Braveheart

In order to maintain the appearence of objectivity, I was going to rate this movie 4 stars. But I just couldn't. It really deserves 5, and it's going to get every one of them. This movie features some of the most stunning cinematography I've ever seen (scenes of particular brilliance include the deer-hunting scene and the slo-mo shots right before Gibson's first rebellion), impeccable acting (I don't know why the British have been hiding their actors from the American film industry - every one of the British/Scottish actors in the film was amazing, and Patrick McGoohan (sp) gave an incredible performance as Longshanks, not to mention newcomer Sophie Marceau), a magical musical score, and on and on and on and on. Physical elements alone qualify this work for the title of Best Picture. Yet, a number of people chastise Gibson and the movie for a number of reasons, primarily its departure from historical accuracy. I do believe these people have missed the point, for I do not believe it is fair to criticise a movie for failing to realize a goal for which it never really strived. I wonder: do these same people criticize Homer's "The Odyssey"? Do historical hardbodies cast aspersions at T.H. White's "Once and Future King" for taking historical liberties with "King" Arthur? (For that manner, any of the hundreds of contributions to the Arthurian legend). What about Robin Hood? Beowulf? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? Why is it copacetic for a book to create a myth around a cultural hero, but when it comes to film we must be expected to be as straightlaced about historical fact as an army bootcamp is about bedmaking and floor cleaning? I have read a lot of reviews below and a number of criticisers of the film's historical authenticity spit out the word "epic" as if it is a word that the American film industry has abused and transmogrified into a catchphrase for luring in gullible American movie-goers. But I argue that Braveheart, and the historical inaccuracies which it adopts (and it adopts many, which are nicely pointed out elsewhere), fit the same formula for "Epic Fiction" that we use to classify great (and I mean, universally accepted as great) epic works of fiction such as the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc. These works are not about who did what where and when and in what fashion. They are about the myth, the hero, and the way that they have influenced the ideals of the culture (italicize that). Was there really a Grendel, a Cyclops shepherd, a Wizard named Merlin, or Chinese war heroes who could single-handedly take on a small army? No. And yet, these works of fiction (and the mythological heroes that they have created) have had as much if not more of an impact on their respective cultures than any real life historical event. The impact of the epic is therefore not to be underestimated. Does the fact that Gibson portrayed the battle of Sterling Bridge without a Bridge really make that much of a differnce? The end outcome was the same, at least from an idealogical point of view. He rallied his men to victory with brilliant tactics against insurmountable odds. The presence or absence of a bridge, naked men, or twenty foot spears does not change that. The myth survives. Finally, regarding historical accuracy, there is the fact that although the movie does take a lot of liberties in order to portray a THEME - I am intelligent enough to suspend my disbelief during the movie. Furthermore, after the movie is over, (and this is a credit to the movie-maker) I was intrigued enough to go do some research on the subject from an objective historical source to find out what really happened. If a work of art (which is not, I remind you, required to be objective - artistic objectivity is almost an oxymoron and film should not be treated differently in this regard than any other form of art) instills in me a desire to learn more about a subject while at the same time portraying well the epic themes it sets out to portray, then in my book it was a successful venture and worthy of all the accolades it receives....Again, this is an epic, and just as a Greek epic might portray the Trojans as ruthless savages and their own members as heroic visionaries, I think it is acceptable for a Scottish epic to do the same to the British. And calling Gibson a homophobic is just ridiculous. Whether or not Edward II was really gay is not important. If he was, then BY THE STANDARDS OF THE DAY, he was an outcast, and would have been perceived, especially by his father, as weak, without potential, and unfit to rule. If he wasn't gay, but was just disinterested in ruling a kingdom (and history is filled to the brim with examples of less than sterling royal progeny), he would have again been seen (especially by his father) as weak, without potential and unfit to rule (because fathers - especially kings - have expectations of their sons), and questions about his sexuality would have naturally begun to arise among the nobility and commonfolk. What we as viewers of a historical or epic piece of artwork must do is refrain from judging said work by our standards. Today, homosexuality is (for the most part) accepted by society. Back then, it wasn't, and the mere rumor was enough to get you rejected from society (and vice-versa). Therefore, in light of the times in which the movie is set, the portrayal of the weak fop of a prince, EdwardII, as homosexual is both acceptable and indicative of the society that the movie was trying to portray. It wouldn't, for example, have made much sense to portray Edward I as gay. Not because a gay man couldn't be a successful King or military leader, but because a gay man would never have achieved respect as a monarch - THEN - by the people or his enemy. In closing, this is an excellent film that deserves its status as a best picture, despite (and perhaps because of) its historical inaccuracies. I encourage anyone with any interest in medieval history to view it, because it might just entice you to look into more historically accurate documents that, while not as entertaining as the movie iteself, will give you a more wholistic picture of what really happened.

