Good but not Braveheart

Rating: Null/10 (5 July 2000)

The battle re-enactments were excellent if gory. The actors were terrific more so because they didn't haul in the usual Hollywood suspects. Mel's ferocity was incredible.
That said I have a problem with some of the aspects of this movie. Who was ironing the gowns that sister-in-law was wearing on the beach? Why was her bosom the only remarkable thing in every shot of her? Why did everybody look entirely too well fed and clean when they're tromping through the swamp? Did the Redcoats ever commit such an incident as happened at the church? Or is that a bit of poetic license? Why was he a widower and had a child who wouldn't speak? You can see the screenwriters saying to themselves: ''We've got to make him even more pitiful. A deceased wife isn't enough. Everybody goes for a mute child. Add it to the list.''
In all it's worth seeing, but it's not the classic that Braveheart was. I didn't get caught up emotionally like that previous movie.