Braveheart

The Scots (particularly Lowland and Boarder Scots, who historically were involved in the events depicted in the events in this movies)...more likely than not, dressed like the Saxons they were (no kilts, but wool tunics and "tartan-like" cloaks). The princess was a six-year old girl. William Wallace, in his lifetime wasn't much of supporter of the Bruce. Woad face paint wasn't worn at the time. These are all the "true" facts regarding this story that many of the severly misguided critics of this film rely on to discourage you from spending your hard-earn money on this film.

Now...heart thumping drama, edge of seat situations, larger than life heros that are the same time mortally human. Love, Romance, Patriotism, Revenge, War, Intrigue, Commeraderie, vile and despicable villains. All around well cast characters, with joyous liberties taken to make an already legendary story and enhance the romance of it--complete with Kilts and Bagpipes. If that is what you want, then Braveheart delivers. I rue the cold-hearted and loveless individuals who find this movie dull and trite. If you have a true passion for life and living, then you will love this movie if haven't seen it. If you have some Scots in your blood, you'll be brimming with pride.

I don't watch movies to learn history, but sometimes a movie will inspire me to learn the truth. And though liberties were taken to have the movie appeal the largest number of viewers, I didn't feel my ancesters (some of whom faught in the battles depicted) were done any wrong. (In fact, they probably would have loved this retelling of what is now a legend and part of the National Myth of Scotland.)


Worst Historical Movie Ever Made   November 30, 2004
Mike D (Scotland, now New York)
29 out of 53 found this review helpful

As a true-born Scot I was terribly disappointed by this Hollywood "adaptation" of the story of Wallace. They got the names right, but that was about it. For example, Sir William Wallace was a junior lowlands nobleman, not a kilted highland peasant - that's a bit like portraying George Washington as a Native American. Then, yes they did once paint their faces blue in battle - but against the Romans, not against the English. Only about 1300 years out there. And so on throughout the film. The sad thing is, the actual story is so good in itself, there was no need to take liberties with it and mess it all up. But then, what can one expect of a director (Gibson) who managed to confuse the 18th Century British Army with the Waffen-SS in Normandy? (The Patriot) Giving this one star only because the review system won't let me award zero.


ENTERTAINING BUT FLAWED   January 11, 2002
Mr. N. Carnegie (Kirkcaldy, Scotland, UK.)
26 out of 34 found this review helpful

Before you slaughter me for giving Braveheart only three stars (actually I'd give it three and a half), let me start by putting my review into some kind of perspective. Not only am I Scottish, born and bred but like all Scots I am extremely patriotic and proud of my country's heritage and its history, particularly the likes of William Wallace. I also acknowledge that Braveheart (and Rob Roy) undoubtedly gave our tourism industry a great boost, particularly with the number of American visitors and for this I am truly grateful BUT, not only is Braveheart a historically questionable account of the events surrounding William Wallace's rebellion against the English in defence of Scotland's 'Freedom!', the modern and truly cheesy dialogue totally spoilt this movie for me.

I could give you a very long list of historical inaccuracies to justify why I'd only give Braveheart three stars: First off, there is the fact that Mel Gibson is about a foot shorter than the great big hairy man that was William Wallace (but that doesn't actually interest me). Or the fact that the actual battle that Wallace defeated the English was called the Battle of Stirling Bridge, yet there is no sign of a bridge in Braveheart. Or, what about the fact that the `prima nocta' (legislation allowing English overlords to sleep with Scottish women on their wedding night) just did not exist. Perhaps the most ludicrous suggestion is that Princess Isobelle's child (the future Edward III) was sired by Wallace. Not very likely unless she was impregnated at about the age of four and had a twenty year long pregnancy. Actually there are so many historical inaccuracies I could go on and on BUT I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES or the dodgy Scottish accents. I can even forgive the fact that Robert The Bruce (Scotland's greatest ever king and much more famous Scottish hero) is portrayed here as quite a weak, indecisive and possibly even cowardly character. I can also forgive the misguided patriotism that Braveheart has stirred in the uneducated and uncultured part of Scottish society, who didn't even know who Wallace was before Braveheart, and the fact that the councillors of Stirling have erected a horrible tacky dwarf sized statue at the foot of the Wallace monument that closely and embarrassingly resembles Mel Gibson.

What bothers me most, and detracts from my enjoyment of Braveheart, is the truly awful dialogue. I don't think I actually realised just how cheesy it was until I saw it second time around but it really makes me wince. Blame for this lies solely at the feet of Randall Wallace (no relation) who wrote the screenplay. This is the same man who was subsequently responsible for The Man In The Iron Mask (with Leonardo DiCaprio); its dialogue is also far too modern and also extremely corny. It's so bad it's almost on a par with Titanic.

Don't get me wrong BRAVEHEART IS AN ENTERTAINING MOVIE and I'm very glad Mel Gibson made it, but it just isn't culture and it just isn't brilliant. It's a good entertaining movie, better than average and it has a lot of other things going for it. For example, good supporting performances from the likes of Patrick McGoohan, Catherine McCormack, Brian Cox, Sophie Marceau and James Cosmo). THE BATTLE SCENES ARE EXTREMELY DRAMATIC, EXCITING, WELL FILMED AND DIRECTED. The music is also excellent, the scenery is beautiful (although some of it was actually filmed in Ireland because it was cheaper). As a patriotic Scotsman, I'd truly love to say this was the greatest movie ever made and I wish I could but unfortunately I just can't get past the truly awful dialogue and personally in terms of Scottish historical movies I'd have to recommend Rob Roy.

***1/2 stars.


Best performance of Gibson's career!   June 13, 2000
Shelley Shay (Denton, TX **(God Bless the USA!!)**)
24 out of 31 found this review helpful

I'm not a "Lethal Weapon" fan and I normally don't coo and carry on about Mel Gibson, but his performance in this film blew me away.

When Gibson got the Oscar for best director and the movie got the Oscar for best picture, I was thinking, "what?" I hadn't seen the film yet and I thought it was just some grandiose tale w/ Gibson showing off his long hair and rippling muscles or something. It just looked stupid to me and I wasn't interested in seeing the film from the trailers.

After everyone made such a big deal over the film, I figured I'd rent it and see what the commotion was about. It is a beautiful film and I wish I had seen it on the big screen. Gibson's performance is stellar. You easily get emotionally involved with the characters in this film, which really helps you to forget that this is indeed a movie you're watching and not an experience you're having.

The film is based on William Wallace, one of Scottland's greatest heros. While Wallace was a real character, I've heard commentary that this film deviates from history on almost every account of this man. Wallace was almost all but forgotten until this movie came out, however, and even historians were applauding the film for bringing more interest in William Wallace.

The battle scenes are exciting and the emotional struggles in the film ranging from first love to seeing friends and love ones being executed runs high through out. Even the ending, while tragic, is poignant and beautiful... the Oscars won for this film were honorably earned.