It seems incredibly remiss of me not to have reviewed one of my favorite movies, a definite Oscar-winning `Desert Island' disc of mine. As an early adopter of the DVD format it was a movie that I eagerly awaited on the shiny little discs, there was even a Web site launched by another fan with the sole express purpose of pressuring the studio into releasing the movie on the format. Thankfully Paramount relented in 2000 and finally released the movie and I was there the day it came out to eagerly snatch up my copy. The historical inaccuracies have been well documented in the past. Very little is known of the background to William Wallace, and what we do know comes mainly from an oral history originating after his death. Even what we do know is not translated accurately into the film. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which is portrayed here without the bridge. This is seen as critical by historians since the bridge played a role in the Scottish victory. However, as screenwriter Randall Wallace (who had never heard of his famous ancestor until a fateful trip to Scotland) said in a HISTORY channel documentary on the movie, the script holds true to the spirit of the Wallace history and technical issues finally proved prohibitive to filming the battle as it happened. The movie follows the story of William Wallace who led his native Scots in a revolt against the English King Edward the Longshanks (played with wonderful villainous relish by Patrick McGoohan). In an effort to "breed" out the Scots, Edward re-instigates an old practice whereby the English Lord blesses a marriage by taking the newly wed bride into his bed on the wedding night. Not willing to accept this Wallace and his bride (played by the impossibly beautiful Catherine McCormack) wed in secret. Then shortly after Wallace feels compelled to protect her from the lecherous advances of one of the Kings men, an action which leads to his bride being murdered by the English. The reaction by Wallace is swift and brutal, and the Scots march down into England to wreak revenge on their occupiers. Some of the violence is very graphic with heads getting lobbed off and severed arms spurting blood, but the graphic depiction of violence is necessary given that battles in that time were usually fought in close proximity and were violent. It's a story that I, as a native Scot, feel close to my heart and one that no doubt left an impact on the voters of Scotland who finally voted in the 1990s to partially secede from the United Kingdom to the extent that they now have their own parliament and are in control of most of their domestic policy. Perhaps surprising given his stature as one of Hollywood's leading men, Gibson handles his directorial duties expertly and in fact was recognized by the Academy in 1996 with a Best Director Oscar. He manages to weave together all the elements in what was a gigantic undertaking and gets fantastic performances from all involved. Special features on this DVD include a rather short behind-the-scenes featurette that includes shots of the Irish army dressing up as Scottish soldiers (yes, it was inexplicably filmed in Ireland and Scotland) , casting the movie (Gibson quite understandably was enchanted by McCormack's beauty) and problems they had in the making of the movie. There is also a rather breezy commentary by Gibson that I liked with only one exception. My favorite dialogue in the movie is the stirring pep talk given to his troops by Wallace before engaging the English, however in the commentary Gibson talks right through it. Still it's great to have the commentary on the disc, which was released at a time when star commentaries were rare. Overall then, the movie is an inspiring tale of courage and love. It's well worth giving it a spin in your DVD player and clocking in at three-hours well worth the price. Recommended.

