Energetic and well produced, but why praise it so much?

Rating: 2/10 (11 September 2004)

First off, unlike most reviewers who give this a lukewarm or low rating, I'm not interested in the politics of this movie. That said, what's up with the reviewer who said the only people who dislike this film are thin-skinned Englishmen? I certainly am not one.
People here have praised this film for it's acting. Mel Gibson's 'Scotsman' would be a poor attempt at serious acting, if it weren't for the fact that he seems to realize that the role is far above his abilities and so he plays it, literally, as a cocky 1980s American action hero in a medieval British setting. The story reads like it was written by someone who read a book called "Shakespeare 101." The themes are laughably simple: Freedom! Love! Fight for your country! - but to his credit, this is just the sort of one-dimensional fluff Gibson directs so well. The images and music may be stirring at first, but the schmaltz is so thick this film does not stand up to repeated viewings.
Two years later came another big-budget overproduced 3-hour 'epic', with similarly simple themes - this time though, with the love angle at the forefront. It won some of the same Oscars and even had a score by James Horner. That film was Titanic and just like Braveheart, it was well done and just 'worked' for many people. But over the years people were smart enough to look beyond the surface and see it for what it was - a childish, poorly written story that just looked and felt right. Why have so few been able to do the same for Braveheart? The answer: It's violent and bloody enough for people to think they're watching something important and life-changing. I could say the same for Gladiator.
That said, Braveheart is worth a viewing, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be rated an 8 or have a place in the top 250. It's just Hollywood cheese at it's best - and worst.