Braveheart (1995, R)

Directed by:  Mel Gibson

Grade: C

Braveheart falls into a category, or more appropriately a genre, of films known as the historical epic.  The historical epic, if it is to be called one, deserves recognition that should not be averted to other films.  For the historical epic film comprises practically everything that makes a movie so grand and high-flying: if done right, the historical epic should be almost faultlessly performed with liberties taken for historical accuracy, incredible production value, well-defined characters, and a straightforward plot composed on an epic scale.  Take Ben-Hur, Spartacus and Gettysburg for examples.  All three are, or are near, masterpieces that deserve to find acknowledging identification as traditional, scrumptiously well-made works of cinema; not because they were simply historical epics, but because they were historical epics that were performed a way a historical epic should.  Although, there are a few historical epics that fall for popcorn entertainment value instead: Gladiator is a model of a historical epic made on an epic scale with well-defined characters and incredible production value, but alas, the film’s plot narrowed the film considerably in scope to becoming a simple-minded, tight narrative that never really expanded to it’s true potential.  In other words, Gladiator was well-made, but not as well-performed, and as a result, its prospects for finding acknowledging identification in the history of epic movie making is severely limited, for me at least (hey, movie criticism is all about opinion). Fortunately, I will admit that Gladiator was entertaining. 

Braveheart is only entertaining depending on the way you look at it.  If a history buff were too look at it from a historical perspective, he would hate it.  If a regular old movie goer were too look at it from what it was otherwise, the chances of that movie goer liking Braveheart would depend on his tastes and mood of the day.  Thank God that I was at least partly in the mood for Braveheart; this saga runs for three hours of preachy speeches, heavy drama, brutal battle scenes, and customary romance.

Now how much of Braveheart is true we really will never know, at least about William Wallace himself, the film’s tragic hero, played by a wig-wearing Mel Gibson whose Scottish accent is only somewhat believable.  For the most part though, based on the relative research I did for the film, Braveheart is a ‘historical’ epic that is very ‘Hollywood’: it doesn’t exactly take liberties for historical accuracy, so that it delivers a far more dramatic adventure, with the main theme based primarily on gaining freedom via revenge.

Now I know what you’re saying.  Why in the heck would we criticize Braveheart from a historical perspective?  It’s a movie for goodness sake!  Who the heck is going to care about how ‘historically accurate’ it is?  Very few, most likely.  What we want is a well made movie (that doesn’t have to apply to the historical aspects), which conveys strong entertainment value.  All right then, now going into Braveheart’s other features….

The film introduces us with several truly beautiful shots of Scotland (well, okay, the movie was filmed in Ireland and France), and sets the plot in motion: King Edward ‘Longshanks’ of England has mercilessly conquered Scotland, and the Scots live under an oppressive fist of cruelty.  So far, all Scottish attempts at driving the English out have gone miserably wrong.  It looks as if it’s time for a hero in the form of William Wallace, who takes up the reigns to lead Scotland for independence. 

Like most historical epics, Braveheart deploys many characters, some of whom have real characterization to them, and others who are more wooden than cardboard.  The acting isn’t bad; at least, it isn’t if we can deal through some of those Scotty accents that slip multiple times.  On more than one occasion I really did appreciate those striking panorama shots of the attractive European landscape. 

Braveheart is still quite preachy about one good thing: freedom.  How many times does Wallace have to ride up and down the ranks of his men, most of whom are reluctant to fight, and inspire into their hearts that the English can “take our lives lads, but not our FREEDOM!”?  If Braveheart could have simply controlled itself, we may have been given a less-recognizable but still enhanced movie.

By the way (and you will have to excuse me for reverting back to the 'historical aspects' of Braveheart), the Battle of Stirling Bridge was shot on a plain instead of around a bridge.  Indeed, Gibson did claim that during filming the ‘bridge’ got in the way.  Otherwise, the sequence was imposing in that it’s one of the last major medieval battle scenes caught on film that doesn’t use computer generated armies!  It’s a welcome comeback to the good ole days when we didn’t have (or need) CGI for epic scale battle sequences.  In short, I found the Battle of Stirling Bridge to be a very mixed bag: it was well performed from the standpoint that someone would be watching this who didn't give a crap about the historical aspects of the film.  I hate how I'm always using the word historical, here...

I will admit this: Braveheart would have been a difficult film to pull off.  But the fact is that it doesn’t work well as a historical picture, and only semi-works for entertainment value (like I said, it really does depend on the mood you are in).  I came to this conclusion because when the film was over, I didn’t really feel that I had learned a whole lot more about Wallace and the Scottish War for Independence at the end of the film then from the beginning.    And as a result, I simply can’t see how it could possibly fall in league with a number of other cinematic historical epics, namely the ones that I pointed out in the first paragraph of this review.  Braveheart is not a disaster by any means but also not a success.  And even for the fact that it is, in fact, an overrated motion picture; there are still those iconic, Hollywood moments to spice things a little up. 

C