Let's face it, you are either a Mel Gibson fan or you are not. His off camera and plain "off" days have more than once cost him in brownie points with his patrons, being both us out here and those dollar signs behind the gates of Hollywood castles. When Gibson directed and starred in Braveheart, he was at the pinnacle of his success and just about to take a quantum leap from there, which also succeeded as the release of this gorgeous epic that reportedly cost $53 Million to make in 1995. Mel had really piled on the carnage with a Mad Max series and a Lethal Weapon series. He also had a few "nice" dramatic roles in other films, and his stock had gone up as movies like The Man Without A Face, Gallipoli, The Bounty, and even his not so successful take on Hamlet, drew audience attention and box office dollars. Maverick, coming out shortly before Braveheart is a case in point, a critical flop but it raked in close to $200 million. So Mel was given all the room he needed to become not only William Wallace, but to marshal his forces like the battlefield William did. He amassed thousands of extras, horsemen and horses, stunt people and battlefield personnel galore; he managed to film complicated battle sequences, many of them, all drenched in a bloodbath, and directed this conflagration with amazing dexterity and focus; these scenes are never confusing, they are detailed and massive all at the same time, but painted with the cinematic finesse of Ridley Scott's epic sequences, hoisting Mel up to super-director status (he will repeat this ability several times over in the ensuing decades); Braveheart may just be Mel Gibson's masterpiece though! As William Wallace he even manages to flare his nostrils from horseback, wearing blue face paint, evincing the epic Gilgamesh/Beowulf mythic hero, an uncanny ability which cannot be denied, not too many actors, let alone actor-directors can accomplish some of the things Mel does in this film. He can subtly throw a humorous blow in our direction while we are still reeling from the pain and anguish of a prior scene, and it works like a mesmerizing spell. Actor and Director, both hats are perfectly aligned in the making of this film, his cinematic crew are easily as good as Ridley's from Gladiator - Kingdom of Heaven - Robin Hood fame. Mel makes you believe that what you are watching is true to life real history (even though it is only a poetic mythos built around true events and drawn more from literature than history), he envelopes you in the beautiful highland grasses, the damp stone living, the muddy quagmires, the misty hillocks, and the bloody aftermaths of open battlefields rife with death and decay. Mel fascinates, enthralls, and wrenches the emotions out of his audience. Braveheart is some of the best film making ever practiced, so if you have not yet, somehow, viewed this modern day classic, don't delay any longer.

Braveheart is a fictionalized telling of the life and death of William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson) who was a freedom fighter/knight in Scottland, who fought for Scottish independence against England. The movie is part love story, part revenge story, and part period piece. The supporting cast includes Sophie Marceau as Princess Isabella of France, Angus Macfadyen as Robert the Bruce, Patrick McGoohan as King Edward "Longshanks", Catherine McCormack as Murron MacClannough, Brendan Gleeson as Hamish, and Brian Cox as Argyle Wallace. It is well written and very well acted, and regardless of what you may think of him in real-life, Mel Gibson does a great job as a director, especially on the period pieces. For those who get the Sapphire Series Blu-Ray, the movie looks and sounds fantastic. The visuals are off the charts with the great cinematography, and the picture quality is much greater than it was with the original DVD release. There are a ton of extras for those who like watching the bonus material. Those include a timeline for the production of the movie, the fictional plot, and the historical events the movie was based on, a feature on the battlefields in Scottland, an hour-long documentary on the movie, a feature on the town of Smithfield, a commentary track on the movie by Mel Gibson, a conversation with the writer of the screenplay, a feature on the real William Wallace, and the trailers for the movie. Overall, the movie is wonderful. These days anything having to do with Mel Gibson is kind of a mixed bag. If you cannot separate his personal life from his professional one, and you can't stand what has come out about his personal life, then you will probably not want anything to do with this movie. If you are one who, even if you disagree with him or can't stand him, can still enjoy the movies he makes, and you like historical dramas, then this is definitely one that should not be missed.

