Braveheart [Blu-ray] Reviews

• Blood, bravery & idealism in an epic fist punch to your gut.

  
  By A3D6TFYRMIV3ZL on 2003-01-25
  On a whole number of levels, this movie shouldn't have worked for me. It takes considerable license with historical facts, not only in order to supplement details that are not part of William Wallace's legend but actually, wherever convenient. ("We stuck to history where we could but hyped it up where the legend let us," actor-director Mel Gibson admits on the DVD's commentary track.) It is graphically and unabashedly violent: from throat cuttings to battle scenes that have film blood literally splashing onto the camera, beheadings, a traitor's head smashed with a
  wrecking ball, and fully 15 minutes of Wallace's "purification by pain," it shows some of the most brutal behavior conceivable. It also engages in some of the most blatant gay profiling in recent film history - not just in the drastic end administered on the lover of King Edward I. "Longshanks"'s son, but equally in the portrayal of both characters and their relationship as such. Last but not least, Mel Gibson plays a man at least 10 years younger than himself, a choice often enough bordering on the ridiculous. (Gibson insists it was the studio's wish that he not only produce and direct but also star in the title role.)
  
  And yet ...
  
  From the first notes of James Horner's hauntingly beautiful soundtrack and the first sweeping camera shots over the Scottish highlands, blending seamlessly into the pictures of the Scottish riders on their way to the alleged truce talks initiated by Longshanks, and the narrator's, Robert the Bruce's (Angus MacFadyen's) introduction - "I shall tell you about William Wallace: Historians from England will call me a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes" - there is no mistaking that this is an epic story, taking up the tradition of the likes of "Spartacus" and "Ben Hur." Like those movies, "Braveheart" is a story of heroism and of having the courage of one's convictions; chronicling the life of its hero from first love to loss, betrayal, battles and final confrontation with his arch-enemy's powers. Like both of them, "Braveheart" won multiple Academy Awards, not least for John Toll's outstanding cinematography. Like "Ben Hur," it also won the coveted awards for "Best Picture" and for "Best Director." And maybe I'm just a sucker for that kind of epos ...
  
  To my surprise, I found Mel Gibson to come across very believable as William Wallace; age difference, Scottish brogue and all. Both his acting and his direction are informed by a clear sense of vision for the movie and its title character. Moreover, although full writing credits went to would-be (?) Wallace descendant Randall W., many little details undeniably show Gibson's hand and mannerisms: to name just a few of the more obvious examples, Wallace's marriage proposal to Murron, his grinning greeting of a group of English soldiers trapped below a cliff, and his response to a doubting Scottish soldier's comment at Sterling that he can't really be Wallace because he's not tall enough.
  
  In addition to John Toll's award winning cinematography, the movie benefits from first-rate production design (Tom Sanders), a score which perfectly captures the mood of every single scene, and a cast of outstanding actors; first and foremost Patrick McGoohan as Longshanks, who portrays the king's utter ruthlessness so convincingly that you completely forget his earlier incarnation as the 1960s' "Danger Man," and who delivers monologues and soliloquies worthy of a Shakespearean king. His musing "but whom shall I send" when plotting to send a messenger to Wallace with another insincere offer of truce, and his chilling announcement of the reinstitution the ius primae noctae because "the trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots ... If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out" could have been uttered verbatim by anyone of the Bard's most sinister kings. (Screenwriter Randall Wallace does indeed admit to Shakespeare's direct influence on the script, particularly on Wallace's "Sons of Scotland" speech before the battle of Sterling, which is strongly based on the monologues of King Henry V. at Agincourt).
  
  Equally impressive is Ian Bannen in one of his last roles, starring as Robert the Bruce's leprosy-ridden father and evil spirit, whose first reaction to the tales about Wallace is to deride him ("He has courage; so does a dog"), and who expertly plays on his son's ambivalent feelings, until he finally drives Robert into hating his father for having coaxed him into his own game of scheming and betrayal - whereupon the elder Bruce drily comments: "At last you have learned what it means to hate. Now you are ready to be a king."
  
  Then-newcomer Catherine McCormack stars as Wallace's childhood love Murron, whose scenes with Wallace provide for much-needed tenderness in the first hour of the movie - particularly touching is four year old Murron's gift of a thistle (Scotland's national flower) to orphaned William - and contrast sharply with the bloodshed that follows virtually incessantly from her death onwards. Sophie Marceau matures from teenage party queen ("La Boum") to French Princess Isabelle; Brendan Gleeson stars as Wallace's boyhood friend Hamish, David O'Hara as his heaven-conversing, self-appointed Irish guardian Stephen - one of the movie's most colorful characters - and Brian Cox brings all his extraordinary screen presence to his brief appearance as Wallace's uncle Argyle.
  
  When I left the theater after having witnessed this movie's almost three hours of blood, gore and intense emotions for the first time, I felt as if somebody had given me a fist punch into my stomach. I was so struck that I was almost unable to speak, and dragged my moviegoing companion into the next bar, to revive my spirits with a glass of whiskey. (Scotch, of course). Having seen the film countless times since then, I no longer need that whiskey to overcome its drastic impact - but I still get gooseflesh during many of its key scenes and can't watch it without feeling emotionally drained at the end.
  
