"Apollo 13" Lost The Best Picture Oscar To This?

Rating: 2/10 (4 March 2018)

I watched "Braveheart" on cable last night and I wondered why I bothered.
The movie was slow, plodding, and bloated. The pacing was such that one could stop watching for a few minutes while one went and made supper, return, and not really miss anything.
The only character who was the least bit interesting was Edward Longshanks, played by Patrick McGoohan. Then again, Mr. McGoohan has often played such people (e. g., Number 6 in his TV series "The Prisoner"). I could well imagine Edward being tough, brooking no debate or challenge to his rule.
Everyone else was largely colourless and the portrayal of William Wallace didn't particularly convince me that he was the leader of a rebellion. The romantic angle between Wallace and Princess Isabelle was laughable at best. I mean, really--a royal consorting with a serf?
Other reviewers have pointed out historical inaccuracies in the movie. That's nothing new--for example, take a look at Errol Flynn's portrayal of George Custer in "They Died With Their Boots On".
So why did this movie win the Best Picture Oscar and not "Apollo 13"? I admit that I'm biased because not only am I a space buff but I was in high school when the events for which that mission is remembered occurred. The latter, however, had action and suspense and, on the whole, was tightly-paced. Even the historical inaccuracies are relatively minor. "Braveheart", on the other hand, was ponderously dull and, for me, a complete waste of time.
Maybe there were political reasons for it. It certainly couldn't have been on the artistic merits of the movie.
It's the second time I saw the movie. The first time was nearly 20 years ago. I didn't like it then and I didn't like it now.