Braveheart (1995)

Braveheart is a film that I haven't seen or heard before and let me tell (you seen the title) it's kind of an interesting watch because this is a movie that is based on a real life terrible term of event (that I'm aware of) but to many history fans this film got (almost) every thing wrong about the actual story itself and that film influence as that. I'm not saying it's shint (even though it sounds like I hate it) and I'm not really that much of a Medieval fetish guy so I don't have much strong feelings to this film but I can't deny the mistakes of this film, I would forgive the people if they make like 5 or 6 errors but you just realised how many mistakes are in this films. But without a further-a-do let's get over with this;

PLOT/ Summery: Sorry if I had to spoil this review (then you come to the wrong place) but I'm doing this because to give you context what is going on with the film and sorry for being one of those pickles who explains the entire 24/7 in the most nerdy way;

William Wallace is the medieval Scottish patriot who is spurred into revolt against the English when the love of his life is slaughtered. Leading his army into battles that become a war which become known as The First War of Scottish Independence, his advance into England threatens King Edward I's throne before he is captured and executed, but not before becoming a symbol for freedom to Scotland.

Positives: Before I say about my main critiques about this films let's be positive and what good things I had to say about this film. For the record I like the cinematography and I love the shots of the film being very scale at points, the soundtrack is absolutely beautiful like just listen to one and it's breath-taking, like they didn't need to go this hard. I also think Mel Gibson performance is fantastic and the biggest high light for me. He also both play as the role and the director, so that's hard work for him! He bring William Wallace to life and he's Mel Gibson he knows how to put emotion to the story. Oh there is this Irish guy, he's fun as Irish people like us like to.... have a laugh and drink, I guess (okay I'll lay off the stereotype ).

My problems with this film: You already seen this coming by a mile what I'm about to talk about but my main issue is the historical mistakes, now I know some historical movies needs an update them selves to modern audiences (Films like Gladiators and Zulu dose that) and I get why, so we relate to the characters and sake of entertainment but this movie goes way too far on the modern side (the Scotts shaking their a$$ represents this whole film) the point this film is giving me an history stroke.

Seriously this IS based on a real life event what the movie is teaching the audiences and this might be the worst offenders out there in my opinion and needs to be called out because everything they teach you is WRONG! If I mention all of the mistakes, we will be here all day! So I'll pick the ones that bothered me the most and just to worth mentioning (Well at least they actual got his death right!);

First off, the writers wants to catch this "feeling" to the audience which happens to be MORE PROPAGANDA! ENGLISH BAD! That's because the source material the writers used is the Blind Harry epic poem of William Wallace. To put it straight Blind Harry also got things wrong too (they even say he's 7 feet tall during the film!). This film influence Scotland a whole and sometimes politicians used this film as a way how badly threated the Scots are! (That's wild!)

Not to mention this film was nominated at the Oscars for 8 and won 5, one of them being best director! Yeah big year for Mel!

At the start of the film the narrator says that "The King of Scotland had died without his son, and the King of England a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks claimed the throne of Scotland of himself."

No, like that's never going to happened! The Scottish King Alexander did die without a male heir, but he has a daughter living in Norway and the Scottish Nobles did agree she should get married to Longshanks but she died during her way to Scotland, so the Nobles decided who should be there next King, which he did but Longshanks Oscar Will Smith Fish on them and say he should be the rightful one and take over the lower Scots resisted. But that didn't happened in 1280 AD, then that means the King will still be alive and England are fine! This happened in 1296, so it makes the setup is weird to think about it.

Wallace later stated that "Well then, we'll have what none of us have has ever before: A country of our own!"; Which is nonsense because Scotland is already an Independent country kingdom before any of the events.

2 or 3 mins in the film, we got another mistake already! That being Wallace's family are commoners, we don't know much about Wallace's family but we do know that he was a member of the lower nobility not a commoner. Well he did receive some support from the Scottish people, this movie goes as far as they are the heroes and their rebellion as being one of the common people against an oppressive tyranny. The Scottish Nobles who started the trouble and resistance are present as cowardly and selfish, you know what to be fair I'll give a point to the film because its not completely inaccurate.

In stark contrast to the Highlanders who are pure and motivate by the concern of family and freedom. But in reality it was the Nobility who started it all and the common people did whatever. But I guess the complex of medieval because MORE PATRIOTISM!

Later the English hang the Nobles but Blind Harry says it happened but yet again it didn't. There were no such mass killing of Scottish Nobles by the English by this time, in fact this can't happened because yet again Scotland is no under English occupation when Wallace was a boy.

No, there wasn't any evidence that Wallace did actually went off to France to speak French so to impress a English princess subplot! Some historians claimed that he fight in Wales while being a part of Longshank's army but that story would make it a bit awkward.

Anyways, we jump into 20 years later Longshanks' son Prince Edward wedding with Princess Isabelle of France, Wallace's rebellion began in 1297 so let's assume its 1297, the wedding di happened but wouldn't happened until 1308 AD and in France. Prince Edward who is actually 13 by this time who is too familiar one of his courtiers. It's been long debated that Edward was gay but there is no real conclusion but here the film obviously shows it all of being more homosexual then ever! Also Isabelle had no role at that time because she was only 2 years old and living in France.

Longshanks' inconsistent character: Now our bad egg is Longshanks, for a summary Longshanks is a ruthless, terrifying king (over 6 feet tall) even so far as scaring a bishop (but the bishop was old so) and even killing a assassin with his fists! He's character in the film is portrayed as a cartoon villain of his over the top performance; The writers written him as a guy who would o anything and the movie will constantly keep on saying ENGLISH BAD! The movie earlier says that he was a pagan which there is zero possibility then that means his not be King of England because the monarchy and Christianity were irrevocable intertwined and he went crusade, literally! Christians can't be evil, right Mel but no THAT MAKES HIM KING! SEE KING!