  Also recommended:
  
  William Wallace
  Braveheart
  Rob Roy
  Spartacus - Criterion Collection
  Ben-Hur (Four-Disc Collector's Edition)
  
  

• Why people don't like this movie

  
  By on 2000-03-20
  First off - this movie is superb. Absolutely phenomenal. I watched it again last night when I only had an hour to spare and ended up watching the whole thing. It's like a well written book that you can't put down until you get to the end. Now - on to the title of this review: Nearly every review which gives this movie less than five stars mentions historical inaccuracies as the reason for the lower score. Now, I'm not an expert on William Wallace or anyone else who was living in Scotland in the 13th century, but I do know that I wasn't watching this on the history channel. I was on a movie channel - it's a movie! Braveheart doesn't claim to be (and shouldn't be) a historically accurate representation of the life and times of William Wallace. It's a passionate love story about a pacifist who becomes a warrior because he can no longer accept the tyranny of the Britains. (And for you British folk who are tweaked by this - get over it. It's just a movie and "strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government" anyway). Bottom line: This is a really really really good movie and you should buy it instead of renting it because it'll save you money in the long run - but wait for the DVD because VHS will wear out too fast.
  
  

• Braveheart - Mel Gibson's crowning achievement!

  
  By A16X61RLY1YJL7 on 2004-01-18
  "Braveheart" is quite simply, one of the best and most successful movies ever created and a huge part of that success comes from the efforts extended by Mel Gibson, as he wore three different hats for this masterpiece, those being producer, director and star. The one oddity about this movie for me was that I pretty much wore out my VHS copy of it and had, a couple years ago, purchased the DVD but only just recently took the opportunity to watch it again and no matter how many times you watch this movie, it is still a stunning, compelling and extraordinarily intriguing film that draws you in to the life of William Wallace despite already knowing how it's going to end.

  The one thing that drives this movie is the spirit that Mel Gibson puts into his character of William Wallace and it is of no surprise that "Braveheart" won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture of 1995 and Best Director for Mel Gibson. The only true surprise was that he wasn't among the top five nominated for or won the Best Actor award.

  High praise also goes to the long list of supporting actors and actresses that starred in this superb film! Most notable was the performance by Sophie Marceau, one of the most beautiful women on the planet. Patrick McGoohan was absolutely incredible in the role of the villain Longshanks, King Edward I, delivering a memorable performance.

  One of the most notable performances in this film, among the many, was the work done by James Horner who was responsible for the score. As is normally the case when his name appears in the credits, everything about the score, from the first reel to the last, is incredibly well blended into the movie and serves extremely well in enhancing the experience of the movie.

  The Premise:

  As the old saying goes, is it Hollywood or History? The truth is, of course it's a bit of history, put together Hollywood style to make one of the best films ever presented to an audience. The truth behind it is that we'll never know as recorded history from this era is circumspect as best. Where a huge portion of the credit for this film lays is in the hands of Randall Wallace, a descendant of William Wallace's.

  As this historic film opens, we see a young William Wallace in Scotland as he's learning the harsh lessons of life in his era. After his family is killed in battle he's fortunate enough to have his Uncle Argyle (played brilliantly by Brian Cox) take him under his wing! Several years later he returns home to find that his countrymen are still suffering under the yoke of English oppression but he didn't come home for that, he came home for Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), seeking her hand in marriage. Unfortunate events unfold from there and William loses the love of his life and goes on a rampage not only to avenge his love but to free his country...

  What follows from there is not only one of the best films of the nineties but one of the best films of all times. I highly recommend "Braveheart" to any and all who are interested in seeing what true movie making is about! {ssintrepid}

  Special Features:

  -2 Theatrical Trailers
  -Commentary by Director Mel Gibson
  -A Filmmaker's Passion: The Making of Braveheart
  
  

• Help The Cause

  
  By A11W51H61GHH3O on 2000-01-19
  Braveheart is simply an amazing film, with one big BUT, Why isn't it available on DVD! There is a solutions however.

  If you search for "Braveheart" for DVD on this site, you are greeted by a message which allows you to be informed when the DVD is available. It also states that the studio will be informed that a customer is waiting for this release. So if lots of us DVD fans start giving our Email addresses to Amazon for this movie, then the Studio might get the hint!
  
  

• There are a few I think who missed the point.

  
  By A2U8CJU39IAVN4 on 2000-07-26
  In order to maintain the appearence of objectivity, I was going to rate this movie 4 stars. But I just couldn't. It really deserves 5, and it's going to get every one of them. This movie features some of the most stunning cinematography I've ever seen (scenes of particular brilliance include the deer-hunting scene and the slo-mo shots right before Gibson's first rebellion), impeccable acting (I don't know why the British have been hiding their actors from the American film industry - every one of the British/Scottish actors in the film was amazing, and Patrick McGoohan (sp) gave an incredible performance as Longshanks, not to mention newcomer Sophie Marceau), a magical musical score, and on and on and on and on. Physical elements alone qualify this work for the title of Best Picture.

  Yet, a number of people chastise Gibson and the movie for a number of reasons, primarily its departure from historical accuracy. I do believe these people have missed the point, for I do not believe it is fair to criticise a movie for failing to realize a goal for which it never really strived. I wonder: do these same people criticize Homer's "The Odyssey"? Do historical hardbodies cast aspersions at T.H. White's "Once and Future King" for taking historical liberties with "King" Arthur? (For that manner, any of the hundreds of contributions to the Arthurian legend). What about Robin Hood? Beowulf? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? Why is it copacetic for a book to create a myth around a cultural hero, but when it comes to film we must be expected to be as straightlaced about historical fact as an army bootcamp is about bedmaking and floor cleaning?

