonderful score. The gorgeous attention to period detail was so good to see. James Cosmo moved me to tears with his brief but utterly convincing scene with the charismatic Chris Pine.- one of many highlights for me. I LOVED it.
Thought this movie was excellent . The attention to detail is astonishing -cinematography great , acting esp from AT Johnston Chris Pine and the star that is Florence Pugh on a high level . Only complaint I had was that it is too short . But it has everything-great battle and action sequences-a tender love story and some very tear-jerking scenes. The mark of a good movie is how it affects your emotions-me and my wife watched it and both of us were moved by that scene at the end where King Robert is given his crown back by the young lad. All in all a great nights entertainment
ThePostbear here here sir
20 minutes were cut. People who watched it in Toronto said it was longer.
Well said- and yes- they should not have cut it to suit the critics.
I thought it was a bit flat - let down by the dialogue and not-brilliant character building. They didn't really persuade me that Bruce was especially heroic, or someone so inspiring that the Scottish lords would follow into *another* rebellion after spending 8 years on one that failed.
@@wdirtymonkey totally agree, not sure what the moaning is about.
I disagree with that review - I thought it was superb, very engaging and well performed. I was swept up in the drama.
I enjoyed it. Had a more realistic & gritty bent to it, which I much appreciated.
Also happy they did a historically proper scene of Edward granting knighthood. Highlighting the 'brevet', the part which most movies neglect, with the slap or strike and "let this be the last blow you receive unanswered".
I really liked it. I didn't expect to be so emotionally involved by the stories and the characters. Plus it was very well shot, had fantastic battle sequences and an excellent score
I agree good performances , beautifully made. But.. It was missing the emotional impact.
I agree with that. It did have some emotional impact. Some scenes where brilliant, like most scenes with Florence Pugh, and the cruel execution of Roberts brother. But the rest was a bit flat. While Braveheart was too bombastic, and too much of everything, this was too little.
I was an extra in this movie and I was in the front line of the army inbetween James Cosmo and Aron Taylor Johnson and Cosmo said to me "what are you doing here how'd you manage to worm your way to the top?"
"Just lucky I guess" i quipped.
@Peter Hunter I'm bed next to Johnson when Pine dose the pre battle speech in next to him. The man in the silver helmet right of ATJ in blue with 3 white stars.
@Peter Hunter the man who said "what are you doing..." might have been that Tony fellow now that I think about it.
One think I really enjoyed was the clothing and many of the props were not as dreadful as is often the case in historically set movies, in fact the rich colourful clothing of the nobel men and women were good, it was great to see colours in place of the black and brown in most middle age set movies, super rich people wore fabulously ornate expensive clothing,but when all is said and done I agree with Kermode, I kept waiting for the movie to really engage me emotionally but that never happened.
And gambesons.
(I thank Shadiversity for teaching me that)
The rich did indeed have 'fabulously ornate expensive clothing', however they did not have ability to clean them very effectively. Even kings would have looked pretty scruffy and mucky by today's standards.
@@PNETriffid where did you get that idea? You think the King's of Europe went around in dirty stained clothes? You must be having a laugh.
Ever heard of a washer woman?
@@twoonthewall Clearly you don't have much understanding of the period. If you think even kings could change their clothes every day you are ignorant. If you think kings just turned up after travelling on muddy roads in pristine attire you are not the brightest. Do you think said washer woman was using anything more than hot water and fat? Elizabeth I used to bathe four times a year. So in answer to your rhetorical question, yes they generally went around in stained, stinking clothing, oh ignorant one.
@@PNETriffid 🤣nice one Brian 👍
Do you always get this upset when someone tells you your wrong
This was a great film..very emotional at times.
I am part of the Mckinnon clan so I loved it! Thanks Clive Russell!
Me too! I was thrilled.
They cut 24 minutes from the film. In Toronto at the film festival they showed the uncut version. I think if they would have left that in, it would have been better. Hopefully the Bluray release will have the full uncut version.
