Braveheart

Rating:
Summary: Braveheart
Review: Fantastic film. Its got something for everyone. Battle scenes rose the standards as to what is now expected from a movie of similar sorts. It could have been a little less saturated with the love story braided through it, but other than that it was increadible. I would recommend this movie to anyone, especially if they have seen and enjoyed the recent movie "Gladiator". Mel Gibson is the man, and I only wish he chooses to direct another.

Rating:
Summary: 5 Stars Isn't Enough...
Review: Quite possibly one of the three or four BEST movies I've ever seen. 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. What does Mel Gibson have against the British? He's succeeded in making Joe Public frown upon the Red Coats in "Braveheart" and now in "The Patriot". Either way, it is pure enjoyment. These folks truly lived in tough times. Great direction, great acting - everything is great. It covers all aspects of the gambit - Love, love lost, revenge, suspense, horror, drama... the only thing it really didn't hit on was comedy. There were a few light moments in "Braveheart", but for the most part this was a pretty serious flick. This movie won 5 Oscars - quite possibly a slap in the face for Mel - it should have won more. My wife & I started watching this movie one night at 11:00pm. I didn't think we'd make it thru the 3 hour ordeal, but we were rivited to our sofa and it kept us up & alert thru the credits at the end. Simply awesome!

Rating:
Summary: There are a few I think who missed the point.
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: COLLECTOR'S ITEM: DEFIES TIME...AGELESS!
Review: This movie captures all the theme I expect in a movie...has context, it has meat! It's rare nowadays to have a production that would cater to the likings of everyone; love, romance, action, deception, betrayal, compassion, true friendship, etc...BRAVEHEART has it all. Especially, this movie highlights the true virtue of "DETERMINATION," as well as, PATRIOTISM! Yet, with all its heart-pounding, exhilarating, action filled scenes...Mel Gibson managed to introduce comedy within this movie...spectacular!

Rating:
Summary: Historical schmorical - it's a good movie!
Review: OK people, We understand! Much of this movie is historically inaccurate! So what? It is a fantastic film! If you want historic accuracy, get a history textbook! If this film had been made with COMPLETE historic accuracy, it would have been as exciting as watching The History Channel. This movie was made to entertain - to sell tickets, not to show in a 7th grade history class. As a movie (and that's what it is...) Braveheart is incredible. Acting, action, epic battles, cinematography, etc. -- all top notch. Violent? Yes, it is violent - that is the nature of the film. If you thought the movie wasn't going to have violence, all you had to do was watch a preview, or glance at the cover of the video or DVD - A man with a claymore standing in front of flames and a battle -- does this look like a happy Saturday morning movie to take little Bobby and Susie Jo to see because they ate all their peas the night before? NO! See the film for what it is - not for what you want it to be. Apocalypse Now was one of the best films ever -- did I enjoy watching it? No, it made me feel sick to my stomach. Did I appreciate the imagery and vision of the film? Yes - It was brilliant, one of the most disturbing and brilliant films I have ever seen. If a movie is good, then it is good. If the movie is not YOUR type of movie, see if you can appreciate the movie for what it is, not what you would like it to be.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best.
Review: This movie was great. I've watched my VHS copy so much its worn out(cant wait for the DVD). As far as the Historical "inaccuracy's" go, it was accurate enough for me to base my Senior paper on, and who watches a movie of historical facts anyway? In closing -- BUY IT! WATCH IT!. Peace

Rating:
Summary: BRAVEHEART - - - a future classic!
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: The Bravest Of The Hearts
Review: From the first time I've seen this movie it became my favorite. I think that after you see it you will never be the same again. Mel Gibson definately knew what he was doing when he directed it. He created a powerful plot and utstanding acting is backing it up. This movie is definatly a "must see".

Rating:
Summary: Great ending...but overall, extremely overrated
Review: Braveheart is quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time, or at least one of the most (right up there with Star Wars, Titanic, Saving Private Ryan...). However...the dramatic and powerful ending almost makes sitting through those three hours worth my time.

The main fault I find in this movie is the plot. Don't get me wrong, it was a great idea, but it was not executed that well. First of all, it doesn't carry and flow well at all. Random events would just be ocurring in the movie. Another thing I didn't like was how Wallace's (Gibson) motives change...he is initially avenging his wife's death, but we find him later sleeping with Isabella. This simply doesn't make sense. In the end he is pretty much fighting for his freedom. This also used the Star Wars cliche: the outgunned, good-guy rebels fight and miraculously defeat the powerful, sinister bad guys. The plot in the movie was pretty much a ruining of a great idea that could've been better.

Another thing I didn't like about this film is its depiction of the English. They may have well been murdering savages...but it is pretty much allowed to stereotype and degrade this group of people. It wouldn't be politically correct to make fun of the Scottish kilt (not that I think that it's silly) or the drunk Irish stereotype. The homosexual man was inserted into the movie to simply make the English look more feminine, and less "macho" than the Scottish heroes. Speaking of the homosexual man...I have been wondering why he is supposed to be gay...yet it was the Scottish army mooning the English on the battlefield. Also, this absurd scene would have been offensive to me if I was a Scot. It seems like the movie tried to make fun of the English...and accidentally made fun of the Scots in some scenes.

Finally, the movie (like this review!) was way too long. It just dragged on and on and on...

With all this Braveheart-bashing, you may be wondering why I gave this review three stars insead of none:

The ending of this movie, unlike the rest of the movie, was very powerful and emotional. I was stuck to my seat during that last moment...I was moved by Gibson's 10 seconds or so of great acting. In my opinion, the last part alone is worth the sale price of the movie. When I buy this movie I'll skip to the very end and watch those 30 seconds again and again. (the ending gave two stars to the movie)

The third star comes fron James Horner's beautiful musical score. It really got me into listening to it. It was exceptionally powerful during the ending.

Overall this movie was not up to the hype. It is very overrated...but I recommend buying the movie just to be able to witness the ending. The movie as a whole was just complete garbage. Basically, if you are the easily impressionable type and already think this movie is the greatest of all time...go out and get it. If you believe my review...follow my advice and buy it for the ending.

Rating:
Summary: Great Action: Lousy History and Politics
Review: Let's leave aside the inanity of Gibson playing William Wallace with a working-class Glaswegian accent, and admit that this film is an enjoyable saga, with some great action and military sequences.

What is wrong is the history and the politics behind the movie.

There are simply too many historical errors to recount, but they include:

1. The story of "right of first night" [droit de seigneur] which starts the story. No such right ever existed in the past. [See _The Lord's First Night: The Myth of the Droit De Cuissage_ by Alain Boureau.]

2. The homophobic depiction of the future Edward II, who was counted as most handsome and virile in sources of the time.

3. The impossible liaison between William Wallace and Isabella, who would have been about six at the time.

Even worse than the history is the way the movie plays into the pathetic anti-Englishness of Scottish Nationalism. We can all see that German Nationalism, Serbian Nationalism, Arab Nationalism and so forth are the products of small-minded individuals who want to invest meaning in some manufactured notion of "nation" in order to make up for their own perosal inferiorities. Why on eart can we not see that Nationalism has exactly the same delusionary and violent characteristics in Scotland, or indeed any other invented "nation."