  I have read a lot of reviews below and a number of criticisers of the film's historical authenticity spit out the word "epic" as if it is a word that the American film industry has abused and transmogrified into a catchphrase for luring in gullible American movie-goers. But I argue that Braveheart, and the historical inaccuracies which it adopts (and it adopts many, which are nicely pointed out elsewhere), fit the same formula for "Epic Fiction" that we use to classify great (and I mean, universally accepted as great) epic works of fiction such as the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc. These works are not about who did what where and when and in what fashion. They are about the myth, the hero, and the way that they have influenced the ideals of the culture (italicize that). Was there really a Grendel, a Cyclops shepherd, a Wizard named Merlin, or Chinese war heroes who could single-handedly take on a small army? No. And yet, these works of fiction (and the mythological heroes that they have created) have had as much if not more of an impact on their respective cultures than any real life historical event. The impact of the epic is therefore not to be underestimated. Does the fact that Gibson portrayed the battle of Sterling Bridge without a Bridge really make that much of a differnce? The end outcome was the same, at least from an idealogical point of view. He rallied his men to victory with brilliant tactics against insurmountable odds. The presence or absence of a bridge, naked men, or twenty foot spears does not change that. The myth survives.

  Finally, regarding historical accuracy, there is the fact that although the movie does take a lot of liberties in order to portray a THEME - I am intelligent enough to suspend my disbelief during the movie. Furthermore, after the movie is over, (and this is a credit to the movie-maker) I was intrigued enough to go do some research on the subject from an objective historical source to find out what really happened. If a work of art (which is not, I remind you, required to be objective - artistic objectivity is almost an oxymoron and film should not be treated differently in this regard than any other form of art) instills in me a desire to learn more about a subject while at the same time portraying well the epic themes it sets out to portray, then in my book it was a successful venture and worthy of all the accolades it receives....Again, this is an epic, and just as a Greek epic might portray the Trojans as ruthless savages and their own members as heroic visionaries, I think it is acceptable for a Scottish epic to do the same to the British. And calling Gibson a homophobic is just ridiculous. Whether or not Edward II was really gay is not important. If he was, then BY THE STANDARDS OF THE DAY, he was an outcast, and would have been perceived, especially by his father, as weak, without potential, and unfit to rule. If he wasn't gay, but was just disinterested in ruling a kingdom (and history is filled to the brim with examples of less than sterling royal progeny), he would have again been seen (especially by his father) as weak, without potential and unfit to rule (because fathers - especially kings - have expectations of their sons), and questions about his sexuality would have naturally begun to arise among the nobility and commonfolk. What we as viewers of a historical or epic piece of artwork must do is refrain from judging said work by our standards. Today, homosexuality is (for the most part) accepted by society. Back then, it wasn't, and the mere rumor was enough to get you rejected from society (and vice-versa). Therefore, in light of the times in which the movie is set, the portrayal of the weak fop of a prince, EdwardII, as homosexual is both acceptable and indicative of the society that the movie was trying to portray. It wouldn't, for example, have made much sense to portray Edward I as gay. Not because a gay man couldn't be a successful King or military leader, but because a gay man would never have achieved respect as a monarch - THEN - by the people or his enemy.

  In closing, this is an excellent film that deserves its status as a best picture, despite (and perhaps because of) its historical inaccuracies. I encourage anyone with any interest in medieval history to view it, because it might just entice you to look into more historically accurate documents that, while not as entertaining as the movie iteself, will give you a more wholistic picture of what really happened.
  
  

• One of the greatest movie masterpieces of all time
  By A30S5NE35WN2IK on 2000-09-10
  This is truly a masterpiece. From beginning to end, this is an entertaining film about one of the greatest heroes in history. While some people complain that this isn't an historically accurate movie, that is not the focus of this movie, it is not a documentary. This movie tells the story of a man who in the face of adversity and tyranny chose to challenge the oppressors and fight for the freedom of his country. This movie truly depicts the power of the human spirit.
  
  As for the quality of the movie itself, the acting was great and well played, the cinematography was superb, the directing was perfect and the battle scenes are breathtaking, comparable to Saving Private Ryan.
  
  Please disregard brain-dead reviews like that one that says "Overrated!" (press CTRL+F to find it, its from September 3). People like him are the type that might consider Will Smith in "Independence Day" as a true freedom fighter. People that critisize Braveheart as one that depicts the English as savages are in need of a history lesson. While I don't mean to disrespect the brits, history itself has shown that when countries fought for freedom, they did it so they could free themselves from oppressors. Such a way to fight for freedom is called a cry of justice and not terrorism as some of them think.
  
  A movie about Simon Bolivar fighting Spain for freedom would depict Spain as oppressors and Bolivar as a man that broke the chains of injustice to bring freedom to many Latin American countries. Men like him and like Wallace are true freedom fighters.
  
  
• Awesome Movie, even with Historical poetic license
  By A26EVJW77FQARF on 2000-11-29
  You've probably read many other reviews by now.