I watched this on the big screen at the GFT and absolutely loved it. The cinematography really captured the landscapes and locations very accurately, down to the subdued, but beautiful, grey sky lit countryside. I thought for a film that was obviously going to be likened to Braveheart and other swords and battlefields films it done so very understatedly, which I understand seems like a strange thing to say for a film of that genre. The reason I think this is because brasher films excite you in the moment and then the excitement is over very quickly and you can leave the cinema feeling cheated, but this has stayed with me since viewing it and I have been reading about Bruce and the time. I tried to watch the film again at home but gave up as it in now way looked or had the same impact as it had on the big screen. The only criticism I have is that the story deserved at least a trilogy if not a mini series.
I thought it was great. The opening tracking shot is worth the price of admission alone
Stephen Dillane was fantastic in this movie
The movie was fantastic, only 1 notable inaccuracy though which is amazing for a historical film.
What was the inaccuracy? I'm guessing the Princes gold armor.
My main issue with the film was the pacing. It felt rushed and jumped from location to location far too often. For this reason there wasn't nearly enough time for character development. This story would have been better told over the course of three films, or a mini series. So much material was either skimmed over or skipped completely, which is really disappointing! For those who want to read more about King Robert, I strongly recommend 'The Bruce Trilogy' by Nigel Tranter.
It was a good film with fine performances & great scenery. However at times it suffered from feeling like it was edited in the style of a TV show, scenes were too short & in conflict with longer moments such as the fantastic opening sequence. All-in-all definitely a step above much of the dross that has characterised 2018 in film
I completely agree about the editing. The cuts were incredibly sharp.
As much as I appreciate this man's critique of cinematic productions past and present, I disagree that you need to be entertained at every point (American style 🙄).
It's like music - you don't enjoy the continuous single note do you. You enjoy the silence in-between...the pauses.
Overall I really liked it, thought the actors did a good job (Stannis finally became king 😂), the action was great, and it told a good story. Although I feel that it was a bit rushed and need about 15-20 minutes worth of dialogue more to smooth it all out. I’d say it’s a must watch.
The director cut 23-minutes from the film before its Netflix release. :(
Some really great set pieces in this film
It was good. Well worth a look.
I found the opening quite effective in terms of dialogue. The dynamic between the Scottish Lords and the English, was quite well played out. This had me hooked at first, however I will say as the narrative progressed it felt like key plot points were being rushed through. My main issue is the duration. I feel for a historical figure of this magnitude and the events that took place - there could have been more time taken to get the character established and let us soak in what was going on in Scotland/England at that time. Not a bad effort by any stretch, but definately feel in terms of the script more time could have been put in to develop this. Tonally I had no issues with it, and thought the cinematography and acting was well done.
I enjoyed it - it maybe didn’t have the braveheart appeal because they didn’t just juggle all the playing pieces up to fit a crowd pleasing formula. It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but I think it portrayed the history well enough.
Chris Pine looks a hell of a lot like a young Franco Nero these days.
The epic poem 'The Brus' was written by Archdeacon John Barbour around the mid 1370s. I think if the film producers had stuck more closely to pace of that narrative, which is the source material, it would of made a more appealing film.
The first half of the film was slow and much of the time wasted. The other half felt rushed. At the end of the day the film was OK, and is still worth the watch. They got so much right, it had the potential to be epic, yet the film crossed the line a number of times into fantasy. Nor more so than Edward II being at the battle of Louden hill, and even having a duel with Bruce. Crazy stuff and not needed.
Totally agree! Also, I believe Edward I died a few months AFTER the battle. And the fire arrows...seriously?
Great film, hoping they release it with the deleted scenes that were removed for " pacing ".
Watching it now. I had to pause. The scene with Comyn( John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch) starting at 27:50 and ending at 29:50 is epic. The END of that scene may just be the best scene ending ever written and filmed.
No spoilers. But come back and upvote if you agree.
Hint. There was a SIMILAR scene in the TV show Firefly concerning Mal and a real (in his mind) bad dude.
I really enjoyed this film. Gritty, downbeat, historically grounded (though not afraid to take dramatic liberties if required), great cinematography and costumes and quality performances throughout (but as others have said do have some quibbles with the somewhat rushed pacing). Would be very interested in seeing the original longer cut.
Also - it suffered mightily from the fact that the first two books of GoT, with Young King Rob and the rebellion in the North, were heavily inspired by the Robert the Bruce story, and those excellent works of fantasy-realism have very recently been dramatised to superior effect (complete with giant dogs, wolves biting off fingers, and generally a lot more bonking).
well i cared about DOUGLAS,felt sorry for the kid who protected the crown of robert,chris pine was great
Aaron taylor johnson was stunning as James 'the black' Douglas, he totally stole the show in my opinion.
