a near-perfect contemporary epic with riveting action scenes, a superb soundtrack, competent acting, and high-velocity pacing

Rating: 9/10 (6 August 2009)

The greatest pleasure that I myself derived from Mel Gibson's Academy Award-winner "Braveheart" was not that it was a superb, gripping modern-day epic but that it was a superb, gripping modern-day epic that wisely reused a lot of the traits that made its truly wonderful ancestors like "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962), "The Ten Commandments" (1956), Stanley Kubrick's own medieval epic "Spartacus" (1960) and "Gone with the Wind" (1939). "Braveheart" is a very simplistic epic and highly inaccurate historically and it's not on par with some of its influences, but I will say this: it is a truly exciting and delightful film and I was not bored with a single moment of it. And again, I saw that same spirit that made classics like "Lawrence of Arabia" and I have some hope that maybe Hollywood will revert back to the characteristics of its Golden Age.
Earlier I mentioned the film was historically inaccurate and it is. It's based on real events and real people from the 13th century. Mel Gibson not only directs the picture but stars as William Wallace, a Scottish warrior who rebelled as the tyrannical king Edward "Longshanks" (Patrick McGoohan). In this film version, Wallace responds aggressively when the king's soldiers assault and murder his wife (Catherine McCormack) and inspires other Scotsmen to fight with him. And what follows are some of the bloodiest and riveting battle sequences I've ever seen.
The battle scenes in "Braveheart" are the best thing in the picture. The well-depicted Battle of Stirling sequence reportedly took six weeks to film and over a million feet of film was shot and this is believable when one examines the high tenseness, the close quarters of the camera, the amount of explicit gore and violence, and the ferocity that is displayed by the actors and extras. Now as for the human stories in the film, that's where the simplistic nature comes in. The human drama areas in regards to Wallace and his wife, his romance with the princess of England (Sophie Marceau), the king's disappointment in the abilities of his son, are very unsophisticated, but they don't have to be. At nearly three hours in length, "Braveheart" still manages to push itself along rather speedily and the somewhat underdeveloped background stories neither get in the way nor slow things down. Of course, the strongest compliments go out to Mel Gibson, who put a lot of responsibility on himself. Gibson is a great actor and he's an even better director. He's great both in front and behind the camera. And the fact that he can juggle both so magnificently makes him one hundred percent worthy of the Best Director Oscar that he won. My compliments also go out to the late Patrick McGoohan, who is quite sinister and devilish as the pagan king who not only wants to destroy the rebellion he's triggered, but to destroy the name of those who built up the courage to face him.
Another thing I'd liked to return to is the hints of a return to Hollywood's Golden Age, when it had the nerve to make movies like this once upon a time. Take note how in the film, like Kubrick's "Spartacus", the important roles are not played by handsome, lean young actors. Rather, they are taken by performers well into the middle sections of their lives. This is a very daring and brave thing to do in Hollywood these days, since it almost seems routine to cast somebody who serves more as eye candy for the audience to play a hero.
In short, "Braveheart" is a fast-moving, highly powerful, somewhat simplistic, but overall delightful modern-day medieval epic. Sporting a great cast, a wonderful music score by James Horner, gorgeous cinematography, and of course, the hair-raising, jaw-dropping battle scenes, it is one of the more enjoyable films I've seen in recent times.