Those of you who read my last op, Mel Gibsons The Patriot, will probably have a fair idea of what I like and what I dislike about this movie as well. First a run down of the plot.
As a boy William Wallace (Gibson) the son of a Scottish farmer loses his father to the constant wars with the English troops of Edward the First who is trying to muscle in to Scotland, by taking advantage of the power vacumn left by the death of the last king.
Young Wallace is then taken to live with his Uncle, Argyle, a minor noble who schools him and bestows upon him an upbringing that he would never have had as a farmer. The film then runs forward thirty years and the adult Wallace returns to his village to wow his childhood sweetheart. This is set against a backdrop of the increasing brutality of the English landlords. Wallace and his intended, marry in secret, but one day Murran falls under the eye of an English corporal and when she rejects his advances the resulting chaos ends in her execution.
At this point Wallace, understandably a changed man and takes revenge upon the garrison troops concerned. From this point there is no going back, retribution from the English will be swift and the Scotts can either take it or fight back. So begins the revolution. After a number of raids Wallace becomes a hero to the subdued Scotts but also a pain in the arse to the Scottish nobility, who have a lot to gain by keeping in with Edward and the English nobility.
After the successful battle of Stirling the army is defeated at Falkirk and reduced to a band of outlaws who are unable to pose a serious threat. The political aspirations of the nobility takes over and Wallace is betrayed to the English, taken to London and excecuted. The epilogue of the film is that after Wallaces death Robert Bruce realises his error in not acting against the betrayal and leads a new scottish force to the famous victory at Bannockburn.
So as to end the review on a positive note I`ll examine what I feel are the faults with the film. The first glaring error is in fact the title, Braveheart was the name given to Robert Bruce, not William Wallace. I know that its a small point, but if you use it as the title for the movie, it should at least be relevant. The film sort of gives that the idea that Wallace lead a rags to riches life and became the leader of a glorious revolution that eventually did the job , albeit after his death.
Wallace was in effect a minor Scottish noble by birth who was part of the resistance to English incursions, but my no means the most prominent, David Murray for example, was by far the most famous guerilla fighter of the time. If it was not for the nature of wallaces capture and his death, we probably would not have heard of him. There are many other examples of these sort of re-writes of the history, but Im sure that you get the idea.
The facts aside, I do thing this is a great movie, it looks right, it feels right and it has the ablity to be emotional and stirring. Many people have accused the film of being anti-English, I would say that it is better described as pro-Scottish and as the main character is a Scottish hero it is only as you would expect. The attention to detail is good, the armour and equipment looks right and this film seems to mark the start of that grime and grubby look that was missing from films in the past.
When you see scenes of Edinburgh, for example, it is a collection of mud splattered huts with a small run down castle at its centre. None of the old images of great stone castles and chocolate box medieval houses, and for that I thank the film makers.
There is some great action, the fight scenes are awesome, Battle of Stirling does contain some kernal of historical accuracy in that it was the first time that foot soldiers had repelled heavy cavalry, though their methods are a bit dubious.
The overall look of the film is good, the parts are played well and a special mention to has to be made of Edward the First, Longshanks himself played by Patrick MacGoohan. He gives the role all the guile, power and majesty that his historical counter part supposedly had.
One thing that I will say to those who like to argue that the film is anti English propaganda, or Scottish nationalist spin, is that you have to bear in mind that the English nobility was still basically French. The families of Bruce and Wallace were also not many generations down the line from their Norman origins so basically we have a film based on French aristocracy fighting French aristocracy, thats never a bad thing.
So back to the review, its a good action move, enough action for the lads, enough romance for the ladies, and a great visual rendition of the times, so unless you are a non-gender historian there will be something in it for you. Watch the film, enjoy it for itself and then read up on the history.