I liked it. It was like one chapter of Robert the Bruce. Great review you gained a new sub.
100% agree with this. I didn't have a great deal of expectation for this movie so, in a way, it surprised me positively. It was beautifully shot, had great casting, the battle scenes were well done, but I found it not to be very moving. About this last point, I think they failed to use the full potential of Tony Curran for example, who is a brilliant dramatic actor that can express great emotional depth, but in this movie was relegated to be the sidekick with no particular function except to be close to Chris Pine and it kind of annoyed me very much.
I feel that a film review programme wouldn't review the small screen Netflix version, when a cinema version is available.
Good film, it drew me in, and it looked excellent.
Superb movie.. very well acted.
'Forgettable' is the word I would use to describe this film. Unlike Kermode, I love Braveheart, despite its often silliness. I think the reason I didn't connect with this film in the same way I did with Braveheart is the fact that in Braveheart they spend a good amount of time SHOWING us what is being taken, and maybe more importantly, showing us how it's being taken from the characters. In Outlaw King they just talk about how they need to regain control. We (or maybe just I) needed to SEE more about their reasons why they had to fight back in order for us to root for them more. It being a true story isn't enough to make it simply work on film. The Douglas character was the only one who will probably stay in my memory, I actually felt like he had lost something and understood exactly why fighting back meant so much to him. The rest of them were fighting because the script told them to. Maybe being Scottish helps a person to enjoy it more, but I'm just English scum (well, I'm Cornish, but ya know, same thing I guess).
I felt Chris Pine lacked charisma. He was unconvincing as The Bruce, who'd have had it in spades.
Loved it. A good solid 7.5 out of 10 from me. Entertaining. Looks good. Yeah its you. Great little movie and a netflix treat! And....best heavy horse charge on film yet. Makes bravehearts charge look pathetic. All 9 horses of it!!
I totally agree with Mark on this. After 20 minutes I thought, can i be bothered to continue and stuck with it to try to find out why it wasn't more impactful. It wasn't the story, acting, cinematography, attention to detail, scale - all of those were good and it was only towards the end that I realised the biggest problem is the soundtrack. The songs the actors sing are nice but the score itself is almost entirely missing. If there was ever an argument for the likes of Hans Zimmer to justify his fee cheque it would be this film. I was talking about it with someone today and I suggested (jokingly) that he watch it with the soundtrack of Braveheart or Gladiator or Lord of The Rings in the background and it would make the experience of watching this film so much better.
Aye, I think it was OK. I agree it was a bit of a slog to get through. I know the history which made it easier. I'm so glad they stuck to the history (more or less)!
One thing it does show is that historical movies are slightly duller if they stick to facts rather than get Gibson and Haggis to reinterperet the past. At the very least we would have got a spider and cave scene with a cheesy rising optamistic underpinning score!
The thing that I noticed (of course) was the music. I think music plays a big part in informing the emotions of the viewer. There was no real thematic hook like there is in Braveheart (which is an obvious comparison). I find a lot of movies nowadays have a generic musical texture underpinning a scene, but the music could be from any movie.
The music in Outlaw King is subtle, but other than the Gaelic songs, a wee bit of drumming and church music the rest of the music is a bland non event. I'm kind of glad that most of the movie has no music at all if that's what we are getting. Didn't need a grand Hollywood score, but a wee bit of effort would have made the world of difference. Of course that not the movie composers fault (it will be the director or some other bod who points a lot and demands coffee!)
They missed a trick because the songs during the credits are incredible.
Great film
The film was recut actually. MacKenzie realized, halfway through the world premiere, that the film wasn't working and he cut out 23 minutes from the film for the wide release. I wonder if Mark saw the festival cut or the re-edited footage.
wow that dialogue scene couldn't have been less cinematic
"Come, let us stand in this empty room and do nothing other than argue about the central premise of the film."
"Yes. Let us do that."
rudi reifenstecher
Yup!
First thing that came to mind
That dialogue was cut short in the clip on this vid. Abruptly so, in mid speech, unfortunately.
