Amazon.com essential video: Mel Gibson's Oscar-winning 1995 Braveheart is an impassioned epic about William Wallace, the 13th-century Scottish leader of a popular revolt against England's tyrannical Edward I (Patrick McGoohan). Gibson cannily plays Wallace as a man trying to stay out of history's way until events force his hand, an attribute that instantly resonates with several of the actor's best-known roles, especially Mad Max. The subsequent camaraderie and courage Wallace shares in the field with fellow warriors is pure enough and inspiring enough to bring envy to a viewer, and even as things go wrong for Wallace in the second half, the film does not easily cave in to a somber tone. One of the most impressive elements is the originality with which Gibson films battle scenes, featuring hundreds of extras wielding medieval weapons. After Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, Orson Welles's Chimes at Midnight, and even Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, you might think there is little new that could be done in creating scenes of ancient combat; yet Gibson does it. --Tom Keogh
Product Description: Scotsman William Wallace leads his fellow countrymen to fight for liberation. No Track Information Available Media Type: DVD Artist: GIBSON/MARCEAU Title: BRAVEHEART Street Release Date: 08/29/2000 Domestic Genre: ACTION / ADVENTURE
Braveheart Mel Gibson shines in this movie. Well scripted and plenty of action. Battle scenes are tremendous and reminds one of the slaughter the Scots went through. I highly recommend this movie.
Don't bother not even it were free... I have never understood Hollywood's need to take actual history which is exciting in itself and change it. The attempt is often horribly misleading and down right insulting. As a member of the Wallace "family" we weren't a kilted clan. I'm insulted they could take such rich history of a man, and a country and dumb it down for the masses and to think a Wallace was part of this abuse was further insulting. The dates, people and events were all skewed to make this a blockbuster $$ maker and be damn the history. One wonders why if the history was so great, why change it on the big screen. But it wasn't only the inaccuracies of Wallace's life and history but they couldn't even get the production right..
The piper is playing a great war pipe but the sound/music we hear is a bellows pipe, the uilean pipes played in Ireland. Well Duh!! And "first night" privileges give me a break not in Scotland, a flirtation with Isabella? she was a child born in apprx 1295 (she would have been 10 at his death and the age to marry in Scotland was 12) and wasn't married to Ed 2 until years after Wallace was dead and a kilted Wallace, as a Ayshireman I highly doubt it nor were the Scots savage peasents. My God they (Borders and lowlands) had a strong economy with mainland Europe since the 1100's and were aware of a world outside their own as well as fashions, so though there were peasants in Scotland, William Wallace's family wasn't one of them.
Want a better portrayal of Scottish history find a copy of CHASING THE RED DEER, different period but much more realistic. Save you $$ and time a read a good book on Wallace.
Gibson's Prophetic Masterpiece By now William Wallace's battle cry for freedom has gone down in cinematic history, and why not? It's a rousing speech that drives a group of historical underdogs to victory in a battle that they certainly had no business winning. And as an added bonus Americans love the concept of freedom. So even though we aren't free at all the image of Mel Gibson up there screaming, "But they can never take....our FREEDOM!!!" is just the kind of foot stomping jolt that can fool the masses into caring about Scottish history. The film itself hasn't done too bad either, winning that best picture statue and all, and it is a perfectly solid throw back to an earlier time. Wallace fights bloody, beautifully show battles to avenge the murder of his bride and to promote "freedom" in the face of British imperialism (13th Century Style). The characters are broadly drawn (the crazy Irishman, the dim witted brute, the evil King) and the plot is less than adventurous. The values pander to a middle class audience (have a family, brains over brawns, don't rape brides on their wedding days) so all in all the average movie goer is well taken care of. I even caught myself becoming emotionally involved in the cause of the Scots, but that could just be due to the anti-imperialist in me. Gibson, as director, is able to produce real magic with some of his shots and nothing he does here takes away from his reputation as a born storyteller.
What was most interesting to me was to see how much of this film foretold the future of Gibson's oeuvre. We have a trip into an obscure moment in history that ultimately results in a pretty conventional action flick ("Apocalypto"). We see his obsession with all things Christ and torture related ("Passion of the Christ"). And yes I know he didn't direct it but we see a dumbed down, Americanized version of this exact story in "The Patriot." I liked this movie and I liked "The Patriot" but now I'm questioning whether or not it was only made to sell the same tale to xenophobic types who aren't comfortable rooting for non-Americans. Who knows. I do know that I respect his ability to cater to modern tastes in an attempt to school people on parts of history that they should know about and would find entertaining. Unlike his hero, Gibson is willing to compromise. And while that may mean that this is not a great film it does mean that he reached a far greater audience than had he strictly stuck to the script that the history books provide. ***1/2
Braveheart? More like boring and gross heart. Sorry folks, maybe I just went into the theater with a bad attitude. After a half hour of looking at Mel's mullet and right before the battle scene where they show his butt like they do IN EVERY MOVIE HE'S EVER BEEN IN. I'm honestly surprised his butt didn't make a cameo in Passion of the Christ as well. At least he showed some restraint on that one. I got up and left the theater after the battle scene. Disgustingly gross, body parts flying up against the lens. I'm no stranger to gore, Halloween, Friday the 13th etc. I had to draw the line at this though, or was it the mullet??? Hmmmmmmmm........ Rent it if you're curious. It just wasn't my cup of tea.
I Love Mel Gibson. But his real talent seems to be realistic looking gore and who needs that?? I don't. I just don't need to entertain myself watching someone build an argument for a violent campaign of revenge and bathing in blood. Who knows who will build some argument in their heart like him and go postal, unloading on the innocent, unknowing public.
And Mr. Gibson is having his own crisis personally. Perhaps he doesn't need to be submerged in violence either.... Poe.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Tony's Online Tips
Trevor
