|Individual Entry
Land of Whimsy / news / Individual Entry
Thursday, September 3, 2009
BD impressions: Braveheart
11:33 PM / BD Impressions / 
9 Comments
I hadn't watched Braveheart in a while. Not since I was still in school, in fact. To be honest, I approached it with some trepidation: I quite liked it back in the day, but was worried that I would have mellowed towards it in the interim. Seeing The Passion of the Christ a few years back cemented my suspicion that Mel Gibson's style of moviemaking isn't entirely compatible with my own sensibilities. While he has a keen visual eye (The Passion has got to be the most visually stunning example I've ever seen of the so-called "torture porn" genre), I find him very obvious as a filmmaker. He's blatantly manipulative, paints his characters in only the broadest strokes, and seems to have an unhealthy obsession with the maiming of the human body (and this is coming from someone who is a fan of Italian horror movies). There's something very... medieval about his storytelling, with its righteously bloodthirsty heroes and fey, pantomime villains.
That sensibility, you can, I suppose, argue is rather appropriate for a film like Braveheart, which contrary to my expectations actually holds up reasonably well. True, the romance that consumes the first forty-five minutes is about as trite as you can imagine, and there's something rather silly about the fact that Gibson (adopting his best Scottish brogue and looking rather like an orang-utan) keeps harping on about the tyranny and brutality of the English but is happy to cut an even more vicious swathe through them, soldiers and civilians alike. Still, you can level the exact same accusations against the various historical epics of bygone days that is sets out to immitate - the Spartacuses and El Cids and so on. It's not, I suspect, a genre that has ever been too concerned with providing a balanced viewpoint (in that regard, epics like Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven are actually rather unique), but there's something rather rousing about it, and it's beautifully shot by John Toll (only his second movie as a cinematographer, believe it or not) and scored by James Horner (before he became lazy and started rehashing his own work or creating "sonic wallpaper" with every score). There's also something quite jaw-dropping about the sheer scale of the thing: in this film, when you see a thousand soldiers in a crowd scene, you know that there actually are a thousand soldiers there, not just a couple of dozen extras and a bunch of CGI dummies - which to me means a lot. I can actually believe that what I'm seeing is taking place, because in a sense it did - well, minus the actual bloodshed and slaughter.
Not, perhaps, a brilliant film, but I can see the appeal and enjoyed it a lot more than The Passion (hey, at least this one had a plot, however simplistic).
By the way, everyone gives Gibson stick for his Scottish accent, but watching the film again tonight I came to the conclusion that he's really not that bad. Catherine McCormack and the various Irish actors (such as the one playing Wallace's father in the opening scenes) are much worse.
Image quality: After the Gladiator fiasco, it's really something of a relief to be able to write about a release like this. I believe Gibson's Icon production company were responsible for the creation of the master, under the supervision (or at the very least with the approval) of John Toll, and it really is every bit as good as people have said. Actually, it's better. As I watched it, I was continually flabbergasted by the sheer level of detail up on the screen. It compares very favourably to the likes of How the West Was Won and The International in that regard, with even the widest crowd scenes maintaining an impression degree of clarity.
Not only that, it's also one of the most naturally film-like images I've ever seen on BD. The grain, which varies in intensity from shot to shot (as you would expect to be the case), never looks anything less than completely natural. You really do forget that you're watching an optical disc and think you're actually seeing a print being projected in front of you. Someone (Mel Gibson? John Toll?) clearly ordered this to be run through with the DVNR switch marked firmly at "Off", as there are a smattering of white nicks and flecks throughout the film (see, for instance, Example 8 and Example 16). Pause the disc on the appropriate frames and you'll see them as clear as day. Watching the disc in motion, though, they are never a distraction, and actually add to the film-like nature of the presentation. (It's what I believe Steven Spielberg refers to as the "sparkle" you get with film but not digital video.)
I don't consider minor print damage to be a problem. What I do consider a problem, however, is an entirely digital problem which afflicts the film's opening scenes. Until the 22-minute mark, every shot suffers from a degree of blockiness in the vertical domain, as if the image was transferred at a resolution with a height of less than 1080 pixels and then crudely upscaled. It's actually a fairly minor irritant, all things considered, and a lot of the time it isn't even noticeable, but it's there if you look for it. Watching it on a 123" projection setup, I was only actually aware of it in a couple of shots (this being the most obtrusive example), but when viewing it on my desktop monitor it was a bit more pronounced. (The first four images below are all taken from affected shots.) Then, at precisely the 22-minute mark, during the bridge between Chapters 3 and 4, the problem disappears completely and never again resurfaces. From then on, it's reference quality all the way, with only the inevitable optical shots suffering from any degree of reduction in clarity - and even then, they look far more detailed than many entire movies (see Example 13).
