Ce site utilise des cookies pour fournir nos services, optimiser les performances, pour les analyses, et (si vous n'êtes pas connecté) pour les publicités. En utilisant Librarything, vous reconnaissez avoir lu et compris nos conditions générales d'utilisation et de services. Votre utilisation du site et de ses services vaut acceptation de ces conditions et termes.
Résultats trouvés sur Google Books
Cliquer sur une vignette pour aller sur Google Books.
A Medieval farmer leads a revolt after his wife is killed.
I just don't get it. Okay, there are some great action scenes, but those are just a tiny portion of the movie. Why do so many people love this stuff? Is it because it comes to a grinding halt every few minutes for a shot of Mel Gibson posing heroically against a majestic backdrop? That's it, isn't it?
Concept: B Story: D Characters: D Dialog: D Pacing: F Cinematography: B Special effects/design: A Acting: C Music: D
Didn't watch this for a long time because it's sooo long. Rousing story, well acted, well directed. Take half a star off it for having a gorgeous French actress in it and never taking her clothes off. The fight scenes are graphic and intense. I think it was a mistake to have his voice-over at the end, after he'd died. It's hard to think of Mel Gibson anymore without all that personal crap getting in the way. ( )
OK, first of all, I know as history this absolutely positively stinks. On the Wiki, I found out that in 2009, the film ranked second on a list of "most historically inaccurate movies" in The Times." Probably the biggest blooper was the affair Princess Isabella supposedly had with Wallace--at that time in history she was three years old and her son Edward was born seven years after Wallace died. And the list of small things this got wrong is endless. But hey, it's a great story (with emphasis on story) and a very watchable film with lots of adventure and visibly striking scenes. ( )
)
)
)
Google Books — Chargement...
7