Historical ? Do you mean hysterical ?

Rating: 4/10 (19 September 2010)

Unbelievable. I'm talking about the Oscars, and #85 in the top 250, and 8.4 stars. And the story and the make-up. I would like to like this movie. I like the triumph of the underdog against long odds, and mourn his ending: betrayed, hanged, drawn and quartered. I like the Victorian statues dotted all over Scotland, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Stirling and other places, and the plaque in Smithfield. I thought it was kind of funny when the boyfriend starting blathering on about his PhD in military strategy, thinking he'd be made a general, and got chucked off the battlements. I like McGoohan, and I used to like Mad Mel. I was even mildly entertained when watching it. But coming out of the cinema I felt seriously let down. Fantasy fare for ten year olds.
I've read about Wallace, quite a bit in fact, and this was just barmy. Gladiator was hard enough to swallow (Maximus fights the Roman Emperor in the Colosseum?). Braveheart was simply impossible. The blue paint was ludicrous for a start. It went out of fashion circa 55 BC, twelve hundred years before, and was never Scottish warpaint. Some of the positive reviews here make me want to scream, laughing. Did I know that William Wallace was Robin Hood? No, I didn't, and nor does anyone else. Did I know that the next king of England had Oor Wullie for a dad? Give us a break, puh-lease.
What a missed opportunity. There are just about enough solid and well-documented records about Wallace to tell a rousing good story, within the bounds of sanity and probability. This is not it. Scotland for Ever! You englischer Schweinhund!