  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
  By AAD1RQ6ST29HC on 2004-11-30
  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
  By A1YHKSTVSYEYTU on 2002-01-11
  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!
  By A2B7BUH8834Y6M on 2000-06-13
  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.
  
  

• A Scottish tale
  By A1TMAVN4CEM8U8 on 2008-03-23
  Brave Heart DVD
  
  Mel Gibson directed and stars in this epic biographical portrait of William Wallace, a 13th century Scottish rebel, who led an unsuccessful insurgency against oppressive British rule.
  
  I knew a boy, growing up whose name was William Wallace. I had no idea who he had been named for. His Mother was a librarian, I guess she did.
  
  Great movie and I highly recommend it for fans of Mel Gibson and Scottish action buffs.
  
  Gunner March, 2008
  
  
  
• Inaccurate and frustrating.
  By on 2004-03-27
  First of I'm 100% Scottish and proud but this film is disgraceful. It's annoying how inaccurate Hollywood has made Scottish history for the sake of entertainment. The wars of Independance were a massivly important time in both Scottish and English history and Hollywood has done a great job or twisting facts for the sake of a juicy story.

  The script for Braveheart was based on a poem by a medieval poet called 'Blind Harry' This man was highly biased, anti-English (as most were at the time) and at one stage claimed defiantly that Scotland won the batle of Falkirk. Now, imagine a 'history of Iraq' based on personal accounts by the Iraqi Information Minister. It's much the same thing. Biased drivel.

  One top of this, the film is historically very, very inaccurate. It's true that Bruce did change sides often, but he never fought Wallace on the battlefield. Bruce wasn't even at the Battle of Falkirk. And as it says on the inside of the box: "And won their freedom...forever" is also frankly, rubbish. If Scotland won it forever we wouldn't be part of Britain at this moment in time.

  This film is only good for blood and guts and a bit of swordfighting and that's why I gave it 2 stars.

  I see the effect this film has had when I visit the Wallace Monument in Stirling. There's a stone carving of Mel Gibson in the classic Wallace pose outside the gift shop. It embarassing to see the tourists snapping pictures of the Hollywood replica. The real statue of Wallace is hidden in the background only visible to those who know it's there. Most of the tourists don't notice it, and it's sad. He deserves to be remembered for what he was, and not what Hollywood has made him.
  
  

• Classic movie - Epic story
  By A1BJJVV2B5VLUQ on 2000-07-26
  Hard to pick my top 5 all-time favorite movies... but I know one thing for sure, "Braveheart" is one of them. I know many of the dignified literary historians here on Amazon have trashed this movie due to fact after fact NOT being correct (way too many Hollywood liberties were exercised) - like their accents were far from authentic; Wallace painted his face blue only once and it wasn't the right battle where he painted it; parts filmed in Ireland (not 100% in Scotland) due to cost; Wallace was caputured in Glasgow - not at Edinburgh Castle as the movie depicts; armor and weapons were wrong for the time; warriors seen wearing sunglasses and wrist watches, rubber weapons used (really - it wasn't real?); Mel Gibson is a bad director and is a hypocritical & pompous jackass; etc. People please - this is a fictional war story with some romance thrown in, INSPIRED by true events. In my opinion it's not meant to taken too seriously. It's 100% entertainment. Cast, story, action, scenery - ALL STUNNING. It's a grand epic of one Scottie's life and the battle he faces within. He puts his life on the line for the cause... to free Scotland. "Braveheart" was the winner of 6 Oscars - for Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing, Best Makeup, Best Director, Best Picture, Best Cinematography. As well as 2 Golden Globes - for best director and picture; and a dozen other national awards (including American Cinema Foundation, Empire Awards, Cinema Writers Circle Awards, BAFTA Awards, and Writer Guild of American Awards.) This movie is brilliantly done - a modern classic (5 stars).
  
  
• Silly!
  By A2BG3EZC451DIN on 2006-01-04
  Well, well, once again some of the hacks in Hollywood turn out tripe and try to pass it off as an accurate portrayal of some event or events in history. Are there inaccuracies in this movie? The answer is "YES"! Its full of them. So full of them in fact, that for anyone who actually bothers to look at historic FACT, this movie becomes an absurdity.
  
  Here are a few examples of what I mean; First, neither Wallace (nor anyone else in Scotland at the time this movie depicts) went around with blue paint smeared over their faces. In FACT, the pagan tribes of Pictish Celts were the last people in the area to paint their faces with blue dye AND THIS WAS IN THE EARLY 4TH CENTURY AD when the Romans occupied the place! Wallace lived at a time almost ten centuries AFTERWARD! If William Wallace (or anyone else of his day) had gone around Scotland with blue paint on their faces, they would have been executed in some manner as pagans, witches, or as insane and bedeviled by demons since Scots were staunchly Christian.
  
  Also, Wallace was NEVER really that interested in freedom from English rule for Scotland, he was much more interested in Scottish rule for Wallace and he was something of a rabble-rouser who had too much ambition and far too few brains to combine with it. The result being that Wallace managed to get a lot of Scottish people killed in senseless war with superior armies. But of course, Mel and Randall and co. simply didn't think this ACCURATE slant belonged in a movie about specific historic events!
  
