Would you trade your land for freedom?

Rating: 9/10 (21 February 2008)

Gibson, to create "Braveheart", pulled from every epic imaginable. His use of battle sequences, heroics, and individuality ring eerily close to that of "Spartacus", "Gladiator", and "Ben-Hur", yet even with these clichés riding well within the film, Gibson creates his own style and voice. Watching this epic, one must take it in four different slices to fully appreciate the work, and while they all may pair differently apart, it is what they do together that creates the magic. To begin, the direction is nearly flawless. A scene that stands out is when one of the nobles is dreaming of an attacking Wallace, only to wake and witness Wallace barge in through the door in a beautiful black stallion. It, like many other scenes, was breathtaking and flawless. Gibson has an eye for shots that are considered "beautifully gruesome", meaning that colors, placement, and camera angle are visionary, while the action on screen may make your stomach a bit squeamish. His direction showed a realistic view of the battle and filth surrounding Scotland during this dark time, and it is his work behind the camera that continues to make this film rank amongst the greatest ever.
The next element that one must slice into is the story, which in my eyes, is the weakest element to this film. While it is emotional to watch the love story unfold, the eye-candy battle sequences, and the picture-esquire view of Scotland, there seemed to be a lacking "meat" to this story. Wallace was angered by what happened to his one true love, but we never get the chance to see his years of living with Uncle Argyle come into fruition. He spouts Latin and French randomly, he uses original battle tactics, and there is talk of Rome at one point, but I wouldn't have found it difficult at all to see a young William Wallace take shape under Argyle. It would have been impressive to see this hero's roots, to take his passion from more than just his father's death into a whole new realm. Throughout this film, watching it in 2008, there wasn't much substance to Wallace. He fought with pride, patriotism, and with his heart, but we never were able to define him as a character. We knew he could fight  but how? We knew he loved this girl from the village  but we needed a deeper back story! The fight scenes were brilliant, but they did not help me see the true William Wallace. We charged through the film making it from points A to B to C, but never gave us the appetizers in between. More critical today of films than I was in 1995, perhaps a viewpoint from the English side would have strengthened the background. I don't believe all English were this harsh, where were the other elements that may have helped Wallace's crusade? These are just missing pieces that would have strengthened "Braveheart" and pushed it to a new level.
Needless to say, the next slice is sound. The power of the battlefield, the yell of Wallace's "FREEDOM" and the bagpipes echoing through James Horner's score engulfs the power of the film. It is the sound that makes "Braveheart" the epic that it is. Without the sounds of battle, without the sounds of the majestic mountains, without the sound of love  this could not have won the awards it did. As a viewer, it is the most exciting part of this film and the flawless. While one can argue there are directorial decisions that Gibson could have done better, stronger acting choices, and a more structured story  it is the sound that goes without question. It is perfection. Horner's work is mesmerizing and fantastic. He should have won an Oscar for his sole work on this picture.
Finally, there is the acting of "Braveheart". Gibson wasn't nominated for an Oscar, which doesn't surprise me watching it now in 2008. Gibson, prior to this film, was thought of as the pretty boy/bad boy persona. Seeing it in the theaters women were swooning over the scantily clad Gibson and that in itself proves that he didn't shake the predetermined image. There were scenes in which Gibson was smiling, or that his eyes seemed to be bluer than the sky, or that blood seemed to be splattered to an exact location on his body  he seemed to have trouble shaking the beauty of Gibson  and I fault him for that. The others in the film were decent, but nobody stood out as exemplary. Coupled with the less meaty story, the characters seemed cliché ridden. There was the "best-friend", the "love-interest", the bad King, and the loyal psychopath  all of which can be seen in any other period piece film. I don't believe the acting was up to par with the rest of the film, and the Academy noticed.
Overall, despite my best efforts to find major flaws with this film, it is still an amazing piece of cinema to watch. "Braveheart" deserves every award that it has won and others should credit it as the launching pad that finally gave us "Last Temptation of Christ" and "Apocalypto". Gibson has taken his fame from this film, changed the glamour of it all, and handed us some gritty portraits of the past. I wish he could have done the same here, but I don't think 1995 was ready for it. Gibson pushed the envelope with gore and carnage, and it continues to steal your breath away  yet "Braveheart" needed to be more than just that. He couples it with amazing sound, but troubles it with a struggling story and weak characters. Watch it  over and over. It may be a long film, but it is worth every minute.
Grade: **** out of *****