• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What is the most epic film of all time?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClassyPenguin

Banned
This is the only time I will compliment Star Wars. It's certainly epic, too bad it's boring, emotionally dry and horribly written.

The Good the Bad and the Ugly

also, The Assassination of Jesse James
 
M

mantidor

Member
Glad to see the likes of Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur in this thread. The epic movies of the past century were different, LoTR is epic but the amount of CGI kind of ruins it, those movies of old really had seas of real people as extras.

I would add the Ten Commandments to the thread. edit: beaten.

The_Technomancer said:
Avatar
Click to expand...

LOL no.
 
E

Easystride

Member
Without a doubt, Seven Samurai. Not a dull minute in the entire film.
abqpI.jpg
 
S

sphinx

the piano man
Ryaaan14 said:
Easy one for me.



It's sense of scale and adventure remains unparalleled.
Click to expand...

wow,... WOWOWOW! exactly the film I was thinking about!

+ 1 vote for the neverending awesome story, the scene where the empress speaks to bastian and begs him to give a name EPICNESS
 
I

Imbarkus

As Sartre noted in his contemplation on Hell in No Exit, the true horror is other members.
2012-movie-posters-003-1024x819.jpg


Maybe not a very GOOD movie, but it was certainly one of the most epic movies I've ever seen in terms of scope.
 
S

sphinx

the piano man
Strafer said:
Anyways, this is a pretty epic movie.

PY6RL.jpg
Click to expand...

for all the shit this film gets, whoever says they weren't impressed when Jack and Rose are at the very top of the broken ship waiting to hit the water, they are full of creamy shit.

That moment james cameroon grabbed everyone in the audience by the balls, put simply.
 
S

SunhiLegend

Member
Scullibundo said:
I rewatched it a few months ago and it is laughably bad. That script is absolutely horrendous and ridiculously self-indulgent.
Click to expand...

Laughably bad? mmm....maybe I need to watch it again, it seems like my brother also agrees it was bad. I always had the view that it was a really good film that was maybe a little too long.
 
R

Reuenthal

Banned
Some other films that deserve a mention in this thread

thelongestdaypic01.jpg


The Longest Day.

Showing of D-Day from the perspective of both the Germans and the Allies. Focuses more on the grand scale of the battle than Saving Private Ryan and it is a great film.

ToraToraTora_BD_Book_Spine.jpg

Tora-Tora-Tora

Focusing on the attack on Pearl Harbor again both from the Japanese and American perspective.

Both are very good films and recommended.
 
1

1138

Member
Speculator said:
Contributing 1970's Waterloo to this thread. 16,000 extras and 2000 horses were used for this film!

waterloo1970%2000008.jpg
Click to expand...

You should also check out War and Peace if you liked Waterloo. The scope is even larger there, given that the movie had a cast 120,000 people. Support given by the Soviet Union has it's advantages!
 
R

radioheadrule83

Banned
SuperAndroid17 said:
between braveheart and gladiator

its close
Click to expand...

Gladiator is amazing. Braveheart has a million and one things wrong with it, from a historical point of view...

  • Brave Heart as a title would be better attributable to Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace.
  • The film portrays Robert in battle at Falkirk, and he was never there at that battle. It's not the only battle that is wrong, the Battle of Stirling Bridge took place by a bridge for one thing!
  • Nobody of the time would have worn plaids or tartan kilts, no clothes resembling them emerged until the following century.
  • The film opens with a narration about the death of Alexander III, King of Scotland, dying and leaving no son/heir. Actually -- he didn't die until 1281 (a year after the movie is supposedly set), and he did leave an heir: his daughter. The English did not seek to crush or overthrow her, all of the Scots nobles were still in check, and she ruled for four years. Following her death, another King was appointed and did not fall out with Edward I of England until 1296, the year before Wallace's actual uprising and 16 years later than the movie implies the events in the movie happened.
  • Edward I was a christian, not a pagan.
  • Although it is believed he may have had relations with men, he was involved in heterosexual relationships for most of his life, and the movie goes out of its way to paint him as some kind of demonised, deviant homosexual with no morality whatsoever.
  • William Wallace's father was not a farmer, he was a knight, an educated noble who owned land.
  • As sons of knights, he and his brothers would not have worn rags, they would have worn armour in Battle.
  • There is no reason to believe scots would have had long mullets, or messy unkempt hair, combs existed at the time!
  • The French princess in the movie, Isabella, who Wallace has sex with, was only 4 years old by the time Wallace died.
 
