Hollywood at its worst

Rating: 2/10 (6 July 2007)

As a film it is obviously intended for children and retards; looks good but the dialogue and plot are puerile, the directing and acting, especially of Gibson, are over-the-top. Then we come to the story......"I know" someone said, "lets take a factual story and rewrite it so that not one single fact remains". Why?? I've never understood the Scottish fascination with Wallace - he was a useless commander who won one battle in his life by ignoring the code of chivalry and attacking while the English crossed Stirling Bridge and then spent the rest of his life hiding from the English and leading his band of cut-throats over the border to destroy undefended farms and villages. His next biggest victory after Stirling Bridge was against an English Nunnery where he raped all the nuns and killed all their goats and sheep. Not in the film? I wonder why. Eventually even his Scottish supporters got so peed off with him they deliberately shopped him to the English.
And if I was more than 1/4 Scottish I'd be a bit miffed that the Scots were painted with blue woad, more than a thousand years after the demise of the Picts who may have worn woad but were a different race to the Scots