Braveheart (1995)

A Scottish tale
Brave Heart DVD

Mel Gibson directed and stars in this epic biographical portrait of William Wallace, a 13th century Scottish rebel, who led an unsuccessful insurgency against oppressive British rule.

I knew a boy, growing up whose name was William Wallace. I had no idea who he had been named for. His Mother was a librarian, I guess she did.

Great movie and I highly recommend it for fans of Mel Gibson and Scottish action buffs.

Gunner March, 2008

Best Good Guy Ever!
This good guy is the goodest ever! He gets married and she gets killed by really mean bad guy, so he gets his buddies and they gets revenge because there so tough! Oh and when he was a little kid with redneck harecut he saw people hanged like sides of beef in hut by older bad guys. Then he gets all the good guys in the land together and they put blue paint on there faces and moon the bad guy army and catch arrows in there buts. But they beat the bad guy army because there tuffer! Anways, the Prince Precious of england is really effemnate, becuause bad guys are never tough and manly, but the good guys are always hertersexual and virile -- it's true. You can look it up. So the good guy sleeps withe every woman he sees in the movie because tough guys are so resistable. Eventually, the bad guys capture the good guy to set up the climax, so he gets put in the Iron Maiden and yells FREEEEEDUUUMMMMBBBB!!! and breaks iron links by stretching his mussels and escapes with two other good guys from a city of 100,000 bad guys who are all stupid and blind. Mel Gibson makes good use of all of the hairspray that Bon Jovi had left over from the 80's as well.

Would you trade your land for freedom?
"Braveheart" was first released in 1995 with an onslaught of positive reviews. The longevity of the feature, the ability to direct as well as star, as well as the historical topic developed secured Mel Gibson an Oscar win. His trophies for Best Director as well as Best Feature proved that he was more than just a pretty boy asking top dollar to bring in the audiences - he was excited about the art of filmmaking. While he did not quite prove it with his film outings afterwards (who can remember the disaster known as "Conspiracy Theory" or "Ransom"), it is in today's growing recycled cliché Hollywood standard that Mr. Gibson has proven himself. With two less mainstream success stories under his belt (both "The Passion of the Christ" as well as "Apocalypto"), he has challenged a modern empire and succeeded. Revisiting Gibson's second directing decision; one must challenge themselves to look beyond the pitfalls, the missing story elements, and the abrupt ending to see the sophomoric feature Gibson gave to us. "Braveheart" isn't perfection, yet it doesn't strive to be - it merely wants to tell a love story set upon the backdrop of historical choices. Worthy of its wins in 1995, "Braveheart" proved to be a bit choppy in 2008, but still a great way to spend nearly three hours.

Gibson, to create "Braveheart", pulled from every epic imaginable. His use of battle sequences, heroics, and individuality ring eerily close to that of "Spartacus", "Gladiator", and "Ben-Hur", yet even with these clichés riding well within the film, Gibson creates his own style and voice. Watching this epic, one must take it in four different slices to fully appreciate the work, and while they all may pair differently apart, it is what they do together that creates the magic. To begin, the direction is nearly flawless. A scene that stands out is when one of the nobles is dreaming of an attacking Wallace, only to wake and witness Wallace barge in through the door in a beautiful black stallion. It, like many other scenes, was breathtaking and flawless. Gibson has an eye for shots that are considered "beautifully gruesome", meaning that colors, placement, and camera angle are visionary, while the action on screen may make your stomach a bit squeamish. His direction showed a realistic view of the battle and filth surrounding Scotland during this dark time, and it is his work behind the camera that continues to make this film rank amongst the greatest ever. Remember, Gibson won for Best Director and Best Film - which should be kept in mind as we unwrap the other three layers to this film.

