Fantastic!

Best movie ever!

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

A harmless piece of fun. Worth 6/10 as a rating, but no more.Little more than John Wayne meets Errol Flynn . . . a tale of a tough but well-meaning action hero of the Wild West, ready to defend his land & his lady, combined with a swashbuckling adventure of derring-do by a gallant hero with his sword ever at the ready.22 years after it was first released, I finally got around to watching this feature. I couldn't add 'historical' to the word 'feature' as the storyline of the film misses out anything pertinent to the REAL tale of the life of Rob Roy MacGregor.The film proffers a good way to spend a rainy weekend afternoon (as we did!). But I wouldn't have wanted to spend those 2.5 hours on a sunny day . . . !At least it's a smooth - if over-saccharine - film to watch over a nice mug of tea. ,-)With lots of fun scenes with action &/or pathos:• Robin Hood-esque sword fighting • chases on horseback • fight scenes • singing round a campfire (with a 'Clannad'-type 1990s vocalist at the forefront!) • the tragic but heroic deaths of two oh-so-lovely young men from the clan • a psychopathic (& superb) stalking scene through woodland by the evil baddie • the hero standing atop of a hill gazing proudly over his Scottish heartland • a sweetly smiling Jessica Lange (largely wasted in this role, by the way!) as the hero's damsel in distress • the hero's home being ransacked & torched in his absence • a duke who turns out to be the hero's friend/saviour in the final moments, as he had been unaware of the evil doings of the 2 henchmen till the very end • bad guys plotting devilishly in the background (Tim Roth should have been given an Oscar just for supplying the most evil sycophantic smile in Hollywood history!). . . the film is at least a good time-filler of an adventure romp.Nothing original: good guys versus bad; the hero having to avenge the Redcoats attacking his family; sword fights aplenty; and the main 'bad guy' is played as a twisted and devious caricature (I could almost see Basil Rathbone peeking out from behind the arras, looking at Tim Roth in an update to his own 'baddie' role of the old Hollywood screen!).Parts of the plot were updated to bring in modern mores; a BIG faux pas, in my opinion:• frequent mention of 20th century sexual values & politics • the servant girl expecting more than a brief tumble in the hay with the evil man of the gentry • the hero having to save the old hag who murderously attacks him rather than kill her in return • the oaf in the pub who challenges him is spurned by the hero with an anti-war wave of his hand • the clan leader expounding a completely passive anti-revenge attitude even after the Redcoats have burnt his settlement to rubble (visions of James Stewart in an old Hollywood Western, anyone?!). . . overall, there are far too many concessions to modern political correctness.Let alone avoidance of reflecting the tough realities of life at this period in history:• no real work is seen to be done by the clan, as if strolling around bucolic landscapes was all that peasants did in the early 1700s • dirt? disease? No, a distinct absence of both • even the scraggy ginger beards & hair look all too coiffured for the 18th century land worker! • there is only one scene where MacGregor's clan seem short of food or lacking good health, & it's signposted by just a hint of a cough amongst the extras that sounds more like a group-clearing of the throat! Where are the racking coughs, the famine & the pestilence that would have reigned havoc on life in 16th/17th century rural Scotland?! • the main plot features a character as the key 'baddie' - Archibald Cunningham - who didn't even exist in real-life. He is a character completely made-up for the film! ,-D. . . I mean, Hollywood, this was a tale of 17th century Scotland, not 20th century USA! At that time the Western world was hardly out of the medieval period in history. The Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century would not have been fully evolved & so would not have reached Edinburgh by the early 1700s, let alone the Highlands of Scotland! ,-)The story completely avoids focusing upon anything truly political or relevant to real facts, except a few bare bones.So it is a shame to see that in this flaw the film seems so much like movies of the 1930s-1950s, when history was bypassed all too frequently in biopics, in favour of fictional dramatic ploys. In those days the Depression & other factors such as WW2 gave the film-makers of bio-features a justifiable excuse. But a modern film of the late 20th century should not have avoided reality in the same way. A great film adventure - with a touching love story thrown in - is one thing. But a little more historical precedent would have been nice.But there you go: the film doesn't try to be anything more than what it is. And at least in avoiding being a 'historical biopic' & citing many facts, it doesn't add in too many MAJOR spurious inaccuracies! It's just a fun romantic & action adventure.

