5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Experience the Blu Ray
You're not reading this because you want a review of Braveheart, the movie, you're reading this because you've already fallen in love with this spectacular film and you want to know how it looks and sounds on Blu Ray. The answer: amazing! This is one of the best blu rays I've had the pleasure of watching. The picture is crystal clear and the colours pop. The sound is...
Published on March 15 2011 by Mark Sadler
3.0 out of 5 stars A decent movie if you forget the historic license
Mel Gibson's movie, Braveheart did extremely well in the box office and had a huge following. It is an uplifting movie with a lot of positives. This includes music, cinematography, and a well crafted story. A lot of actors did a superb job. These include Patrick McGoohan (Edward Longshanks) and Sophie Marceau. Like other movies in the recent times, this movie suffers from...
Published on June 1 2004 by Trial Critic
Most Helpful First | Newest First
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Experience the Blu Ray,
This review is from: Braveheart [Blu-ray] [Blu-ray] (2009) (Blu-ray)
You're not reading this because you want a review of Braveheart, the movie, you're reading this because you've already fallen in love with this spectacular film and you want to know how it looks and sounds on Blu Ray. The answer: amazing! This is one of the best blu rays I've had the pleasure of watching. The picture is crystal clear and the colours pop. The sound is glorious. Braveheart showcases everything that makes Blu Ray great.
5.0 out of 5 stars Outstanding Epic Drama,
I watched Braveheart again over the weekend and this is truly an excellent epic drama. But let's get one thing off the table first. I do not view this movie as an accurate portrayal of William Wallace or Robert the Bruce - nor is it what the rating is based on. Obviously plenty of liberties were taken with history. The movie is great because it's a good story well told.
Braveheart is about the war for Scottish independence in the 13th century and the historical William Wallace who led the initial phases of the revolt. Wallace is portrayed as a man of deep principle who wanted peace but wanted freedom for his countrymen more.
The large battle scenes and the leadership of Wallace are awesomely portrayed, as is the untenable position of Robert the Bruce. Bruce is caught between the Scottish nobles who prefer land, wealth, and favoritism from the British crown to freedom and safety for their Scottish brethren, and William Wallace, whom he could ally with to fight for freedom, but at the potential cost of his life, land, and status. Robert the Bruce's internal struggle was well captured on screen.
The only problem I had with the movie and story - but a minor one really - is the unlikely liaison between Wallace and the Princess of Wales. Even in a fictional account of William Wallace, this seemed like a terribly unlikely event. But in the scheme of things, this is a minor quibble.
3.0 out of 5 stars A decent movie if you forget the historic license,
Mel Gibson's movie, Braveheart did extremely well in the box office and had a huge following. It is an uplifting movie with a lot of positives. This includes music, cinematography, and a well crafted story. A lot of actors did a superb job. These include Patrick McGoohan (Edward Longshanks) and Sophie Marceau. Like other movies in the recent times, this movie suffers from a not-so-good screenplay.
The story is about a reluctant person who is driven by revenge to rise against the English and try to free Scotland. Since there is not enough written history about that time, Mel Gibson rewrites history. I guess that this is OK in a movie. The film has everything in abundance: romance, patriotism, passion, revenge, heroism, battle - in short, it cannot fail unless messed up.
Whether you like it or not would depend on a number of factors. It has too much violence, especially the battlescenes and the R rating is justified. William Wallace is no Mandela, Dalai Lama or Gandhi, he does not try to fight for ideals but is motivated by sheer revenge when his wife is murdered. So, he is not the quintessential leader. I guess it would be unfair to compare one century with another, but he does come through as a hard, yet passionate leader. Of course, you will not like this movie if you are English too, as it slanders them, especially about a person who is not well documented. One must admit that no one would like that. I guess morality is difficult with such movies. I have read no place about the "Prima Noctes" instituted by the English. Mel Gibson uses such historical license in his next movie, "Passion of Christ" also. So is reality, some of the battlescenes are difficult to believe, especially those of the Irish changing sides and so on. They also do not show the taking of a city like York in detail (which must be pretty hard). This is where the historic license comes in I guess.
Having said that, I must admit that I enjoyed parts of the movie, though some of the movie was too long drawn. There is some creativity in it. I guess the era of directors such as David Lean are gone, so we must make do with the best of what we get. Turn off your rationale and intelligence a bit and you will enjoy this movie.
3.0 out of 5 stars All passion and no brains.,
Braveheart comes with an impressive list of credentials. It is regarded as one of Mel Gibson's best performances. It won five Academy Awarts, including Best Picture. The musical score by James Horner is one of the all time favorites. And it is one of the most popular movies of all time. Billed as an epic historical saga filled with history, love and battle, Braveheart apparently is Hollywood at its best. But is it really worth all the hype, and is the emperor really wearing any clothes?
First of all, the movie takes many historical liberties, deviating substantially from the real account of William Wallace. For instance, both the "prima nocta" legislation, and the suggestion that Wallace fathered a child with Princess Isobelle are fictional. But poetic license in movie making is not new, and can hardly be sufficient reason for trashing a movie - Braveheart never pretends to be a reconstruction of history. But it does pretend to be an epic of cinema, and its success in that regard is debatable.