  Even more importantly is the absolute nonsense of the battle sequences in which we see Wallace and co. become superhuman fighters with boundless energy and lots of bravado. The historic FACTS surrounding battles of this period in history center around the LACK of vital energy the people of the day had due to poor dietary habits mixed with the horror the combatants of the period had of being wounded during actual fighting. You see, the diet in Scotland at the time of Wallace was one that consisted of heavy, starchy breads, oat cereal, and lots of alcoholic beverages, as well as plenty of fatty meats and sausages (Haggus being one hideous item in this category). Even as far back as the Roman occupation it was common knowledge that northern European people (those in Scotland included) ate so poorly that they had very little stamina when it came to prolonged physical activity. Even during the occupation by Imperial Rome's Legions, the Pictish Celts would enter battle and quickly tire, thereby becoming easy prey to the Romans, who understood the importance of diet and warfare and who subsided on fruit, lean meat, and dried baked bread. Now, in Wallace's day, the diet of the Scots hadn't changed and the battles of the time certainly were NOT action-packed affairs with people looking like human versions of electric food processors - arms flailing and chopping endlessly.
  
  Added to this poor physical condition in the combatants, there was the absolute dread they all had of being wounded by the weapons of the day, which inflicted horrible damage to the body and caused hours of agony before death came. Both the English and the Scots would have approached actual combat with worry and would NOT charge at each other, chopping and flailing away like maniacs. Instead, they would have conducted their battles in the standard manner of the period, which was for opposing armies to line up facing each other and then poke and thrust with their weapons back and forth until tired, whereupon they would pull back and rest. Outside of archery onslaughts, battles in Wallace's time were cumbersome, slow, and time-consuming events. Some on both sides would be killed or cripplingly wounded, and the side that withdrew from the field first was considered the loser. But there was absolutely NO wild heroics and endless high-impact, high-energy combat in the day of Wallace.
  
  But hey, who cares about historic FACT when watching movies about historic events????? The average person in the street knows nothing about history at all, nevermind specialized information connected to specific periods of history. That's why Hollywood can get away with such gross distortion as can be found in movies like "Brave Heart", "Dances With Wolves", "Geronimo, An American Legend", "Band of Brothers", and a host of other grotesque productions focusing on one ounce of fact mixed with endless gallons of hogwash. As for Mel's performance and Alan Ladd jr.'s efforts, well this nonsense goes to show you how interested they were in truthfully portraying a series of events in Scottish history. It appears that if these clowns can make a buck off it, they wouldn't have cared if they had Wallace flitting around Scotland in a UFO! Furthermore, they knew they could get away with anything simply because people today have been so DUMBED DOWN and are so stupid that they'll buy anything as long as they see it on TV or in a theater.
  
  So, if you like garbage filled with unrealistic, fantastic action that has a thin film of historic references connected to it, then Bravy Heartsie Fartsie is the kind of show you just shouldn't miss. If you want REALISM, then READ history and forget about the so-called "Entertainment Industry" altogether.
  
  
• Mel, you are joking aren't you!?!
  By A2QUFEH4ZVJOK4 on 2005-11-07
  I finally got round to watching this film about a month ago. What a mistake! I don't know what the English have done to Mel Gibson but it must have been pretty awful for us to merit this racist nonsense.
  
  Just in case you missed them here are some of the 'inaccuracies' (aka lies) in Gibson's 'triumph':
  
  Firstly, William Wallace did not get Queen Isabella pregnant. They never even met. Wallace died in 1305 when Isabella was about 13. Isabella's son wasn't born until 1312; 7 years after Wallace's death.
  
  Secondly, Wallace himself was not a peaceful farmer driven to rebellion by the murder of his wife; he was a minor nobleman who had been carrying out a guerrilla-style war with the English for years before the events apparently shown in the film.
  
  Thirdly, the film shows Irish conscripts switching sides and joining Wallace's forces at the Battle of Falkirk in one big example of Celtic brotherhood. In fact the Irish forces were mercenaries who fought pretty well for Edward I.
  
  Fourthly, kilts weren't worn until about the 16th Century (not the 13th as in Braveheart
  
  There's more but I really can't be bothered to type it. I'm off to torture some babies, put kittens in a blender and set fire to a church full of innocent Americans (just like in the equally awful 'The Patriot').
  
  Why? Why not; I am English after all!
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Formats of Braveheart......
  By AMTMC9M9RSDF on 2000-01-16
  I would really like to see this video appear on DVD in the near time future. I know a lot of people that are dying to see it appear. It was a fantastic movie, plot and score (music) wise!
  
  
• Mel Gibson is no William Wallace
  By A1A535W556ROBQ on 2003-10-07
  Christ knows how Mel Gibson was able to get away with playing William Wallace, much less garner an Oscar for this movie. Gibson couldn't even hold Wallace's sword. This has to be one of the most ridiculous attempts to take on Scottish history in Hollywood. It made Rob Roy look good by comparison.

  The battle scenes look like rugby scrums, with kelt raising reducing them to parodies of the actual battles that took place. If this had been a Monty Python sketch, I would have laughed heartily throughout, but it seems Gibson was dead serious in this bloated revisionist account of Wallace's ascendency to Braveheart.

  I can understand how a movie like this would have fooled the general market, but is the Academy really that undiscerning? Do they have to give an Oscar to anyone who tries to make an historical epic? It is a real mystery to me how Mel could have hoodwinked both the general public and the Academy on this one, but then it seems Scottish history is little more than fodder for Hollywood's less than fertile imagination.
  
