Mooning is the film's highlight

Rating: 1/10 (1 June 2002)

I am, admittedly, not a Mel Gibson fan. But the laurels accorded this film by critics and the Academy make a response obligatory. This is one of the WORST films about medieval England ever made. Because of Mel's self-adulation, his enemies must always appear in the worst light, justified or not. And so we have Mel as William Wallace, in reality a rogue and vagrant, who even the nobles of Scotland would not tolerate, as he was a commoner and beneath their contempt; and we have Edward I, who some historians have dubbed, "the greatest English King", and "the English Justinian" because he was a lawyer, statesman, soldier, etc. In other words, a stellar King, and an admired and effective ruler. But, wait: in Mel's hands, William Wallace (who he conveniently portrays) becomes a democratic model spouting egalitarian principles totally at odds with the England of 1299 and more redolent of America, 1776: and -- BIG SURPRISE -- as Mel's opponent, Edward I is trashed by Patrick McGoohan, who plays the character as a combination of Darth Vader and Heinrich Himmler. Mel wears the White Hat and his enemies wear the Black Hat - get it?? Some films, like "Spartacus" and "The Lion In Winter" and "Glory" are fairly faithful to history; others, like "A Man for All Seasons" and "Anne of The Thousand Days" contain nuggets of truth, couched in gorgeous scenery and period costumes. And then there's, "Braveheart" - a film that might fascinate Mel's fans, but which leaves everything to be desired where historical truth is concerned. "Braveheart" is the kind of cheesy junk that future generations will term, "so bad, it's good." "Glen or Glenda" and "Braveheart": one hell of a double feature.