Netflix’s recently released Outlaw/King starring Chris Pine spurred me to finally pick up my old review copy of Michael Penman’s Robert the Bruce: King of the Scots. I haven’t gotten very far, but Penman’s book is focused on the Bruce’s reign after Bannockburn, so William Wallace appears relatively early. And I can’t read about William Wallace without pulling out Braveheart. Braveheart starts off right, with an R-rating for “brutal medieval violence.” It has two themes: stabbing people and liberty, which puts it squarely in my wheelhouse. It also holds a special place it my heart because it was maybe the last movie I saw in the theater with my dad. The initial theater run was limited and traveling 30 minutes and getting into an R-rated movie was still a bit of a tall order. Braveheart is a great movie—well-acted, paced, told, everything—even if it does make only the vaguest nods toward the actual history and even if it does suffer from a bit of this-time-its-personal-itis (more on that in a bit). The complex character of Robert the Bruce, and his portrayal by Angus MacFayden, is an underappreciated highlight of Braveheart, which is fitting given today’s theme. (MacFayden, by the way, is reprising his most famous role in another Robert the Bruce movie, with this one nire directly positioned as a Braveheart sequel.) The most interesting contrast between Braveheart and Outlaw/King is in how they handle romance. In Braveheart, Wallace initially refuses to fight and only changes his mind after his wife is killed. (Which undercuts him as a patriot hero, even if it may have basis in fact.) That romance is what wins him the help of Isabella of France and then allows Wallace to literally cuck Edward II. In Outlaw/King, Bruce initially sends his new wife away so he can deliberate with his brothers over how to respond to Wallace’s execution. But Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of an important ally of Edward I, chooses him. And she pays for it. When she is taken, Bruce doesn’t run off. He wants to, but his duty (and, frankly, his ambition) won’t allow it. In Braveheart, the romance is just a plot device. In Outlaw/King, the romance and the plot each enhance the other.

Mel Gibson took not only a page, but a whole chapter out of David Lean's book when he directed this. The cinematogrophy is nothing short of brilliant. The sweeping shots of the Scotland countryside, the beautiful fields, the mountains, the forests, etc... are breathtaking. There hasn't been anything like it since Lawrence of Arabia. A bold statement perhaps, seeing as there have been many films made between 1962 and 1995, but I feel confident in making it. Moving on, the actual story in this movie is riveting. It follows the life of a Scottish man named William Wallace (interestingly enough, the script was written by Randal Wallace, a descendent of the real-life main character) who starts a rebellion against England to win Scotland's freedom after an English lord kills his wife. The battle scenes in this movie are the most graphic you will have ever seen. And I'm including SPR. It says on the back of the DVD box that this was rated R for "brutal medieval warfare" and it sure as hell isn't kidding. You see people getting shot with arrows, smashed with what looks to be a twenty pound sledge hammer, hacked with swords, stabbed through with spears, and on and on. The worst part for me, though, was when it showed the English lord's throat being slit. For some reason, I just can't stand to see that. It makes me rub my neck and grimace everytime I watch it. I can stand all the other stuff just fine, though. Go figure... Anyway, this isn't one of those movies you watch with your ten year old. The DVD is okay, but nothing real special. The documentary is one of those 25 minute things that is half promotional. You get to see a little about how Mel directed it, and how the battle scenes were shot, but it really leaves something to be desired. The commentary is pretty good, though. It's just Mel, talking about the movie. It's interesting, and that alone makes it better than a lot of commentaries. Overall, you get the feeling that there is a special edition DVD lurking in the future. A movie of this magnitude simply deserves more than a trailer, a commentary, and a little promotional "documentary". So, if you truly love this movie, get it now. The sound and picture are simply astounding, and it does have some extras, but if you can wait, I suggest you do. You don't want to have to shell out money for this and then do it again when the SE comes out. But hey, I did it.