  

• Lethal History
  By A35J4XGRWXVZ00 on 2003-12-12
  A vanity production if there ever was one, Mel Gibson's 1995 "Braveheart" is not so much a movie as it is a video game of medieval mayhem. As the 13th Century Scottish rebel Sir William Wallace, Mel makes love to beautiful women, fights gruesome battles, and barks speeches filled with repetitions of those democratic catchwords "country" and "freedom". Aware that the average 14-year old's eyes glaze at the mere mention of the 13th Century, the screenplay by Randall Wallace skims over the English domination of Scotland, quickly resorting to standard blood and guts, while the conflict between the clans and William Wallace's uneasy allegiance are too sketchy to be enlightening. Edward I of England, called Longshanks,is the movie's villain; and he's represented as a sadistic psychopath. In "A History of the English Speaking Peoples" Winston S Churchill says that Edward I "presents us with qualities which are a mixture of the administrative capacity of Henry II and the personal prowess and magnanimity of Coeur de Lion." Granted, Churchill was somewhat partial to royalty, but another source says Edward I was "at heart a good and honest man." In a hagiography like "Braveheart" the opposition must look as bad as possible if the hero's murders and arson are going to be represented as sympathetic, so Longshanks gets the shaft. (Shakespeare had to dramatize Richard III as a ruthless child-killer to make justifiable the usurpation of Henry VII, who was the grandfather of Shakespeare's sovereign.) As a director, Mel Gibson is no Eisenstein. As an actor, he woodenly plays Wallace as a peace-loving man who just wants to tend his farm and raise a family. When Edward establishes droit de seigneur in Scotland, Wallace marries in secret, but even then his wife is assaulted by English soldiers. In defending her honor, Wallace starts the rebellion almost by accident; and he soon becomes the hero of the Scottish cause, his followers (in a ludicrously anachronistic touch) chanting "Wah-les! Wah-les! Wah-les!" Little is known of the real William Wallace, the nearest thing to a biography being a poem that may or may not have been written by a bard named Henry the Minstrel about 180 years after Wallace's death. There is no mention of this poem in the movie's credits. Whether or not Wallace was multilingual is anyone's guess, but it's extremely unlikely he had an affair with the future Queen of England, a subplot thrown in to gratify the Harlequin Romance element in the audience. Isabella is depicted here as a yearning soul, but she's known to history as the "she-wolf" because of her cold-blooded betrayal of her husband Edward II. I know a lot of reviewers have said "Lighten up, it's only a movie", and I would agree if "Braveheart" were not so solemn and sententious. Bending facts is one thing (Sir Walter Scott did it all the time), but then to plaster these distortions across the screen in pseudo-historic splendor is a little dishonest. Now I see that Mel's coming out with a film based on the Passion. God help us.
  
  
• Actually it's mostly baloney.
  By AK3R3RNUWLFJR on 2005-05-09
  William Wallace was nothing like the dude portrayed in the movie. For one, he did not get to fornicate with the crown princess. In reality, at Wallace's death, the princess was only a little child. If he DID fornicate with her, then so much the better that a pedophhile was torn to pieces.
  
  On another front, I have to say that the plot is rather cheesy. The good guy is done injustice (his woman is slain) and is out for revenge. That's his primary motive. Somewhere along the way the freedom of Scotland got into the fold, almost as an afterthought. In this regard it is not unlike the US's case for the Iraqi invasion -- freedom being used as a tool to elevate a completely mundane cause. But this is after all a Western movie for the consumption of the Western masses. Certain things sell well -- the more-or-less revisionist history of a fight for freedom being one, the other being the good guy getting the girl -- and they are exploited to the fullest extent.
  
  In the whole, this is altogether a rather banal film. Hence the 1 star (actually 0.5).
  
  
• A truly manificent film! Mel Gibson is brilliant!
  By A2198FZZMTJ38H on 2000-01-04
  This movie is absolutely wonderful, full of brutal depictions of hand-to-hand combat, tears and kisses, love and passion, freedom and strength. Mel Gibson has done a truly terrific job in depicting what is said to be one of the greatest stands ever taken in history. The performances are truly believable, as are the battle scenes. And to all of you who wish that this movie would come out on DVD, it will be released on DVD in May of 2000.
  
  
• Historical happy meal
  By A20B0XOK0JKCD9 on 2005-03-12
  I've no idea what the English ever did to Mel Gibson, but he's certainly sticking it to us - seemingly on a one-man mission to demonise the entire race.
  
  What with this and the Patriot, I'm surprised he didn't recast the Romans as English in the Passion of Christ...
  
  What of course he is doing is tapping in to an underlying sense of unease if not downright hatred Americans have for their former "rulers". Some of the scenes in the film are crude examples of this - the way the Irish are used as cannon fodder (hey, remind me to renew my subscription to the IRA) or the outrageously gay English prince cuckolded by the virile Celt (indeed, many English people are beginning to think we've been screwed by the Yanks for years).
  
  As it happens the English king "Longshanks" was one of the more progressive rulers of his time and helped kick-start the parliamentary process in England - a much longer time coming for our long-suffering brethren across the border - which in turn would inspire the very values of liberty Americans hold so dear.
  
  So when you next cheer on the put-upon colonists or Celts you might bear in mind that the people you are so keen on demonising defined the values you live by today.
  
