I found this DVD in the library classed under non-fiction....

Rating: Null/10 (1 October 2008)

.....finally I watched Braveheart for the first time.
Is it true that the Scots watch this each year on the day Scottish parliament opens? I bet it's effective in getting them baying for English blood. Gibson has a gift for directing bloody action. But why make a historical film that is so inaccurate?
I'm no historian, but I do recall a little history from school books. Enough to know that Wallace didn't live in a thatched hut. That Edward II was manly and not a limp-wristed girl; his favourite hobby -- apart from hanging out with Piers -- was rowing.....and swimming and shoeing horses. And Wallace did not father Queen Isabella's child, the future king of England, because he did not ever meet her. (Isabella was in France, about 13 when Wallace died, and Edward II only married her 2-3 years after Wallace's death, and after Edward I's death.) Sorry for the spoiler.
Do these 'errors' in historical films matter? Some will say they don't, that film is just for entertainment and legend. But many people who watch films never voluntarily read a book. These films replace history books. They become the common, accepted knowledge. Isn't this dangerous?
I know a non-reader who is obsessed about popular history (i.e. he mainly likes the bits where some guy is slaughtering some other guy). All his knowledge is taken from films and he believes he speaks with ultimate authority, even when he announces that Wallace was very likely father to England's royalty.. I've seen him a few times locking horns with someone who knows his stuff, and it's just embarrassing. And sad. For why should he suspect that Mel is fiddling with the facts to this extent?