If the whole of Braveheart had looked like the final 155 minutes, the disc would undoubtedly have made its way into the highest "tier" of my ranking system. As it is, though, the initial 22 minutes, although still very good, do suffer slightly in terms of overall definition, marring the presentation slightly. If those early scenes were to be ranked separately, they would net an 8/10 (or perhaps a very high 7/10) while the rest of the film would be a 10/10. 22 minutes is only 12% of the total running time, so it doesn't seem fair to give this disc anything less than a solid 9.5/10.
Braveheart
studio: Paramount; country: USA; region code: A; codec: AVC;
file size: 42.8 GB; average bit rate (including audio): 34.49 Mbit/sec
9 Comments
Chris:
I've always found the notion of peace, tolerance and love through the display of the ritual slaughter of a human being to be the single weirdest dichotomy I've ever encountered. I just don't get it, and I suspect I never will. A film like The Passion strikes me as little more than a bizarre exercise in sadomasochism, with the audience getting to play the part of both the sadist (watching the poor guy getting tortured to death) and the masochist (wallowing in the feeling that its their "fault" - the belief that "he died for our sins"). I see little sense of redemption or love in that film, and I find it telling that a common argument of Christians is that you have to be a Christian in order to "get it", because that to me suggests that the film itself has neither of these qualities and you therefore have to bring them to it yourself. I'm sure the film is more tame than what's in the Bible, but that in itself is hardly a ringing endorsement.
I think the film absolutely is "torture porn" (I hate that phrase too, incidentally, but it's the most efficient way I can think of to evoke a certain group of film that share a common sensibility). It's about the depiction, in graphic detail, of a man being tortured to death in the most barbaric ways imaginable for two solid hours. Truth be told, I actually found more humanity in the likes of Hostel (which I disliked almost as much as The Passion) and Martyrs (which is a much better film). In each of these, the people being mutilated actually had discernible personalities and back-stories, unlike the "meat puppet Jesus" in Gibson's film.
Foxy:
You may be right about Kingdom of Heaven ending up the way it due to fear of offending someone, but I still find it the more interesting film. Presenting a completely one-sided viewpoint is lazy storytelling in my book - I'd be more inclined to show both sides and let people decide for themselves which (if indeed either) side is "right". Kingdom of Heaven was, in my view, not so much politically correct as intensely political, showing a variety of corrupt individuals squabbling over the same scrap of desert. Part of the film's power is that, however many hundred years later, little has changed.
One thing I absolutely agree with you about, however, is Orlando Bloom. He simply lacks the presence and stature for the role, and is undoubtedly the film's weakest link. This is admittedly less of a problem in the director's cut, in which he is only one part of the puzzle. The theatrical cut, however, attempts to place him as the central focus by effectively cutting out anything that doesn't directly relate to his storyline - much to its detriment.
Also, as regards Gladiator, I don't see how ending with a big battle would have made it a better film. Actually, I think it would have betrayed its very essence. As William Nicholson (the writer brought in to solve all the script problems shortly before shooting commenced) states in the "Strength and Honour" documentary on the second disc, this is not a film about a man going to kill someone, it's about a man trying to get home. For me the climax had to be low key, or it would have cheapened the film considerably.
Incidentally, the original draft of Gladiator ended with the following logline, which to some extent I wish had been used:
After Commodus' death the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the position of Roman Emperor to the highest bidder. In response the Army of the Danube marched on Rome, killed the new 'Emperor' and tried to establish a strong government... but the empire slipped into civil war.
The Colosseum and its slaughter of animals and gladiators continued -- even through two hundred years of Popes -- until German 'barbarians' toppled Rome and put an end to the circus.
PS. Given how creatively bankrupt Hollywood seems to be at the moment, a poor sequel to Titanic is actually beginning to feel like a distinct possibility. :p
(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 11:04 AM)
Note: to combat spam and simplify site maintenance, all comments must be approved prior to appearing on the site. This is a necessary evil due to the volume of spam the site receives.
Archives
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- News Archive Index
Categories
- Animation
- BD Impressions
- Blu-ray
- Books
- Cinema
- DVD
- Games
- General
- HD DVD
- Music
- Reviews
- Technology
- Television
- Web
1. High Chaparral said:
Great news. Here's hoping that John Toll's work on The Thin Red Line is showcased in similar circumstances.
(Posted on Friday, September 4, 2009 at 12:10 AM)