Almost great, but not quite

Rating: 7/10 (24 May 2000)

There's a lot to love about Braveheart: an engaging, sweeping story, amazing battle scenes, a host of fantastic supporting performances and an achingly beautiful soundtrack that should have definitely won the Best Score Oscar.

However, there's one reason why I'd never ever call this movie a classic, and for me, the problem lies with Mel Gibson. I'm not saying his performance is weak or inefficient: Gibson's Wallace is a passionate leader as well as a masterful swordsman. But, through the entire long run of the movie, I could never shake off the feeling that the man on the screen wasn't a medieval Scotsman, but a 20th century actor wearing a rather silly-looking wig. In short, I simply didn't believe in the main character, I could never believe that it was William Wallace up there on the big screen. I realised it even more distinctly after I've seen 'Gladiator' with Russell Crowe, now that, to me, was a 100% credible performance in a historical epic. And since I could never believe in Wallace, I couldn't particularly care about the character and what was happening to him. I wasn't moved or saddened during the execution scene: to me it was simply a grisly affair that stroke no emotional chords whatsoever. Because of that, I would give Braveheart 7.5 out of 10, but I'd give it full 10 if only the main character felt more real and credible to me.