That scene actually ended up being quite good.
@@NefariousKoel exactly, they cut it as the Bruce stabs Comyn in the neck and looks him dead in the eye as he bleeds out, not one for the beeb maybe...
That ain't a spoiler by the way if you remember your history class...
The editing made it feel like massive chunks, in the first half, were cut out. It took me out of it a bit. The second half was better though.
Also, why were there black people in 14th century Scotland? It was a small because they were extras but it stood out.
It felt like a six part series that's made into a tv flim. It's ok it's worth a watch at least
There's almost no narrative drive in the movie (and a ridiculous narrative choice at the end) and all the historical detail and accuracy and beautiful cinematography (especially the opening One Shot) can't make up for those narrative failings.
I've read lots of reviews saying it was a slog but I really enjoyed it
Please review The Other Side Of The Wind on Netflix and/or They'll Love Me When I'm Dead
Felt too short even though it was a two hour film. It felt more like a series reduced to feature length. It's not bad, just forgettable.
It felt kinda sloggy to me too. I liked Braveheart and was excited for this movie because I thought it would be ( and it was ) more historically accurate. I liked all the actors in the movie and the scenery was beautiful. I think maybe it was the tone for me, in the movie you pretty much watch a guy loose everything for two hours and even his victory at the end seemed somewhat tragic and then the last two minutes show that everything turns out alright for him. I think the movie would have benefited with more of an arc by showing his downfall and his climb back up to into power more evenly. I heard that they might make this into a trilogy and I think that would be great. I went into this movie knowing that the Scot's were going to win and I just wanted to see more of how they won.
Not a film I’ll remember in 3 months time. I didn’t engage with the characters, I didn’t feel empathy when Roberts brother was killed, I didn’t get angry at the injustice portrayed. It was the cinematic equivalent of a Big Mac and fries.
Why are people even criticising the few major historical innacuracies in an adaptation of the _Robert the Bruce legend_ of all things? That's the _most_ mind-biggling thing.
All the comments dont agree with you. I loved it from beginning to the end.
I get what he means. I still loved the movie. It was different.
Braveheart was not historically accurate, but by God, it got me involved in the story. Even the main battle was done better. It's about the editing, and the music, and the pacing.
I haven't seen this film, but based on this review, I'll probably enjoy it. I find that if Mark likes a film I won't, and vice versa.
I agree 100%. I just wasn't moved enough. Braveheart had passion (you call it bombast). In Braveheart I wanted the Scots to win. In The Outlaw King, it didn't seem as urgent and as angry. Also, I think Pine as miscast. Despite the graying beard, he seemed boyish. When people called him, "Your Majesty," I had to suppress a laugh. He had no credentials.
I thought it was excellent
He watched a disc which is why its already on streaming sites. I think that sucks.
This was a very solid effort. Good flick. 3.5 out of 5 😊
He doesn't like "BRAVEHEART" ? Quite possibly the greatest epic film of all time? Interesting.
It hurts me to say that because I’ve been waiting for another great historical movie for a long time but in a nutshell those were the problems I had with the movie as well
I was hoping Mark would like the 1 film I'm in a bit better.
“Wallace wasn’t a man.... He was an idea”
I liked the film. A few things that I didn't like where Edward 2nd portrayal, Felt like it was too rushed and to be honest I would have preferred a Scotsman to play Robert. This movie would have benefitted much more if it had played out either over 3 films or as a mini-series....the Bruces story is far too intense and has so much depth that It fell short in a 2hr film. Just my 2 pence
Weird thing, I enjoy listening to Mark, but I rarely agree with him. The subdued tone made it all seem more real, just a bunch of politicians with swords trying to achieve goals. In a great landscape. A bunch of squaddies schlepping through the moor is not particularly dramatic. The battle itself was great, as were all the killings. That was where the real drama would have been in reality. The whole thing seems focused on exorcising the ghost of 'Braveheart', keeping it real. The only bits that seemed off were the folksy interjections that threatened to turn it into a musical. And then I suspect that had you stripped all the heroic talk and patriotic pomp, and saw what really went down, judging by just the sequence of events, Bruce would have come out a right c**t.
So none of us are going to include the historicle accuracy of this film?
I couldn't hear a thing on this clip.!?
Is it me.
