1. Braveheart is not a good movie.
2. It's different anyway. Braveheart isn't a legend, the Tristan and Isolde story is. Yes, with basis in history, but a more accurate comparison would be a film like
Troy; a legend with some historical background.
See, the reason I hate Troy with a passion is not because of anything historical (you can't prove any of this wooden horse stuff ever happened etc.) but because it was meant to be a film of the legend and it just got the story SO WRONG. Menelaus dying, for example. *headdesk*
But yeah. I'm ASSUMING that the film, much like
King Arthur was supposed to be a film version of the legend/myth/story of Tristan and Isolde. I don't know how good or bad the film is at sticking at the plot, because I haven't seen it.
Quote:
Lord Marke is actually the coolest character, which, in this case, is not desirable, and he's still more wont to change than a real person would be in that situation.
Marke is 'cool' in the real story too. He is remarkably accepting of the whole affair, considering that Tristan first met Isolde to sort-of-propose on Marke's behalf; and considering that he catches them in bed together, asleep, and doesn't kill Tristan despite having every opportunity- simply replacing Tristan's sword with his own so that they know how merciful he has been. Marke is never meant to be anything other than the noble, most likeable chracter in the whole thing. He even saves Isolde from suicide (though hell, she dies pretty soon afterwards anyway)
Oh, and the other reason he's so cool is because Rufus Sewell is both sexy and cool; and looks great in a dress, incidentally.
Why is the attraction inexplicable? Is it because the actors lack chemistry, or do you mean it in the context of the story?