The Academy got it wrong but.....

Rating: 7/10 (7 May 2010)

I have tried to sit through this film on many occasions and haven't managed for several reasons, the primary one being that the Academy thought Gibson was a better director than Michael Mann and Ron Howard ( I don't recall if Mann was nominated, he certainly should have been), another being that I just can't stand the sight of Mel Gibson, another being that the Scottish accents are absolutely DREADFUL. I have, however, set myself a goal to see every Best Picture winner in reverse chronological order (yes I am an anorak) and Braveheart happens to be the first I haven't seen. So I finally managed to get through it and my conclusions are as follows:

It's really quite a well made film, actually most of Gibsons directing efforts are good films production wise - I guess it wouldn't have had such commercial appeal if he used Scottish actors and no-one understood what the hell they were saying -the Academy showered it with awards because it has all the ingredients of what they normally give all the big awards to ie, an inspirational true story (although Gibson was quite creative with historical events), a great soundtrack, a tragic tear-jerking ending....

So yes, the Academy got it wrong, but it's not the first or last time, the biggest injustice ever is that Slumdog Millionaire was showered with so many awards, it was a good, entertaining film, but that's it, no way it deserved the awards it got. Oh, and considering the other nominees for '95, I think probably Sense and Sensibility and Apollo 13 were better films than Braveheart, but 'Heat' was the best big studio film of the year and it wasn't nominated, and Michael Mann was the best director.