Braveheart

Rating:
Summary: Wow
Review: Every home should own this movie. Everyone should watch it.

Part false, part true - this movie is the story of William Wallace (Mel Gibson) a brave Scottish man who fights for his country's freedom from English oppression in the 13-th century.
William Wallace's family were all killed in earlier battles with English - this time he's gonna Free his country once and for all!

A must see movie.

Rating:
Summary: SUPERB ENTERTAINMENT
Review: This flick is on the same level us Gladiator. Or is it visa versa?

At this point in the review process it would be pointless to tell you about this movie. So many other reviewers have already done it pretty darn good.
However, I can tell you that I wholeheartedly enjoyed this motion picture. An absolutely great picture that is a must see.

If you haven't seen this picture, then you should. This is a movie to own!

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Movie - Timeless and Breathtaking
Review: This movie was Mel Gibson's first at directing, and it was really well made. The scenes were breathtaking, and the soundtrack was moving. The ending is one that you would never forget. The acting was outstanding. Mel Gibson's scottish accent was especially good. There is a reason this movie won so many awards.

Regarding historical accuracy, you dont go to hollywood to have a history lesson. You go to get entertained. Any average joe would know that hollywood always takes liberties when making their movies. This is a fictinal legendary potrayal of William Wallice, not a documentary. I am sure there are books and documentaries if you want to know about the real William Wallace, but dont bring your grudges to this and turn this movie into a bad movie because of that fact.

Rating:
Summary: I liked Braveheart...but I'm writing in response to the ...
Review: viewer from England. Sure, this movie may not be based on fact. In fact, it may have very little in common with the true history of England and Scotland. But let's just be honest here. England has to take its share of responsibility for many years of rape, murder, burning and the spreading of terror. You don't gain power over a great deal of the world by being peaceable and friendly. Just ask India.

If you don't like this film because it depicts the English as the bad guys. I don't have a problem with that. But, let's face it, the English weren't saints. No people are. Every side usually has committed some unspeakable act or another.

I myself enjoyed this film not because the Scots stuck it to the English. I enjoyed this film because it's a fairytale. One man with great honor standing up to an unfair and brutal ruler. And though he didn't win the war, he had the courage to fight for his convictions and his people. Forget the nationalities involved. It's a story almost any downtrodden people can relate to and love.

Rating:
Summary: Add it to your collection.
Review: Is it accruate? Don't know. Is it Entertaining? Yes! I watched Braveheart, The Patriot and Gladiator back to back. I would rank them in that order 1,2 & 3 starting with Braveheart. I would rate it a 4.5 to a 5 starts.
As you might already know, these are not "chick flicks". They include too much  fighting, blood, guts and death to be considered a date movie. You know what I mean, at the end of the night when it is a question of what to watch these usually get pushed to the bottom of the list because they don't have a happy ending. 
I think movies like these are viewed for the feelings you experience while rooting the characters on to victory not just the gore of battle.  I picked up on the general themes of bonding, team work, fraternity and living for a higher purpose.  It must be a guy thing I guess.....Overall, the story is told in an engaging manner and the sets in addition to the costumes are done VERY well. One negative: I must say it is quite long, so put the kids to bed early and disconnect the phone if you want to get through it in a single evening. Add it to your collection.

Rating:
Summary: I wish I were an American!!
Review: If I were an American, or anyone but a Brit I am sure I would love this film. Its got nice scenary, epic proportions, fighting, and pretty people.
However, I just cannot get over how insulting it is to the English (and scots).

William Wallace was NOT a commoner!
William Wallace was NOT fighting for 'scotlands' freedom.
William Wallace invaded England, raped innocent women, brutally murdered innocent children, burned churches and spread terror.
The list soes go on and on.

