Edward Shawshanks

Rating: 2/10 (3 October 2007)

Dang, it looks like all of them starry-eyed folks from "The Shawshank Redemption" fan club got on their horses and rode over here to watch (and fulsomely praise) this film!
However, this slop of revisionist history made by the Holocaust/Christian revisionist is much worse than the ridiculously overrated "Shawshank". I mean, I've seen more incisive character depth and subtlety in "Highlander: The Final Dimension". If this won "Best Picture", couldn't Mario Van Peebles at least win "Best Actor"?
I must admit - I didn't watch every scene. Instead, I fast-forwarded over the most obvious parts, and since the film was nothing but obvious, it made for a more coherent ride. Done in 1.5 hours, this film might have rated 4 stars (out of 10, mind you).
Instead, it is what it is, and it certainly is the worst film to win a Best Picture Oscar since that snorefest known as "Out of Africa". Every character is a bolt of evil or a bolt of good so that you can cheer or sneer without issue. Edward I Shawshanks (okay, Longshanks), played sneeringly by Patrick McGoohan, is really given the smear, and William Wallace, almost unanimously proclaimed by historians as a boor/rogue, is turned into legend by Obersturmbanfuhrer Gibson. His performance (in partnership with the wig) is laughably bad. His scenes with Marceau, who (G*d love her) tries her best, have that campy oil-and-water feel straight out of "Moment By Moment" or Streisand's "A Star is Born".
Let's get out, but I do have to say that the thing that I hated the most was the true WWF feel of the battle scenes and the camaraderie of Mel and his mates. I mean, I love The Undertaker and all, but do I need to see him in a Budweiser commercial masquerading as a historical film?
Me? I'm just waiting for a real good film about Edward II...now that guy was a piece of work! Meanwhile, I give this mess 2 out of 10.