WF
I get what he means, it lacked the ‘heart’ of Braveheart
Wasn’t really in depth enough, should have been longer or made into a series . This story would be perfect for tv series .
Beam me up Scottie. 🏴
As a film critic, Mark failed to articulate why he felt the file was unable to connect him on a deeper level. Disappointing.
Whinging Englishman doesn’t like fantastic film about English imperialism getting a kicking. Colour me shocked.
Bit hit and miss this. Very cheesy in parts, but made up by Billy Howle's depiction of Edward II, stole the show imo. But why, when the rest of the film was quite good, although far from perfect, on the historical accuracy front did we have to endure that daft fabricated ending (re battle of Loudon Hill and its leadup)?
It's you.
A pretty disappointing film I thought. Looked good, decent acting for the most part and had a great final battle but despite it being two hours long it felt so rushed. Moments of character and plot development would happen so damn quickly that they just felt like bullet points to move the story along and as a result, barely of them felt genuine.
I thought it was great. And I want to see the 20 minutes he cut from the movie because the audiences at TIFF had sticks up their butts and were bored.
Its characters didn't make any impact, I was completely uninvested and during the finale I simply wasn't bothered.
The only bits I enjoyed were the battle scenes. Otherwise it felt interminable.
you must watch braveheart first before you watch this.
Based on the clip, it seems like a sequel to Braveheart
Josh Rivera it’s historically a sequel to Braveheart.
@ josh - eh, of course it is
it's what came next
Could have done with a Cinematographer for this video no?
It's radio pal.
its you....
I thought it was a pretty disjointed movie, like a jumble of scenes.didnt like the first sequence too, with a long shot with the camera running crazy in circles a la birdman. No emotional scenes too, People dying left and right out of the blue, like bruces fathers and longshanks. I liked the battle scenes and all, I mildly enjoyed watching the movie, but braveheart was much better, even with its unnacuracys and terrible love stories
It wasn't you. It was the film. I was looking forward to this movie and ended up finding it dull, and hard to care about the characters.
Roza Carvalho so so boring. The could have chosen better actors. Maybe an actual Scottish actor instead of boring Chris Pine
Agreed
Some people think what Mel Gibson did with Braveheart was easy. Well, watch this film to see how bad it can be done. Zero heart, too much singing and a wife-husband relationship that is something out of 2018 instead of the 1300th century. Terrible.
Freedom
Are you mad mark .bravehaert is a classic.
why?
meh, hasn't aged all that well
Stephen Dillane is the best actor in the world.
I thought it was brilliant as a Scot.It was way better than Braveheart.
Maybe because you are English mate
the film needed a better soundtrack.....good but not great.
Agreed, it felt overly produced/modern for a medieval film.
Haven't laughed at a film so much in ages, dodgy camera work, dodgy dialogue and certainly dodgy acting. 2 hours of pure comedy!
I agree. It's rather insipid. Very disappointed.
We need more historical epics, but less of these boring, almost formulaic so-so films, that have an epic scope, but feel tiny in ambition. "Not a man, an idea" Oh God, not again. Goddammit, not everything needs to be the Dark Knight!
Maybe you should... see it first.
@@RevJ7 Seen enough. 3 minutes of Lawrence swept me off my feet. Nothing shown here looks appealing or inspiring.
Henry G The Dark Knight’s is now considered a timeless cinematic classic. Why would it be a problem for other films to draw inspiration from it.
@@walariowuzo6723 It's been ten years, hardly a timeless classic yet. Mostly because it sounds tepid when every single character is "a symbol, more than just a man". When a symbol is used unsparingly, it becomes just man.
@@bebaguette766 you lost credibility as soon as you said hadn't actually seen it
I'll save you 5 mins - He didn't like it.
It was dull. Directing was AWOL. No suspense. Design/production/costume was top notch, thats all.
the movie was poor on many levels, goes to show how fantastic a director mel gibson is, braveheart 25years old and miles better than this! Edwards son was awful really unconvincing. the end battle was decent
Really boring film ..yet to see a great Netflix film
His accent is just so wrong in the move. Boring movie and he was just meh.
I know why you weren’t emotionally attached to this movie! You are the baddy lol
wow first we have a Australasian playing a Scotsman in brave hart now a yank in this are there no Scottish actors lol