A decent enough film but a historical joke

Rating: 7/10 (19 December 2000)

I am a fan of this particularly period in English History and when I initially saw Braveheart I recognised that this whole story is a complete fabrication and bears no resemblance to the truth at all. But I didn't worry too much - surely everyone would recognise that this is just a film? But no - it seems that a lot of people have swallowed this drivel and think that its all true.
This film is not just a little bit inaccurate, its a complete and utter joke historically. Just because Edward I (or Longshanks as the film constantly refers to him) died nearly seven hundred years ago is not an excuse to assassinate his character and to depict him as a coward is a complete disgrace. Edward had another nickname apart from Longshanks - The Lion of Justice - now I doubt he got that from being a tyrant!!!! This film makes the classic mistake of judging historical events and characters by todays standards rather than the context in which they existed. The political and social environment of medieval Europe was a lot different to modern-day USA, and do not be thinking that the Scots themselves were averse to invading weaker countries - they attempted to invade Ireland while Bruce was on the throne under the pretence of 'helping' them (they lost!). Now, I have the utmost respect for Wallace, but to depict him as a moral crusader is way off the mark - he was certainly capable of acts of brutality and barbarism himself. The character of Robert Bruce is equally inaccurate - being depicted as feeling guilty over changing sides when in fact all of his actions were for his own gain - and this is a man who murdered another Scottish claimant to the throne in cold blood - hardly a nice guy!
The storyline and characters in the film are also terribly one-dimensional. Every single Englishman in this film is evil and cowardly - there are no good English people to create a conflict in the English camp that would have made things more interesting. The English, like all European and World powers have been guilty of their fair share of atrocities in the past, none of which I am proud of, but to cast us as complete villains is clearly racism. Also, the plot has far too many holes and the characters do not behave logically - for example a royal French princess (Isabella) falling for a common Scottish peasant (although in reality Wallace was not a peasant and Isabella was only a child when Wallace died anyway and she certainly never met him). Edward also behaves illogically - loosing arrows on his own troops and throwing a young nobleman out of his castle window. The barons in England were immensely powerful at this time, and the king could not just do as he pleased without repercussions. However, perhaps the best joke of all in this film is the suggestion that Wallace was the father of Edward III. Apart from the fact that Edward III apparently looked very similar to Edward I and every bit a Plantagenet, he was born about 7 years after Wallace died anyway. There are enough historical inaccuracies in this film to fill a book.
As a piece of cinema this film is highly entertaining, if a little simplistic in plot. The battle scenes are exciting (although not accurate re-enactments of the battles they represent) and the story interesting enough to keep you watching. So, watch it and enjoy - but please treat it as a work of fiction, as apart from the names of the characters this is clearly what it is. History has always contained more exciting stories than fiction ever could - but the fact that the scriptwriters of this film needed to be so economical with the truth tells its own story - Wallace's life, although historically important, wasn't that interesting at all in reality.