Wallace or Gibson? (possible light spoilers)

Rating: 3/10 (17 June 2001)

If anybody who reads this has ever read one of my other reviews, they will know that they tend to be long and that I always have lots to say.
Not so with Braveheart. The film does not leave much to say. It's the hugely historically inaccurate film of Scottish hero William Wallace's life: the death of his father, his life with his uncle, the tragedy that leads him to fight the English, his victory at Sterling and his eventual downfall. All this sadly directed by and starring the ever-awful Mel Gibson, boasting an absolutely pathetic accent. I should know, my family's Scottish!
It's a shame, because apart from Gibson, it's quite an enjoyable romp. It's no Oscar-deserver (1995 should have gone to The Usual Suspects and The Cure, the latter didn't even get any nominations, a travesty!), but it's fun. But Gibson manages to cross time and become Gibson of the 13th century. Wallace is just a Scottish Martin Riggs of Lethal Weapon or Porter from Payback. And they were suspending belief for the 1990s, he becomes ridiculous here.
The supporting cast, on the hand, is quite good. Ian Bannan gives a good, albeit unbelievable performance as Robert the Bruce's leper father, the kid who plays his son is marvellously expressive (one to watch) and Robert the Bruce is well-played by Aidan Quinn, I believe it is (forgot to check, I'm afraid). But Gibson is still just Gibson, and is looking silly.
I would like to end by noting that it is historically inaccurate, all that stuff with the Princess of Wales is laughable. The battles are inaccurately portrayed (there were no longbows at Sterling), Wallace did not dress like that (he's a knight in every picture I've seen of him) and Robert the Bruce's dad wasn't a leper. And those bits with the Princess really are stupid, just a chance for the public to see Mel kissing a girl, what poor cinema! And the portrayal of the evil English is exaggerated, they were evil, but not that evil!
It's a shame, with a bit of finesse and work and without Mel Gibson, this could have been a very entertaining historical drama, along the lines of Elizabeth. The locations are fantastic, the music is touching and it's pretty entertaining during the battle scenes. But with Gibson directing, it becomes unbelievable and cheap. It feels less like a tribute to Wallace as one to Gibson himself, which takes away the point of a historical drama. I give it 3/10.
Uppers: 1)The cast (except Gibson); 2)The backgrounds; 3)The music; 4)The battle scenes
Downers: 1)Mel Gibson's big-headed filming and attitude; 2)Totally inaccurate historically; 3)Full of exaggerations; 4)Gibson's accent; 5)How can they make a Hollywood flick about British History?