Bad History, Bad Drama.

Rating: 1/10 (12 May 2006)

Mel Gibson really does seem to have a downer on the English doesn't he? But my dislike of this film is certainly not based on some misplaced jingoistic pride.
I'm quite a history fan and I don't mind at all when the sins of the father are hung out to dry. But I do insist on credible - don't insult my intelligence with a pantomime villain and romanticised plot developments. William Wallace was the father of Edward III? Give me a break, Edward II having other um, 'interests' doesn't mean he couldn't father a child, or that his wife is likely to sleep with Scottish outlaws.
As for Edward, the ruthless, brilliant strategist and general; getting his archers to fire on his own forces in a mêlée - yes that must be how he was so successful a military commander. Confidence and loyalty-inspiring stuff.
The only difference between this and the Alan Ladd Knight of Olde fifties Hollywood crap is that you saw people's arms being chopped off. Yes, the violence is more realistic. That's it.
I prefer my corn on the cob, not the screen.