S

Sadsic

Member
theres an imaginary movie in my head thats about these cosmic beings that eat planets, and its about a child cosmos who is trying not to cry when she eats the planet but it doesnt work so all of space-time goes out of wack and she has to go on a long, arduous adventure to go and fix the crying that the has befallen upon the heart of the universe

its like lord of the rings with immense cthulhu beings
 
wolfmat

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Sadsic said:
theres an imaginary movie in my head thats about these cosmic beings that eat planets, and its about a child cosmos who is trying not to cry when she eats the planet but it doesnt work so all of space-time goes out of wack and she has to go on a long, arduous adventure to go and fix the crying that the has befallen upon the heart of the universe

its like lord of the rings with immense cthulhu beings
Click to expand...

6.8
 
F

Fritz

Member
radioheadrule83 said:
Gladiator is amazing. Braveheart has a million and one things wrong with it, from a historical point of view...

  • Brave Heart as a title would be better attributable to Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace.
  • The film portrays Robert in battle at Falkirk, and he was never there at that battle. It's not the only battle that is wrong, the Battle of Stirling Bridge took place by a bridge for one thing!
  • Nobody of the time would have worn plaids or tartan kilts, no clothes resembling them emerged until the following century.
  • The film opens with a narration about the death of Alexander III, King of Scotland, dying and leaving no son/heir. Actually -- he didn't die until 1281 (a year after the movie is supposedly set), and he did leave an heir: his daughter. The English did not seek to crush or overthrow her, all of the Scots nobles were still in check, and she ruled for four years. Following her death, another King was appointed and did not fall out with Edward I of England until 1296, the year before Wallace's actual uprising and 16 years later than the movie implies the events in the movie happened.
  • Edward I was a christian, not a pagan.
  • Although it is believed he may have had relations with men, he was involved in heterosexual relationships for most of his life, and the movie goes out of its way to paint him as some kind of demonised, deviant homosexual with no morality whatsoever.
  • William Wallace's father was not a farmer, he was a knight, a noble who owned land.
  • As sons of knights, he and his brothers would not have worn rags, they would have worn armour in Battle.
  • There is no reason to believe scots would not have had long mullets, or messy unkempt hair, combs existed at the time!
  • The French princess in the movie, Isabella, who Wallace has sex with, was only 4 years old by the time Wallace died.
Click to expand...

Good that Gladiator is 100% accurate.

But in all seriousness interesting stuff, thanks for posting!
 
R

Ricky_R

Member
radioheadrule83 said:
Gladiator is amazing. Braveheart has a million and one things wrong with it, from a historical point of view...

  • Brave Heart as a title would be better attributable to Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace.
  • The film portrays Robert in battle at Falkirk, and he was never there at that battle. It's not the only battle that is wrong, the Battle of Stirling Bridge took place by a bridge for one thing!
  • Nobody of the time would have worn plaids or tartan kilts, no clothes resembling them emerged until the following century.
  • The film opens with a narration about the death of Alexander III, King of Scotland, dying and leaving no son/heir. Actually -- he didn't die until 1281 (a year after the movie is supposedly set), and he did leave an heir: his daughter. The English did not seek to crush or overthrow her, all of the Scots nobles were still in check, and she ruled for four years. Following her death, another King was appointed and did not fall out with Edward I of England until 1296, the year before Wallace's actual uprising and 16 years later than the movie implies the events in the movie happened.
  • Edward I was a christian, not a pagan.
  • Although it is believed he may have had relations with men, he was involved in heterosexual relationships for most of his life, and the movie goes out of its way to paint him as some kind of demonised, deviant homosexual with no morality whatsoever.
  • William Wallace's father was not a farmer, he was a knight, an educated noble who owned land.
  • As sons of knights, he and his brothers would not have worn rags, they would have worn armour in Battle.
  • There is no reason to believe scots would have had long mullets, or messy unkempt hair, combs existed at the time!
  • The French princess in the movie, Isabella, who Wallace has sex with, was only 4 years old by the time Wallace died.
Click to expand...

If only this thread was named "The most historically accurate film of all time"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The ESRB has started slapping blockchain games with Adults Only ratings, so Epic has changed its store policy to allow them
News Business
2
885
Zathalus replied
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes | Rotten Watch
News 2
51
3K
Days like these... replied
So uhhh there's been no good Spiderman film since 2004 huh?
2
71
4K
Dark Star replied
Ahead of a new Studio Ghibli film, critics are asking 'How will we live without Hayao Miyazaki?'
23
3K
Patrick S. replied
LOTR and Hobbit film rights have been Embraced
17
1K
NecrosaroIII replied
Top Bottom