Historically inaccurate, whitewashed garbage.

Rating: Null/10 (24 June 2000)

I gave Braveheart and earnest chance upon first viewing, but halfway through I jsut could NOT believe how terribly inaccurate this film was. I don't mind a little bit of poetic license to spice things up, but this film goes way too far. To begin with, Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace as this lion-ish freedon fighter with a knack for Martin Luther King-style speeches is grossly exaggerated. Wallace was actually a pretty crude, foul man by all historical accounts. Not some romance-book cover icon dashing into battle with chest exposed. Wallace wanted his own freedom...he wasn't some eloquent scholar or brilliant tactician. He was an ordinary man who decided to lead this crusade for the logical purpose of tiring from English tyranny. Last I checked, any evidence of the affair Wallace had with the English royalty is SKETCHY at best. Hardly even fact. Making it such a heavy piece of the film was not exactly the most credible route to take. The one-dimensional characters don't help much either. Wallace is surrounded by what might as well be the supporting cast in the average modern-day action film. We even get one-liners!! Gee..that was creative. However, what really made this film subpar for me was the ending. In reality, Wallace died a simple death. Not some martyr-esque way where he shouted "Freedom" from the rooftops. In fact, some accounts claim he actually recounted his beliefs for leniency. The story would have been far more gutsy had it been realistic and balanced, rather than some machine written action film set in medieval times. Mel Gibson obviously has talent...his ego just seems to get in the way.