I have watched the ‘gladiator’ for five times and it still remains the best film in the lives of many. The only film next to it is the ‘Brave heart.’ In gladiator they show a corrupt leader of Rome, but would it be corrupt if Maximus was the leader? That would be much better than having the lame senators running Rome. The senators of Rome make you think about the MPs in Uganda parliament whom the media regularly show them ‘sleeping at work’ in the house.

The film just confirms a point that we wholly blame leaders yet sometimes the whole blame is with the people they lead. We have people now in Uganda that cheer the government in the same way the Roman mob used to cheer for their favourite gladiator in the Colosseum, but what for?. Why would you cheer anybody ‘killing’ another living thing or something? Why would that be anybody’s live entertainment? In the film, the elite of Rome are shown pacifying their peasants with gladiator fights to keep them from revolting.

I understand both Hitler and Napoleon were obsessed with restoring the Roman Empire. The first Roman Empire was a republic for 300 years then a dictatorship for the next 300 years (ever notice that Caesar and der Fuehrer are basically the same title?). Then when Rome was taken by the Germans, Constantine moved the empire to the east where it stayed until the 1500.
Brave heart was based on real events, and a real person. While the movie took many liberties with what is known to have happened they were mainly to make the story appeal to more people.

Wallace was not in line to be King, but he was a leader. He was named protector of Scotland after his victory at Sterling Bridge. That was the first big battle in the movie that he won. They couldn’t figure a way to put the bridge in and make it exciting. After he lost at Falkirk and he lost power. He was captured later and executed in much the way it showed in the movie, with a few extras thrown in that would have made ‘The Passion of the Christ’ look like a kiddie flick….

Ends