  
• Pretty simple stuff.
  By A18BV4O63DOWNH on 2001-01-08
  *Braveheart* must be an influential, if not exactly good, movie: witness its many imitators (*Gladiator*, even Gibson's own *Patriot*). For the handful who haven't seen it, it chronicles the mythic tale of William Wallace, a Scottish commoner who in the early 14th century successfully engineered a movement for independence from England. (Well, it was really Robert I who engineered it, but in this movie the Bruce is ineffectual, to put it kindly. You see, Gibson is portraying WALLACE.) I'm not going to sit here and bash the film; there are so many others that are more worthy of my disdain. Let it be said that *Braveheart* will remind you of those old Hollywood epics featuring a cast of thousands. The point being, the script and characterization are just as hackneyed as any DeMille movie. (Or any movie from the 1930's starring Errol Flynn.) There's a Milady in the form of a French Princess of Wales. There's a wicked King. The characters are either all Bad or all Good, and never mind the attempt at ambiguousness e.g. Robert the Bruce. (He's all Good.) There's the time-honored tradition, old as Seneca, of our hero's blending of personal revenge and patriotism as motivation to fight the injustices of the wicked King. And there's Wallace himself, who seems to be a conflation of several cliched types (Robin Hood, The Man With No Name, Charles Bronson in those *Death Wish* movies, etc. etc.). Your toleration of this movie will depend on how willing you are to tread very, very familiar paths.

  As for Mr. Gibson's direction, it's no big deal. Static compositions; close-ups intended to convey Meaning (my favorite was the one where he's atop some mountain, the aerial camera delicately swooping around his tragic face); wistful scenery shots; and an excessive use of slow-motion. In his defense, it must be stated that his battle scenes are really rather well done, inviting unsuccessful imitation (think *Gladiator* -- pee-yew!). Mr. Gibson provides us three hours of all this -- his sophomoric direction, as well as his apparently sado-masochistic tendencies (Wallace is constantly beat up throughout). Some will find it worthwhile; some not. I guess I'm with the latter group.
  
  

• Big, bold, beautiful, pointless
  By A1F5WK5WQSNSJ4 on 2002-07-03
  This big budget historical epic, complete with the most explicit maimings ever captured on film, and Patrick McGoohan's portrayal of King Edward as a villian so foul you are surprised he does not cackle, is big, broad spectacle in the Cecil B. DeMille tradition. Alas, it ultimately fails to give a reason for William Wallace's fight and fails to give its hero's cry of "freedom!" any real meaning. Apparently, "freedom" means Scottish women would be abused and debauched only by Scottish men and not by English ones. Wallace is definitely a figure worthy of a film like this, but I think this film misses the chance to explore the nature of Scottish nationalism, and it misses the chance to explore the remarkable example of a peasant who came to lead armies. It misses the chance to explore the collision of a tribal culture and a feudal one. It's a good movie, but nowhere near living up to the hype.
  
  
• Accuracy in a Movie? Are you kidding?
  By on 2000-03-14
  I don't know why people blast this movie for not being historically accurate. I don't think that was the intention of the movie from the start. I mean did anyone blast Shakespeare in Love for being inaccurate? Its a movie, and anyone trying to learn about history based on movies are really not right in the head to begin with IMO. Like those people who watched Malcolm X and think they know everything about him, sad. Anyway it is a great film, and though there are stereotypes, its nothing more than anyother movie. The difference for Braveheart was that one of the 'bad guys' was homosexual, and heaven forbid we portray any homosexual character in any movie as bad. Sure we can do it for the obese or white males or maybe even the old, but not homosexuals. And CERTAINLY not English, we all know how nice and loving England was back in the old days of feudalism. The point is everyone, regardless of race, creed, or whatever, is HUMAN. No one is perfect and just because you are a part of a minority doesn't make you instantly kind and gentle and loving. Anyway, as long as people realize this is just a MOVIE and not a history lesson, they can find great action and wonderful acting in this epic film.
  
  
• Best Picture - 1995 and ever
  By A3PTG4HHFXPUTO on 2000-06-19
  As an avid movie watcher, I have seen many films, yet Braveheart has my nod as the best ever. It has a bit of everything, from war to love, from revenge to compassion. While not historically accurate, it was not meant to be. Randall Wallace, writer of this film and the book it was based on said, "I didnt want the facts to get in the way of the truth." That the movie doesnt qualify for playing on the History channel doesnt mean it isnt a great movie. If you have not seen this movie, buy it now, and play it. I watch it quite often, and it has never gotten dull or old.
  
  
• BRAVEHEART - - - a future classic!
  By A3KTF1THT6N75P on 2000-07-19
  Yes, as has been pointed out, there are a number of inaccuracies in this film. However, it is still one of the most breathtaking pictures I have ever seen. It captures the true spirit of both an individual's, as well as a Nation's quest for freedom and independence. Moreover, the cinematography is absolutely stunning.

  As a historian, I always hope for authenticity. However, sometimes one must settle for a blend a fact and fiction to make a film profitable.

  Here are a few of the facts left out.

  No, he did not have an affair with Isabella.

  Yes, he would have spoken many languages including French & Latin. He was well educated at the moestary at Kennebeckskenneth(sp, Been a few years since I researched this topic)

  The old man, his uncle, was the abbot at said monestary.

  Yes, it has been speculated that Edward II was gay. However, there is no real proof. Different cultures respond differently to this topic.