Even later that he would shoot his own enemies during the fight like what are you doing! That's a risky move and no King would do that but I guess ENGLISH BAD! After he heard he lost his war he throws down the prince's gay guy. For a minute I'm going to defend Mel here, I heard some people accused of him being homophobia for this scene in particular, but I don't see how Longshank's actions and doesn't do any thing positive about this. Well he's already a cruel man and it's more about the guy talking over his son's companion.

Later Wallace return to Scotland, plays a little fight and reunited his love interest Marron but oh no English has claim for his local crumpet, remember good Scots, ENGLISH BAD! Speaking of Marron, there is no actual evidence that Wallace had a wife and she was included in the Blind Harry's poem and the screen writers change her name to Marron instead of Marian because the audience wouldn't get confused with Maid Marron from Robbin Hood, well Hollywood thinks we are stupid! (Actual yeah because how did the Minions manage to make over a billion and how did all the Transformers makes over a half or a billion!)

There is also this guy (which reminds of another Mel Gibson film) would later have s3x with Marron and the sheriff kills her off because the film wants to make English people look like bad guys. So we need Wallace to kick some a$$ and just look how unbalance the fight is, there is never once a Scout got killed but one got injured but all of the English get killed and the Scouts manage to easily climb up like birds on the sky! Wallace says that we would fight for his country and a patriot struggles against a foreign tyranny.

I'm sorry this undermined the message the fact he started caring because of something bad happened to "his" family. I get why they do that, the audience sympathize Wallace and therefore root for him and brings the audience close to his cause through a dramatic tragedy but (in my opinion) a pollical cause don't become any more or less valid because of one person's tragedy. I think this is even more egregious considering that the real Wallace is already an outlaw against the English before his death of his wife and refused to sign the Ragman Rolls, documents to which other Scottish Nobles had put their seal in order to declare their allegiance to Longshanks because Wallace didn't considered that important so oh well! Braveheart tries to justified the patriotism not by reference to higher pollical ideals of self-determination of power, by making English look sadistic and cruel.

I'm still not done with this yet because it's time for war: There is this scene where the horses march in by the Scouts stabbed them by the sticks, I'm sorry what.

There are no sticks earlier so where did that come from, the English people could have easily seen and you can't tell me they manage to a line them in time. Wallace suggest the Scouts to attack behind the English and it works somehow because at those point where the English people are absolutely stupid and baddies.

Of course they win the war MUH PATRIOTISM but is it me or did any of the Scouts killed during the fight scene? I don't know maybe I'm actually wrong (for once). Lastly this is supposed to be taking place on a bridge but there's no bridge... LIER! Later Wallace attack York which is a big city and says "York was the staging point for every invasion of my country." which makes him a vengeful mass murder not the guy that who wants freedom! So your saying that Murdering is okay as long it's for freedom, what kind of message that Mel, ummmmm!

That's was Scouts people killed by the English by the Scouts never killed the English folks on screen but in reality Wallace and his army did pillage and burn their way across Northern England which is just Horrible Histories! Isn't it!

WW part two: Finally a Scout died making this the fairest fight and no the Irish wasn't there and there wasn't fire. Like I said Longshanks for no good reason tries to kill his army which makes no sense at all! It's risky and pitches are very rare! So Wallace go and chase after Longshank but oh no it's...no just why.... no Bruce didn't fight along side with Longshank and so the movie can make plot convincing! (I feel like at this point where I'm tiered of writing of this review but I'm not done yet!)

To skip to the end Wallace got betrayed WITH NO CHEESE and says this: "Never in my whole life did I swear allegiance to him." You know what that's a cool line, so at least the movie has a few cool lines, Wallace was hung and drawn with this line "FREDOOOOOOOOOOO-" MUH PATRIOTISM! Longshanks also died because yeah he's dead! (Even though he died two years after!) Than a war happened again and we got the Iconic sword ending and END OF STORY! BYE BYE! SEE YOU LATER!

Final thoughts: WOW! That was Braveheart, if I had one word to describe/summarised this film its "misguided", its a very misguided film to say at the very least. It's not terrible (say like Ralph Breaks the Internet which they didn't even tried considering this is the same writer from the first and Zootopia says a lot) there are some good things to say about the film (and I've already done that so I wouldn't repeat myself) and there is passion in this, its that its not well executed and I've already explain all of the historic mistakes that the film makers did, though it's at least based on Blind Harry's poem of it!

But I had to address the elephant in the room, the film is supposed to teach audience about this war and people but dose an nose dive of creating that sound like fan-fiction made that up (even then that's insulting to fan-fiction because at least there is passion to be found). Its a TRUE STORY not fiction, the creator ignore the actual and could lead to an opposite message instead. It dose impact on Scotland's history what dose it do? The most enduring one is that ENGLISH BAD and the Scouts are better of without them. Not one English man dose anything benefit England or dose anything good or a positive light not even Edward is a good person he's a corrupted influence himself! You are seriously telling me that ENGLISH BAD SO STAY AWAY FROM STUPID and the Scouts are the Noble and brave ones even though that they burn down an village. So it's no wonder this film contribute to the independence of Scotland by many. The inaccurate is still a problem because whatever your opinions on Scotland is, it should not be based on a steaming pile of this film!

So what are your thoughts on Braveheart? Do you agree on me or do you think I'm too harsh about it? But hey it's a better film then Brave or think it as fiction!

So that's every dam thing I got to say! FOR FIVE MINUTES!