Great, but over-rated

Rating: 9/10 (15 February 2002)

This is not, repeat not, the greatest film of all time. I'm sorry, it just isn't. My advice, to everyone who maintains that it is, is to immediately go out and see "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Spartacus", two other historical war epics which each have far more depth than "Braveheart". If you still say "Braveheart" is better, then we can disagree amicably, but I can't take seriously anyone who trumpets "Braveheart" without having seen its ancestors.
What bothers me about this film is its simplicity. But I mentioned in another comment that simplicity and power go hand in hand, and this is definitely a powerful movie. But for me, its that same simplicity that prevents "Braveheart" from being elevated to the level of a true cinematic classic.
The villain in "Braveheart", Edward the Longshanks, is a one-note villain. He is an interesting character (villains usually are), but he is simply evil. There are no shades of grey there. Compare to the villain of "Spartacus", Crassus, portrayed by Laurence Olivier. Here is an infinitely more complex character. Crassus is a character for whom the audience can feel a degree of sympathy, even when siding against him. It's impossible to feel sympathy for Longshanks. The man is not human.
But then again, it's the simplicity that makes the film powerful. The audience feels a deep and stomach-churning hatred for Longshanks, which is important. That hatred is an important motivating factor.

Now look at the hero. William Wallace is uncompromisingly good. No matter how vicious he is in battle, how brutal in war, we know that his motivations are utterly noble. There is a level of historical inaccuracy here, I'm sure. His principle that the nobles exist to provide the people with freedom is, I think, a highly anachronistic political principle. But nevermind. I hate people who quibble about historical accuracy in films. It's a movie, not a history lesson.
Anyway, compare to the hero in "Lawrence of Arabia". He is in a similar position, and has similar goals. But that turns a very critical eye toward all the violence involved in achieving freedom, and a very critical eye toward Lawrence himself. Again, "Braveheart" lacks this depth.

Lack of depth is not such a terrible criticism of a film, not when the story, shallow as it may be, is so strong. And not when the performances are so strong, and the direction is so strong. But when people are talking about the greatest film of the 20th century, as many people here are claiming this to be, I think there needs to be a higher standard at work than that. The bottom line is that "Braveheart" is an excellent and highly entertaining film. Despite its length, it is riveting from beginning to end (except that denouement, which is a little drawn out there at the end). It is an emotional monster, getting right into your guts and kicking the wind out of you again and again. The supporting cast is wonderfully. The political intrigue going on is fascinating. But, this is not the best ever. For me, it would probably fall somewhere in the lower half of my personal top 100 list, if I ever bothered to compile one. I give it 7.5/10.