Braveheart - (1995)
Before I even begin my review, I want it to be publicly known that I despise Mel Gibson. I found his comments about Jewish people to be completely disgusting, and frankly, it was hard for me to even look at him on a screen after hearing those words. Ugh. However, I can also acknowledge that his disgusting words have nothing to do with the films he will create or be a part of in the future, or the ones that have already been completed. So, with that being said.
This film follows the epic journey of William Wallace against the English after a tragedy in his life destroys him. He begins to lead a revolt against the English to fight for Scotland's freedom.
This was... okay. To me, it was kind of like seeing a bell curve in real life - starts off poorly, rises to a good point, and then falls again. I am really surprised this won as many awards as it did, though. Honestly, when it comes to Academy Awards for Best Picture during this year, I wish Babe or Sense and Sensibility had won. (Not to say that I didn't love the other films nominated.) And of course, the one award I think this movie SHOULD have been given (Best Original Dramatic Score)... Jeez. I mean, at least it got a nomination, right?
Um... There were parts of this film that were almost laughable. I'm sorry, but seeing Mel Gibson's angry face as he runs towards the English made me laugh - not because it's Mel Gibson, but because it was just too over the top. I mean yes, it's an epic. Those usually ARE over the top. But really? It felt corny. AS DID HIS ACCENT. I mean, he was kind of good looking, but really?
The battle scenes, though, WERE brilliantly shot. Especially the one for the Battle of Stirling Bridge.
Oh, and I loved the ending. Hands down, great ending.
Many criticize Mel Gibson for the historical inaccuracies that plague the film, and homophobia.
First of all, when you see the film - it's clear that he's not making a history picture. He's making an epic. You're not going to see this in hopes of watching a documentary. Of course it's not going to be 100% accurate. Come on now people. As a director, he had to make choices to keep the picture moving, to not bore audiences... And as for the homophobia, um, WHERE are you people seeing that? Yes, we can see that Kind Edward's son, Prince Edward, is gay. This has happened before in movies and such - the young prince is forced to marry a princess in order to produce a son, an heir. Being gay, the prince does not touch the princess unless basically forced to. And yes, it's clear that Phillip is the prince's lover. But Gibson was not trying to force an idea of homophobia on the masses when King Edward threw Phillip out of the window. He's clearly trying to portray the idea that King Edward is a cruel man, that he resorts to psychological torment to get the prince to be a prince and do his royal duties. Yes, perhaps the king WAS homophobic. But that would have been a realistic feeling in that time period. (Heck, it's still realistic today by many, unfortunately.) Yes, it's silly that Gibson tries to be accurate in history THERE instead of parts of the film, but really, go complain about something else.
It's okay for a fun and dramatic epic, but it drags for FAR too long, and there are better epics out there in the world.
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