|
Directed by: Mel Gibson Starring: Mel Gibson, Sophie Marceau, Patrick McGoohan A bloody Mel Gibson epic, you say? Of course this is a lot more universally loved than Passion, for obvious reasons, but there are similarities. Mel plays William Wallace, a Scot who for 177 minutes (even post-mortum) brings a headache to King Edward "Longshanks" of England by leading a rebellion. It shows him from child to martyr, and all points in-between. From sprawling battles to poignant tragedies, from passionate love to lustful revenge, from triumph to torture, this one has always stood out as one of my favorites. I'm told he took liberties with the surrounding events, and the British are either evil or gay, so your mileage may vary. RATING: 5.5 PROS: Big, meaty story; carnage; fine ladies; memorable lines galore CONS: In theory, you might not like it, for some reason. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
The British are such scowling, self-aware antagonists that they border on ludicrousness. Braveheart is also very long and very self-indulgent. It's more masturbatory revenge fantasy from Gibson. Otherwise, it's a good flick. Lots of epic battles, Sophie Marceau is a hottie, and I laughed when that one cowardly Scottish guy took a mace to the face. Three.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 16:35
|
|
|
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2004 20:19
|
|
|
I was entertained by some parts, bored by others. In the end I am glad I watched it but I didn't think it was anything spectacular. 3 for the movie, +.5 for the chills I got from the freedom scream.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 01:13
|
|
|
i was mostly disappointed by the fact that Wallace's outfit and choice of weapon were so "i'm a raging badass celt and certainly not a nobleman" in theme. 2.5.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 07:21
|
|
|
As a proud Englishman, it gets a 1. Good battle scenes, yes, but I'm sorry Mel - I don't like it when homophobic conservative Christians make up lies about our country's history. To this extent, that's for sure.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 15:48
|
|
|
If the movie had been presented purely as a fictional account, then I would give it more credit. However the only real truth to the events portrayed in the movie was 1) Yes, there was a William Wallace, 2) Yes, he did fight for Scottish independence, 3) Yes he was executed. Beyond that, the rest is basically a big fairy tale. The British are portrayed totally wrong, because in reality they were not bloodthirsty demon hellspawn and were not all homosexual and/or rapists and/or cowardly fuckups. Going beyond the history, to its credit it was indeed an enjoyable film. VERY enjoyable film. Once I convinced myself, "Ok it is JUST a movie and none of this poo poo happened, so enjoy it as a fiction" I ended up really liking it. I LOVED the epic battles. The portrayl of warfare at the time seemed accurate enough. So I give it a 4.0/5.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2004 22:21
|
|
|
This is a very well done epic and Mel Gibson's directing talent is shown here and he does very well with it. Although this story has a lot of similarities to the Spartacus story, I don't think it is actually based on it. The acting, suspense and realisticly brutal battle scenes create an epic that should be uttered with the names like Lawrence of Arabia and Star Wars. 4.5/5 Being a real story or not should have no bearing on a film's review. These are movies, not history books. History books are boring for a reason, because their stories are boring. When you make movies you have to keep the viewer interested and Mel did just that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2004 05:47
|
|
|
I've seen thousands of movies good and bad, and of all types over the years, but ever since seeing this movie for the first time It's been my favorite. There have been movies that came close (Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, and The Matrix to name a few), but they all pale in comparison. I have nothing bad to say about this moive however, If you watch some of the battles closely, you'll notice a lot of the extras still had their watches on (even the imperfection of this movie is good). I give it the highest rating I can possibly give it 5/5 Pros: The whole friggin movie Cons: The ending credits you'll hear me give lame movies credit, and some good movies a bashing, but I find nothing wrong with this movie (unless you are sensitive to violence).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2004 20:11
|
|
|
Historically accurate? Probably not, I never bothered to research into it. Romantic, packed with top notch action, deeply moving, and epic? Yes sir. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2004 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Braveheart is a fantastic movie, however historically inaccurate. The buildup before the first battle is intense as gently caress. The first 1/3 of the movie basically plays out like a quirky but heartfelt love story, but transforms very quickly into a multimillion dollar revenge story. The music, battles and the drama all fit into this massive pile of awesome that is Braveheart. Braveheart is made for the big screen, and thusly, no arthouse sperg about this movie is justified. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2011 07:07
|
|
