Rob Roy (1995)

So much average

hyped garbage

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Rob Roy: Highland Rogue from Disney is the better picture, when talking about this guy. Check it out.Liam Neeson seems to be playing the same part he does in every movie-- Liam Neeson.Don't get me wrong-- the man has talent, and I have enjoyed quite a few great films with him, but this one is just not a stand-out movie.For one, it was released around the time of Braveheart, and there is a reason that Mel Gibson's Scottish tale is way more revered than this piece of mediocrity. Both films take historical liberties, but Mel Gibson makes AWESOME movies, and the epic masterpiece of Braveheart leaves Rob Roy in the dust.After growing up on the old Rob Roy Disney film, I had high hopes for the later version. WRONG! It doesn't even have the epic scenes and energetic action or patriotic feel of the old one. Richard Todd showed a range far beyond what Neeson does in this role. Frankly, the entire movie is boring, up until Neeson fights the sissy guy with the wig at the very end. That was more of a realistic fight than many you see in film, that are so ridiculous and fake or over- the-top that you shake your head.Jessica Lange, as Neeson's wife, who gets raped over a table??? Who the hell did the casting for this?(as I laugh out loud). I LOVE Jessica Lange in many other works, but this just did not fit her at all! She looks 60 years old in this movie! Seriously, she looks hotter in the 2014 American Horror Story anthology than she does in this film. She was very bland and lifeless, and did not look like a young, innocent wife with children in the Highlands, that had to deal with these situations. Something about it was just extremely contrived, and didn't seem real at all to me. There are so many boring and bland moments in this film, that it really let me down, as I was expecting swashbuckling action from the first one, and sieges of English forts, and London political intrigue, and German royalty, and epic escapes/battles, and ruggedly evil antagonists. This was like watching an opera that lasts 6 hours with stuffy gay dudes talking-- and an occasional moment of action-- and then more of Neeson lumbering around like a dumbass with a lifeless, meandering demeanor. This one is OK, but they should edit out two thirds of the film, and make it a digital short. The rest stinks...

Historically accurate In everything from dress to dialogue this excellent film makes Braveheart look even more like the amateurish, pseudo-historical garbage that It Is (not to mention a budget of Just £3 Million compared to the £75 Million of Braveheart). A solid story-line with some excellent dialogue and exceptional acting, along with some beautiful photography,Rob Roy takes us back In time In a way that very few movies can. Although this short period (perhaps a year or two) of Robs life covered In the movie Is very much speculative It's the accuracy of the time and the people and their way of life that deserves special praise. This film has It all - excitement, camaraderie, betrayal, and covers well the many aspects regarding Social status and the problems and hardships caused by the gross inequalities of this period. Rob Roy Is a film that one can Imagine would look very similar had the real events been filmed during the period In which It's set. Massively underrated, a must-see for anyone and everyone with an Interest In British history or great story-telling In general.

"Rob Roy" came out in 1995 with a couple other heroic swordplay films: "Braveheart" and "First Knight." I rank "Rob Roy" on a par with "Braveheart," even though the two films shouldn't really be compared since "Rob Roy" focuses on the conflict of individuals in Old Scotland and "Braveheart" focuses more on whole armies battling.WHAT WORKS: First of all, the location cinematography of the Scottish Highlands is breathtaking (far better than "Braveheart"). Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange are fine in their parts as Rob Roy and his wife. The sword-fighting (between individuals) is perhaps the best ever in cinematic history. The film also possesses a completely realistic vibe -- no anachronisms or campy humor here; the pic really helps one realize what life was like in rural Scotland 300 years ago.What works best, to my mind, is Tim Roth's outstanding performance as Rob Roy's foppish-but-deadly nemesis. This is truly a villain you love to loathe. The Roth character (I forget his name) is so over-the-top foppish that he appears effeminate; but this is only a disguise as he's actually a ruthless master swordsman. Surely this is one of film's top villains ever! (It doesn't sound right to say "good villain," does it?).WHAT DOESN'T WORK: The story itself doesn't have a lot of drive from beginning to end (unlike, say, "Last of the Mohicans" [1992]). One's attention may wander at points. Of course this may not be an entirely bad thing in light of the schizophrenic editing of many films post-"Armageddon." (In other words, the leisurely pace can be refreshing).WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT WORK FOR SOME PEOPLE: There are aspects of extreme sexual brutality (a rape scene) and vulgarity (a man shoves his fingers up a woman's nightgown); as well as overt love-making -- definitely material not appropriate for children. There are also overt scenes of, believe it or not, urination; many may regard this as needless, but (for me) it helped drive home the point of what every-day life was like back then (e.g. Where do you pee if you're living in a shack out in the hills? Or, in the middle of the night, if there's no upstairs bathroom?).The story's lack of drive prevents "Rob Roy" from attaining true greatness in my mind, but the positive aspects noted above definitely achieve greatness. Certainly worthy of one's DVD library.GRADE: B

Rob Roy is directed by Michael Caton-Jones and written by Alan Sharp. It stars Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Tim Roth, Eric Stoltz, Andrew Keir and Brian Cox. Music is by Carter Burwell and cinematography by Karl Walter Lindenlaub.Neeson is Rob Roy MacGregor, an 18th Century Scottish historical figure who borrows £1,000 from the Marquis of Montrose (Hurt) with the plan to improve his clan's way of life. But the money is stolen in transit by the dastardly Archibald Cunnigham (Roth), so unable to repay the loan, Roy is forced to live as an outlaw. From such seeds are legends born.Beautifully shot on location in parts of the Scottish Highlands, Rob Roy somewhat got lost in the slip stream of Mel Gibson's Braveheart. A shame, for although not as epic or as rousing as Gibson's Oscar grabber, Caton-Jones' film is a different, more reflective, type of historical piece. Thematically the film is a play on virtues, in fact it's a trumpet playing fanfare for such. Honesty, honour, loyalty, fidelity and love nestle in nicely with the wonderful landscapes, born out by Sharp's intelligent script. But that's not to say that the director hasn't got the requisite thrust of stirring adventure within, he has, and Rob Roy rewards in that department also. The films crowning glory is a climatic sword fight, no tricks or hard to believe heroics, just an expertly shot long sequence that's choreographed sublimely by William Hobbs and Robert G. Goodwin. While Carter Burwell's score sits nice with the visual treats; even if the Gaelic strains within the orchestration sound more Irish than Scottish.Cast work well. Although Neeson looks the part as the robust Roy, there's no need for dashing here, character calls for strength of mind and body, as well as emotional fortitude with the love of his family, Neeson plays it with ease. Lange, an interesting casting choice as the missus, shorn of make up, yet still naturally sexy, she gives Mary MacGregor believable strength. But it's undeniably Tim Roth's movie, part effeminate fop, part calculating bastard, his villainous turn as Archibald Cunningham has to be seen to be believed. He was rightly nominated for an Academy Award for his efforts. The rest impact well, Cox and Hurt, great pros as always, and Stoltz too, isn't found wanting. There's some iffy accents at times, so what's new? And if I'm to be churlish, then it often feels wrong in period. But they are small complaints in what is otherwise a smart and lovely splinter from the swashbuckling tree. 8/10