Inaccurate but highly entertaining historical tale.

Rating: 8/10 (5 November 2004)

Circa 1300 a Scot by the name of William Wallace rises up against the tyranny that he sees all around him and fights the English for the freedom of his country.
History and film are strange bedfellows. While opening up the eyes of the cinema-goer to events that they know nothing (or care little) about, they also open a debate about intent, motive and accuracy that can never be closed.
No historical film ever made is accurate simply because all history is open to interpretation or being mis-recorded. Or even not recorded at all. Equally how can a three hour film take you back in time and hope to scratch the surface of the moral values and education levels of the day?
We really know next to nothing about Wallace (the key source for this script is a poem!), but we know very little about Shakespeare either and he was a public figure living in the world's largest city. What chance has history got with a lowland (highland for cinematography reasons here) Scot?
Certainly Wallace existed and certainly many of the battles presented here are real, but it plays Hollywood games with many of the key facts and at least one key romance is provably false. Thankfully it does portray the hard life of hard people with a certain amount of accuracy.
(The IMDb Trivia and Goofs sections for this movie is an absolute must for understanding this film.)
This is a big budget Hollywood film and having put up the money they have the right to call the tune. This includes scenes as ridiculous as riding in to a castle on horseback (how is this possible with drawbridges, etc.?) and having the said animal open the door with its front hooves! In the words of the joke, from then on the scene gets a bit silly.
For the needs of America the film takes a twin-track approach to motivation: Wallace has reason to want personal revenge (I won't spoil it) as well as revenge for his countrymen for all the English have done to them. He is charged to the brim with outrage, although this point in history was actually a quiet period for English/Scottish hatred and maybe that is why so much fell on deaf ears.
To make Wallace look better and more important, other key Scottish historical figures - such as Robert the Bruce - are shown to be weak if not outright weasels. An angle that seems to fly over the heads of Scottish Nationalists who champion the film.
The medieval battle scenes are very frightening. Probably as accurate as anything that has been put down on film without making it a literal - rather than metaphorical - blood bath.
The "sixty pounds a day" Irish army (or reservists) going at it hammer and tong with only one or two looking like they are not very serious about it. The scenes with a fake horse and the incoming arrows is especially memorable.
People say we (the English) are the bad guys here, but I cannot be really bothered. This is so far back in time it might as well be another planet. Rape, plunder and rough justice were probably viewed in a very different light by both sides in this argument.
Gibson is really too old (and too short) for the lead role and as a result other roles have to be over-aged cast as well, including his wife Murron (Catherine McCormack) - who would probably be seen as middle-aged judged by the life expectancy of the day!
However he directs well and keeps a balance between telling a story and simply entertaining the masses, winning the Best Picture Oscar with only his second effort behind the lens. His first film - The Man Without A Face - was as dreadful as this is good.