  Isabella and her real lover, Mortimer, assasinated Edward II. Edward III had Mortimer executed when he assended the throne, and his mother locked in a tower! So there was no love lost between ED II & Isabella.

  The greatest omission is during the battle of Stirling. (The one with the spears) Wallace used a covert attack to take out the bridge so the infantry and archers could not support the calvary. BRILLIANT!

  This film shows what an educated man can do when fighting for his freedom. Few pictures can capture this as well as Braveheart.

  Exodus I; BA. History EWU
  
  

• Achy Breaky (Brave)Heart
  By on 2003-05-10
  Mel Gibson, looking uncannily like Billy Ray Cyrus, tramples all over Scottish history in his relentless pursuit of the almighty dollar. 1995 wasn't a vintage year by any means but how this travesty managed to beat out the likes of The Usual Suspects, Heat and Se7en at the Academy Awards is a mystery on a par with the Easter Island statues and anyone liking prunes.
  
  
• Ultra violence meets (...) humour
  By A2LFDT4P5W5D03 on 2004-07-11
  Mel Gibson must be a very disturbed man. All his films are very violent. "Payback", "The Patriot" and "The Passion of Christ"(which at least I found to be pretty funny though I don't think it was meant to be) all glorify violence.

  Catherine McCormack takes off her clothes in this film which is why I give it 1 star and not 0. Unfortunately Sophie Marceau doesn't take off her clothes and even more unfortunate is that Mel does. I found the mooning scene in this movie to be quite childish

  This movie is intended for the less intelligent American market rather than for us Scots. All of Mel Gibsons recent films are marketed towards less intelligent people such as George W Bush or the Pope or Mel himself I suppose.

  Mel Gibson hasn't made a decent film since "Mad Max 2" yet he continues to make millions of dollars making these awful films.

  I guess...
  YOU CAN TAKE MY TALENT BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE MY MILLIONS!!!!
  
  

• BRAVO FOR THE NEW COLLECTOR'S EDITION
  By A2JP0URFHXP6DO on 2008-04-14
  Braveheart is one of my favorite films of the 90's but I had never purchased it on DVD because the original release was so skimpy in terms of extras. It had only a commentary track and a 30-minute making of feature. Paramount has finally beefed up the DVD with a two-disc set featuring several new extras. While it is not overflowing, it's light years better than the original release.
  
  The film tells the story of 13th century Scottish patriot and rebel, William Wallace (Gibson) who unites the various clans of Scotland to fight for their freedom against the English. England had used the turmoil of the previous Scottish king's death to gain a stronger foothold in the country. When an English Sheriff makes an example of Wallace's love, Murron, by slitting her throat, Wallace leads a bloody revolt on the local garrison and exacts his revenge on the local magistrate.
  
  Wallace becomes the inspirational leader of the Scots, even though others have a greater claim to the Scottish throne, such as Robert the Bruce. Wallace leads his men on various guerilla raids against the English, culminating in one of the bloodiest battles ever filmed. Heads and limbs are severed, skulls are crushed, and arrows pierce throats. Rarely had the carnage of battle been so accurately and beautifully shot.
  
  In many ways, Braveheart was like one of those grand Hollywood epics of the 50's and 60's like Spartacus or Ben-Hur. Outstanding performances and sweeping landscapes punctuate the film that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Say what you want about Gibson's politics and opinions on ethnic groups...he' still one hell of a filmmaker.
  
  Certainly the film took liberties with history but even the real Wallace's life is shrouded in mystery and much of it comes from a poet who wrote the tales over a hundred years after Wallace's Death. As good as Gibson was in the lead role, my favorite performance was Patrick McGoohan as King Edward I. McGoohan's crusty and callous portrayal cut an intimidating figure onscreen. He cannot contain his disdain for his homosexual son and in one memorable scene, tosses his son's lover out a window to his death. This is an outstanding film that holds up view after view.
  
  Now...as to the extras...
  
  The Gibson commentary is back on this new DVD and is insightful because you're not only getting commentary of the lead actor, but also of the Director and Producer as well as Gibson wore all three hats.
  
  The original DVD had a 30-minute making of Documentary. The new disc has a 49-minute making of documentary. Having not seen the original, I don't know if any of the material is repeated, but the new documentary has comments from Gibson both currently and from 1995 and he shares the fact that he originally passed on doing the film.
  
  "A Writer's Journey" is a 21:30 featurette about the writing of the story by Randall Wallace.
  
  "Tales of William Wallace" is a 30 minute documentary about the true William Wallace with comments from various historians.
  
  There is also a 14:30 featurette with interviews with the cast members done back while the film was shooting.
  
  All in all, Paramount has finally given Braveheart fans a DVD release that is worthy of the film.
  
  
  
• Pure Entertainment - but also pure rubbish
  By A1M3C8AT07G5SN on 2001-05-31
  There's no denying the film itself is a ripping yarn, rousing and exciting - as well as at times brutal and downright gorey - from beginning to end. However, it's lack of historical accuracy and the fact it's so nauseatingly and ridiculously anti-English throughout detract from the overall film....
  
  

• Gladiator [Blu-ray]
• The Patriot (Extended Cut) [Blu-ray]
• Saving Private Ryan [Blu-ray]
• Forrest Gump [Blu-ray]
• The Last of the Mohicans [Blu-ray]