The next element that one must slice into is the story, which in my eyes, is the weakest element to this film. While it is emotional to watch the love story unfold, the eye-candy battle sequences, and the picture-esque view of Scotland, there seemed to be a lacking "meat" to this story. Wallace was angered by what happened to his one true love, but we never get the chance to see his years of living with Uncle Argyle come into fruition. He spouts Latin and French randomly, he uses original battle tactics, and there is talk of Rome at one point, but I wouldn't have found it difficult at all to see a young William Wallace take shape under Argyle. It would have been impressive to see this hero's roots, to take his passion from more than just his father's death into a whole new realm. Throughout this film, watching it in 2008, there wasn't much substance to Wallace. He fought with pride, patriotism, and with his heart, but we never were able to define him as a character. We knew he could fight - but how? We knew he loved this girl from the village - but we needed a deeper back story! The fight scenes were brilliant, but they did not help me see the true William Wallace. We charged through the film making it from points A to B to C, but never gave us the appetizers in between. More critical today of films than I was in 1995, perhaps a viewpoint from the English side would have strengthened the background. I don't believe all English were this harsh, where were the other elements that may have helped Wallace's crusade? These are just missing pieces that would have strengthened "Braveheart" and pushed it to a new level.

Needless to say, the next slice is sound. The power of the battlefield, the yell of Wallace's "FREEDOM" and the bagpipes echoing through James Horner's score engulfs the power of the film. It is the sound that makes "Braveheart" the epic that it is. Without the sounds of battle, without the sounds of the majestic mountains, without the sound of love - this could not have won the awards it did. As a viewer, it is the most exciting part of this film and the flawless. While one can argue there are directorial decisions that Gibson could have done better, stronger acting choices, and a more structured story - it is the sound that goes without question. It is perfection. Horner's work is mesmerizing and fantastic. He should have won an Oscar for his sole work on this picture.

Finally, there is the acting of "Braveheart". Gibson wasn't nominated for an Oscar, which doesn't surprise me watching it now in 2008. Gibson, prior to this film, was thought of as the pretty boy/bad boy persona. Seeing it in the theaters women were swooning over the scantily clad Gibson and that in itself proves that he didn't shake the predetermined image. There were scenes in which Gibson was smiling, or that his eyes seemed to be bluer than the sky, or that blood seemed to be splattered to an exact location on his body - he seemed to have trouble shaking the beauty of Gibson - and I fault him for that. The others in the film were decent, but nobody stood out as exemplary. Coupled with the less meaty story, the characters seemed cliché ridden. There was the "best-friend", the "love-interest", the bad King, and the loyal psychopath - all of which can be seen in any other period piece film. I don't believe the acting was up to par with the rest of the film, and the Academy noticed. Gibson played a shaggy Scotsman - it was Mel Gibson - albeit he does a great job with the film, one cannot seem to shake the idea that it is Mel Gibson - and that is why he was awarded no win nor nomination.

Overall, despite my best efforts to find major flaws with this film, it is still an amazing piece of cinema to watch. "Braveheart" deserves every award that it has won and others should credit it as the launching pad that finally gave us "Last Temptation of Christ" and "Apocalypto". Gibson has taken his fame from this film, changed the glamour of it all, and handed us some gritty portraits of the past. I wish he could have done the same here, but I don't think 1995 was ready for it. Gibson pushed the envelope with gore and carnage, and it continues to steal your breath away - yet "Braveheart" needed to be more than just that. He couples it with amazing sound, but troubles it with a struggling story and weak characters. Today, Gibson could shake our minds that he is not Mel Gibson, but in this year - he was that same female dream model. This is an amazing film. It deserves a memorable page in our cinematic history, but it isn't perfect. I believe Mel saw that, and changed it for his post-"Braveheart" releases. In a day when our own freedom is put into question, this is the type of film that will stagger your emotions and pull at your heartstrings. Gibson is a master at his craft, don't get me wrong - this just isn't the sterling image of perfection. Watch it - over and over. It may be a long film, but it is worth every minute.

Grade: **** out of *****