The end justifies the means

Rating: 8/10 (24 May 1999)

Spartacus probably will for all time be the definitive epic film about Martyrdom and the fight for freedom against oppression. It manages to succeed better than Braveheart because it depicted a hero on which less than a page of recorded history is known. Therefore the story doesn't leave itself open for historical inaccuracies and, with traditional hollywood elements, weaves together a tale of a man fighting against all odds for the two things that should matter most -- love and freedom. It also explores fascinating subplots to do with the corruption of power, the politics of ancient Rome and the meaning of loyalty which elevates the picture far higher than just an old Gladiator movie.
Braveheart, by aspiring to tell the story of a legendary martyr and hero, falls into the Hollywood trap of how much is fact and how much is fiction. The film is visually authentic but enough is known about Wallace to expose the several liberties the screenwriter and producers took with history. Some can be excused of course because of time constraints but others cannot be quite so forgiven. The omission of Stirling bridge is a strange decision but it is the contrived devices of pitting Wallace against the Queen romantically (and having her whisper to Long Shanks on his death bed she conceived Wallace's child) and the depiction of Robert the Bruce as an indecisive young nobleman getting counsel from his leper father (one almost expects the old man to say "the Dark side of the Force has many advantages my son.") and selling out Wallace on the battlefield only to see the light and take up wallace's struggle in the end, that are undeniably contrived and foolish. Other things such as the obligatory inclusion of an Irishman in Wallace's band to give the film contemporary pertinence and the scene where Wallace goes on a Rambo revenge quest against the Scottish lords who betrayed him in battle further discredit the film as an accurate document. The scene where he bursts into that bedchamber at night on horseback and escapes through the window was old fashioned Hollywood daring do better left to Errol Flynn and Tyrone Power. In this film it is just unbelievable.
As a history lesson Braveheart falls woefully short, and so too as an examination of Wallace himself and his politics. But does this mean the film is ineffective and bad? Absolutely not.
Braveheart packs an extraordinary amount of emotion into the story and succeeds in getting it's ultimate message across without question. Although a romanticised account it nevertheless has moments of sheer power. I dare anyone to deny they remained unmoved when wallace is drawn and quartered at the end and sees the vision of his dead wife walking amongst the crowd of onlookers before he carries out his final cry of freedom. Manipulative? Of course. And needed to bring the story full circle.
Technically, Mel went a little overboard with the slow motion sequences, which seem to add about ten minutes to the overall running time, and the film on a whole could have been cut by at least a half hour. The Battle scenes are incredible and the best ever shot as far as realism. Mel's performance, incidental as was John Wayne's when he was directing The Alamo, is quite good, though possibly a little too gentlemanly and clean cut at times for such a savage warrior.
Braveheart is not a great film, but it is recommended as a stirring cinematic experience. The fact that it rewrites history is not as important as it's final outcome. How ever Wallace got to his final torture and execution, he got there because he fought for the freedom of Scotland.