Awesome movie and great condition

Yes, yes, we all know the troubles Mr. Gibson has been going through lately. The DUI. The ant-semetic remarks. His consequent arrest and public contritions. We sometimes get caught up in our favorite actors/actresses' off-screen antics and forget about the talents that attracted us to them in the first place. If this is the case with your Gibson attraction, all one needs to do is view "Braveheart" again. It reaffirms why Mel Gibson ranks up there with Scorsese, Spike, Speilberg and Eastwood as great American directors. I don't agree with what he said, but I do like the majority of his films, especially this one. Now for my review: Braveheart is the story of Scotsman William Wallace who lead a revolt against English oppression in the Middle Ages. At first Wallace, like most of his countrymen, is more or less content with England occupying Scotland. That is until the English king (Patrick McGoohan)instates a law that declares that on their wedding day, Scottish brides must sleep with English soldiers before they lay with their husbands. I just want to take a moment here to point out the similarities between the Scottish/English conflict (which still rages today) and the Black/White conflict (that still rages today) in America. NEWS FLASH: We're ALL human. We all put on our trousers one leg at a time. Chill. Anyhoo, Wallace and his bride are secretly married at night to avoid this sanction the king has imposed, however one of the soldiers takes a liking to Wallace's bride and tries to attack her. She fights back, wounding the guard and has her throat slit for her rebellion. God save the Queen and England indeed! Wallace exacts a bloody revenge on the soldiers and takes over their outpost. Word quickly travels back to England that a peasant upstart has started a revolt. The film is filled with grand action scenes (some of the most realistic war scenes ever), political plot twists and turns, and yes even Romance. Gibson and writer Randall Wallace knew what they were doing when they decided that the catalyst for Wallace's revolt would be the death of his beloved. If it could make the future Queen of England (Sophie Marceau) swoon, why not the world-wide female audience? The film also has great scenes between the King and his homosexual, inept son, which makes me point out the father/son relationships throught the entire story: Young Wallace and his "Da"; the King of Scotland (Angus McFadyen) and his "Pa"; all of which ends with the elder kings dying and their sons overtaking the thrones. There are just so many good things about this film that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just hit on a few points: Why didn't Patrick McGoohan receive an Oscar nomination at least?! It can be argued that McGoohan's performance is what actors dub "One Note", meaning the actor never really changes their emotional content. But what a note to hit...repeatedly! McGoohan's King of England is a cunning, cold, manipulative, evil boor. If his performance is patterned after the REAL King of England during this period (Edward Longshanks), its no wonder they dominated through the centuries. They say that "the eyes are the windows to the souls", well one look in the king's eyes and you realize that he has no soul. Only when he is on his deathbed, unable to speak, and is told by Marceau that she is carrying Wallace's baby, do his eyes register anything akin to human emotion. Definitely one of the greatest film villains of all time. Another point: As I've stated before, the battle scenes are as accurate as one can get, predating Speilberg's "Saving Private Ryan" by three years. Notice how even after the fighting has ceased, you can still see soldiers crawling around on the blood and limb covered ground, clinging to life. This, coupled with the bleak mud and rain soaked surroundings of Olde England makes you feel as if you're in this long ago world. And lastly: Wallace's cry for "Freedom!" as he is beheaded makes for a fine martyr-moment in film lore. One can easily see the link between Moses, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King to William Wallace. People can only take so much oppression, overt and covert, before they fight back for the simple, God-given right to LIVE. Its clear to me why this film won best picture of '95 and why Mel won best director. If you haven't seen this film, please do so; and if you have, it deserves repeated viewing: For Freedom!!!

Very funny in places and gory in other places with gruesome battle scenes.

Den har några år på nacken men storyn, musik och känslorna finns kvar.

速やかな対応、有難う御座います

Très bon film

Parfait !