"Rob Roy" was made at a time when the success of "Dances with Wolves" and "Unforgiven" had revived interest in the traditional Western, and director Michael Caton-Jones, himself a Scot, has admitted that the film is essentially a disguised Western. It transfers what could be a classic Western plot from 19thcentury America to early 18th century Scotland, with claymores standing in for six-shooters. The hero is even a cattle drover or, as Americans would put it, a cowboy. That hero, Robert Roy MacGregor, was a real historical figure who also features in Walter Scott's novel of the same name. ("Roy" in this context was a nickname, derived from Gaelic, meaning "red-haired", but here it is treated as a second Christian name; Liam Neeson does not play the part in a red wig).The film does not follow Scott's plot but is loosely based on the facts of the real MacGregor's life. In 1713 Rob Roy, a clan chief in the Scottish Highlands, is financially ruined by the machinations of the unscrupulous Marquess of Montrose and his villainous protégé Archibald Cunningham. (Cunningham is fictitious but Montrose was another real person). Cunningham has been described as an "aristocrat", but this is not really accurate because, for all his dandyish appearance and foppish mannerisms, he is really the illegitimate son of a prostitute and does not know who his real father is. Montrose has probably taken him under his wing because he recognises in him a kindred spirit, equally unscrupulous and even more ruthless.When Rob Roy is unable to repay the money he owes, Montrose has him declared an outlaw, seizes his land and slaughters his cattle; Cunningham brutally rapes his wife Mary. Rob Roy and his followers, who have fled into hiding in the mountains, wage a guerrilla campaign of revenge against Montrose, stealing his cattle and other property.This was one of two historical films with a Scottish setting made in 1995, the other being the Oscar-winning "Braveheart". The two films share one feature, namely a somewhat disapproving attitude towards homosexuality, which today makes them look rather old-fashioned, even though they were only made around twenty years ago. In "Braveheart" the future King Edward II is portrayed as stereotypically weak and effeminate, whereas here the treacherous Cunningham is gratuitously made bisexual, a lover of boys as well as women, a piece of characterisation which the scriptwriter presumably thought would make him seem all the nastier.That said, I must say that I found "Rob Roy" a considerably better film than the much-hyped "Braveheart". Mel Gibson's epic is a reasonably entertaining adventure story, but it does have its faults, quite apart from its many historical inaccuracies. It is overlong by at least half an hour, and the acting is of a variable standard. In "Rob Roy" Caton-Jones paces the action in a more satisfactory way than does Gibson, and the acting is also a lot better. I was not too keen on Tim Roth's performance, as I felt that he made Cunningham a bit too much of a one-dimensional pantomime villain, but there are three outstanding contributions from Neeson, Jessica Lange and John Hurt.Despite his status as Chief of Clan MacGregor, Rob Roy lives simply in a modest house which contrasts sharply with Montrose's elaborate palace. The code by which he lives is equally simple- honesty, loyalty and honour; when Montrose offers to forgive Rob's debt if Rob will testify falsely against one of Montrose's enemies, Rob indignantly refuses. Hurt's Montrose appears to be an elegant, courtly gentleman, but his surface sophistication hides a ruthless opportunist who will use other people in any way he can, provided it is to his advantage. Mary MacGregor could simply have come across as a hapless victim and little else, but Lange (who copes well with the Scottish accent) instead plays her as a tough, independent-minded woman who frequently disagrees with her husband even though she loves him dearly.The sword-fighting scenes, particularly the climactic duel between Rob Roy and Cunningham, were well handled; the film-makers clearly realised that the Scottish claymore was a heavier weapon than the duelling rapiers more commonly seen on screen and called for a different fighting style. Overall this is a splendid, stirring historical yarn on the themes of honour, love and loyalty. 8/10

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 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