Now, like I say, this wouldnt bother me if I werent a Brit, in the same way that I enjoyed 'the last samurai' even though it paints an untrue picture, I am not Japanese, or a Samurai, so it doesnt bother me.
I take exception to people who say 'get over it, its just a film'. Well perhaps the British should make a film called braveheart 2 where Osama Bin Laden plays the hero, the script would be almost identical, just change the names from Edward to Bush, and Wallace to Bin Laden.
Then again, Gibson abviously has som inferiority complex about the British, hence the patriot.

Rating:
Summary: YES, IT IS FICTION!
Review: This was a fantastic film, period. A lot of people are criticizing the movie for not being 100% historically accurate. Well, just to save you some time, no, this movie is not historically accurate. This film is about a 13th century Scottish freedom fighter named William Wallace. Wallace is a national hero in Scotland and to this day is attributed by a massive statue that stand there.
The movie is a bit on the longer side, however these days, with all of these new epics coming out, three hours really isn't that long anymore. The cinematography is fantastic, and the shots of the lush landscapes of Scotland and Ireland are breath taking. The battle scenes are realistically gory, and the love scenes are often. The film does a nice job of portraying Wallace's chilodhood adding some character development. This film is great for those who love the hardcore brand of violence and for those who have a softer side as well. I loved this movie.
However, as you may have read from other reviews, this movie is not 100% accurate. I think this is a ridiculous reason to not like this movie, because nothing is really that accurate. I know the LOTR movies weren't all accurate with the books, but no one complained about those. And in the second century A.D., there was no Gladiator that defied the emperor Commodus. Commodus did in fact partake in the Gladitorial games, but as opposed to the movie, he won every match he fought; man or beast. Everyone seemed to like Gladiator. Braveheart is fiction, and a damn good fiction at that. Don't be persuaded not to see this magnificent film because it's been to Hollywood. As for the Scots upset at the inaccuracy of this film, get over it. The American revolution wasn't won by a malitiaman running up a hill flying an American flag either. (The Patriot)

Rating:
Summary: Why people don't like this movie
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: All right, but could have been more thought out.
Review: I just watched Braveheart a little while ago and at the beginning of the movie I thought it was absolutely sweet when the future wife of William gave him a flower at his father's funeral. But then the movie grew very warrior- like when the movie quickly cut to the boy turning into a man and the English kills his wife and Wallace sets out for revenge. A series of action scenes result and Wallace pretty much just fights and fights. It's easy to tell that this is a story of the centuries long battle of the Scottish and the British, and Mel Gibson picked this one man out of many Scottish leaders to shine a light on. Many of the battle scenes are quite wonderful, and a laugh is thrown in at times. The soul- mate love thing at the beginning with William and his wife who is played by the tender- hearted Catherine McCormack(that Mel admits he had fallen in love a bit with while acting with her) was not at all mushy and throughout the entire film it is shown that his wife is always in the center of his heart, especially at the end when she comes to him, reuniting them at last.
But the problem with this film I didn't realize until a few days after was that this movie was stamped all over the place with artistic license. The truth was the real Wallace didn't marry no girl from his village, and that certainly wasn't the reason he went into war. (...) . The prince was only a child back when William was in this battle and so was the princess he married. These two married years after William's death, so there's no way also that the princess could have had in any way contact with William, nor any lusty scenes with him. Honestly this crush this princess had on him and then this one night stand of lust was ridiculous in the film, because in the 1200s this would never have happened. The princess would never even be sent off to talk matters of business because kings confined women only to the castle back in those times and nowhere else. So although it was nice the princess finally got a real man in her bedroom for a night, it is unbelievable for those times and just boring. And also there were a few other spots where it would have been nice for Mel to try to slim down into the actual real history.
But otherwise the movie was nice. Especially in the end, when he shouts freedom, although he knows death is the only option if he said this. But this was for inspiration that fueled the remaining of his army to ensure a quick victory at the very last few minutes of the film.
This movie I would have appreciated more though if Mel hadn't used so much artistic license and used more actual history. But I applaud Mel for his effort. He certainly put the Scottish spirirt in me.

Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate and frustrating.
Review: 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.