#91: BRAVEHEART (1995)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

7

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, 20 years ago or so

BEST SEQUENCE

All the battle scenes are viscerally exciting and impressive

BEST LINE

"They may take our lives, but they'll never take...our FREEDOM" - William Wallace, rallying the troops

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

78%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Distractingly violent and historically dodgy, Mel Gibson's Braveheart justifies its epic length by delivering enough sweeping action, drama, and romance to match its ambition."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"Scottish warrior William Wallace leads his countrymen in a rebellion to free his homeland from the tyranny of King Edward I of England."

THOUGHTS

• Mel Gibson has made statements that are racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, and misogynistic. I do not respect or admire him as a person, and I believe that he deserves any consequences that he has faced in his personal life and his career. However, I do think this is an exciting movie, and I think he's pretty good in it
• Braveheart starts out kind of slow, and I got lulled into the sense that it would be duller than it turned out. Once you make it past the first 45 minutes, the action and battle scenes are intense and exciting. Worth acknowledging that 45 minutes is a pretty long time to "make it past," but it is also quite a long movie at just under 3 hours
• Early in these reviews I watched Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and I was terribly underwhelmed. I feel like Braveheart is the movie Prince of Thieves was trying to be. And the comparison is apt, since Braveheart is nearly as fantastical in its depiction of history, and that's saying something considering William Wallace actually existed and Robin Hood didn't
• William Wallace was a real person. The Wars of Scottish Independence occurred. Some of these battles kind of happened the way they're depicted in the movie (and some were just completely invented by the filmmakers). And Wallace was captured and executed by King Edward I of England. But so much else about this movie is so wildly inaccurate that it might be best to just see it as a ripping adventure yarn, and not hope to learn much about history
• Amongst the most egregious fallacies: the nickname "Braveheart," historically speaking, did not refer to William Wallace. It referred to Robert the Bruce, a Scottish hero, who is also a character in this movie and is depicted as a semi-villain; and, kind of hilariously, all the Scottish warriors are shown wearing kilts throughout the movie. But the events of this movie happened around the year 1300, predating kilts by a good 200 years at least
• The filmmakers admitted that they did very little research or fact-checking, and they were just trying to make an exciting movie. At that, I think, they succeeded, but I also believe it could have been just as exciting with a little bit more accuracy with regards to how things actually happened
• Also, the scenery is truly stunning and beautiful, and one of the most impressive aspects of the filmmaking. However, the majority of the movie was actually filmed in Ireland
• But if you can get past all of this, the battle and fight scenes are bloody and chaotic and gripping, William Wallace is a charismatic leader, the Scots are easy to root for, and King Edward I is a pretty despicable villain to root against. Apparently when it came out people were unimpressed with Mel Gibson's Scottish accent, but hey, I thought it was pretty good. Miles better than Kevin Costner's accent in Prince of Thieves, anyway
• Finally, when thinking about this movie, it led me to examine why I had a different reaction to this than I did to a movie like Full Metal Jacket, which I found hard to consider thrilling or entertaining. Braveheart and Full Metal Jacket both depict real wars that occurred, and real lives that were lost, so ostensibly, by my own logic, I should also find it hard to be entertained by Braveheart. But I was very entertained, and thrilled, and I don't think I'm alone to have a different reaction to these movies, I just think it deserves acknowledgement. Whether it comes down to a simple difference in time periods, Braveheart taking place hundreds of years ago and Full Metal Jacket only happening dozens of years ago, or the differences in filmmaking styles, I'd be interested to hear other theories about why a movie like Braveheart can be thrilling and exciting whereas one like Full Metal Jacket is more likely to bring one a sense of dread and discomfort as a viewing experience

Up next: Movie #90, The Poseidon Adventure, from 1972. I'm aware of it, but I don't think I've ever seen it