Awful, AWFUL Film

Rating: 1/10 (29 March 2008)

I hate Braveheart! As an Englishman and as a history student I am insulted by this film. It is obvious that Mel Gibson has a hatred for England and Britain as whole and Randell Wallace only looked at a basic history of the Scotland war and I mean really basic!
The film is about William Wallace's rising against the English in the late 13th Century. They are many historical inaccuracies in the film. I can understand minor things just to make the story flow better but Braveheart takes the biscuit. William Wallace was a minor noble and he wouldn't have lived in a shack, and most of the Scottish nobles in the film also were living in poor conditions which was not the case. Scottish nobles were well-off and wouldn't have been must different to English nobles. Many Scottish nobles tended to own land in England as well as Scotland. The film make out that England had invaded and occupied Scotland for a long time, what really happened was Edward I wasn't too interested in Scottish affairs at first and he was later invited to help the Scottish to solve the crisis in picking a new king. However, Edward I became upset when his ally he made king tried to flex his muscles. Braveheart also makes out the Scottish army ran around painted themselves blue and defeated a superior army with ease. The Scottish army in the late 13th century wouldn't have been much different to any army in Western Europe and would have been as well armed and armoured to as the English army. The only different between the English and Scottish armies were the Scottish army was more infantry based whilst the English army was more calvary based. I personally think this film is pretty insulting to Scotland as well as England! William Wallace would not have fought for revenge or freedom but for his own personal interest, believing he would have got a better deal any an independent Scotland then under semi-English rule. They was no idea of nationalism or the nation-state in the medieval period. As well as already mentioned many Scottish nobles had land in England and many had English names like Campbell. The film also ignores that William Wallace was also a brutal man, not some heroic revolutionary. They are other things such as the Battle for Stirling Bridge was not fought at a bridge and that it was implied that Queen Isabel was in love with Wallace and that he fathered Edward III, which couldn't have been possible because at the time Wallace's death Isabel was six-years-old and lived in France. Some people have praised the acting in the film, I ask why? I don't think its anything special. Mel Gibson's performance wasn't particularly good, and only Sophie Marceau stood out to me. Edward I was a one-dimensional villain, showing he takes joy out of violence and death, in real-life he was an experience commander, but he was no different to any other Christain king at the time. William Wallace was a simple man who was driven to going to war, against this did not happen. Prince Edward was effeminate, weakly wimp: he was bisexual and not a good military commander, but he was not weak willed and he couldn't have lasted in medieval society if he was effeminate. He was also famous be being a fit man. The portrayal of Prince Edward was homophobic.
This was a hate-filled movie that shouldn't have been made. If it was made as a fictional film set in an made-up country it would have called unrealistic. This was a weak film and should not have won Oscars for best Director or best Film, the Usual Suspect was hundred times better and should have won those Oscars. The only good thing to come out of the film was some good action and the costumes of the English army. But this is not enough to save this film and people have seen Mel Gibson and Randall Wallace for what they really are for making films such as the Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto and Pearl Harbor. If you have any taste at all don't watch this film!