Historically inaccurate and unbelievable.

Rating: 1/10 (19 February 2014)

To be fair, viewed as a cinematic project, this was good with very realistic battle scenes and overall landscape. However, from a historical point of view, it is utter tripe. On 25 January 1308, Edward II married Isabella of France, yet the movie purports to have Wallace impregnate the princess of Wales at some point before he died while she is married to Edward II. Yet the 'fact' is, Wallace was executed three years before the Princess was even married. Given that the princess didn't give birth until 1312, that must have been one heck of a gestation period, 7 years to be exact. Also, at the battle of Stirling, or more accurately 'The Battle of Stirling Bridge', Wallace did not defeat heavy chivalry using lines of disciplined troops carrying long stave's. He defeated the English because the English were forced to cross a narrow bridge, and once penned in, they were easier to kill. This was compounded by the rout into the cavalry and the collapse of the bridge leading to many troops drowning. Wallace was a guerrilla fighter, not a strategist. This might have been a great movie if Mel Gibson had kept to the truth, as it is, it is a seriously marred piece of sensationalist anti-English hokum that would be more at home as a work of fiction that one supposedly based on fact.