The basic plot of Braveheart is quite simple: Man loves woman. Woman gets killed by English. Man gets angry and takes revenge on English killers of woman. Man helps lead Scotland to freedom from English. Notice something? While William Wallace is lauded for his efforts to free Scotland, the reality is that he is motivated more by personal revenge and anger over what happened to his wife. His character is ruled more by murderous passion, lust and revenge, than by politics; His actions are more the result of uncontrollable rage than the result of an intelligent desire to liberate his country. In the process, Wallace stoops to commit some of the same evils as his English oppressors. Just like the English tried to take his wife, so Wallace ends up bedding the wife of the English crown prince, rather than honoring her marriage to her own husband (who is admittedly a fool, but this doesn't justify adultery). In principle, Wallace's adultery is just as heinous and dishonoring to her husband as the English's treatment of Wallace's wife dishonored him. But by this point most viewers have already been manipulated to think that this sexual conquest is a good thing; Braveheart clearly presents this adulterous tryst as a delightful thing, and even rewards the adulterous union with a child.
This is typical of the moral confusion evident throughout the entire movie. While it pretends to be an epic about a struggle for freedom, in reality it is little more than a gory action movie with lots of fighting and passion, where the action is governed more by primitive and barbarian feelings and lusts than by reasoned and thoughtful intelligence. The reasons behind the cry "Freedom!" are never explained, aside from the fact that Wallace is filled with rage at losing his wife, and this motivates him to fearless (and at times foolish and unbelievable) acts of "bravery". He's a larger-than-life hero governed by passion without reason; is motivated more by a vengeful passion over his murdered bride than a passion for his country. It's not surprising that Braveheart is nonetheless popular, because perhaps the masses today are largely governed by the same passions. This kind of hero is appealing to those accustomed to the ongoing media spectacle which lauds mindless macho men, and brainless brawn. Despite our advanced technological and educated era, popular culture is largely rendered passive and mindless through the influence of the mass media and thoughtless entertainment. Perhaps then it's little wonder that we find Braveheart so appealing, that we fail to realize that its attraction is no more enduring than the emperor's new clothes. And that today we find a more intelligent movie about a principled statesman and leader like "A Man For All Seasons" rather boring.
Not to say that Braveheart is all bad (although be warned that the violence and gore more than justifies the R rating). I found it appealing that the movie didn't resort to a feel-good everyone-lived-happily-ever-after type ending. The final tragic note is powerful, and is not altogether unlike its imitator "Gladiator" (2000). The battle scenes featuring medieval weapons and hundreds of extras create an epic feel, and have to be admired for what they are - although at times the drama is exaggerated. But when all is said and done, this movie pretends to be more than what it really is. Braveheart turns history into a blood and brainless love story. It's no more one of the heights of cinema than the Emperor's new clothes are the heights of fashion. - GODLY GADFLY
5.0 out of 5 stars Add it to your collection.,
Is it accruate? Don't know. Is it Entertaining? Yes! I watched Braveheart, The Patriot and Gladiator back to back. I would rank them in that order 1,2 & 3 starting with Braveheart. I would rate it a 4.5 to a 5 starts.
As you might already know, these are not "chick flicks". They include too much fighting, blood, guts and death to be considered a date movie. You know what I mean, at the end of the night when it is a question of what to watch these usually get pushed to the bottom of the list because they don't have a happy ending.
I think movies like these are viewed for the feelings you experience while rooting the characters on to victory not just the gore of battle. I picked up on the general themes of bonding, team work, fraternity and living for a higher purpose. It must be a guy thing I guess.....Overall, the story is told in an engaging manner and the sets in addition to the costumes are done VERY well. One negative: I must say it is quite long, so put the kids to bed early and disconnect the phone if you want to get through it in a single evening. Add it to your collection.
5.0 out of 5 stars YES, IT IS FICTION!,
This was a fantastic film, period. A lot of people are criticizing the movie for not being 100% historically accurate. Well, just to save you some time, no, this movie is not historically accurate. This film is about a 13th century Scottish freedom fighter named William Wallace. Wallace is a national hero in Scotland and to this day is attributed by a massive statue that stand there.
The movie is a bit on the longer side, however these days, with all of these new epics coming out, three hours really isn't that long anymore. The cinematography is fantastic, and the shots of the lush landscapes of Scotland and Ireland are breath taking. The battle scenes are realistically gory, and the love scenes are often. The film does a nice job of portraying Wallace's chilodhood adding some character development. This film is great for those who love the hardcore brand of violence and for those who have a softer side as well. I loved this movie.
However, as you may have read from other reviews, this movie is not 100% accurate. I think this is a ridiculous reason to not like this movie, because nothing is really that accurate. I know the LOTR movies weren't all accurate with the books, but no one complained about those. And in the second century A.D., there was no Gladiator that defied the emperor Commodus. Commodus did in fact partake in the Gladitorial games, but as opposed to the movie, he won every match he fought; man or beast. Everyone seemed to like Gladiator. Braveheart is fiction, and a damn good fiction at that. Don't be persuaded not to see this magnificent film because it's been to Hollywood. As for the Scots upset at the inaccuracy of this film, get over it. The American revolution wasn't won by a malitiaman running up a hill flying an American flag either. (The Patriot)
5.0 out of 5 stars Why people don't like this movie,
First off - this movie is superb. Absolutely phenomenal. I watched it again last night when I only had an hour to spare and ended up watching the whole thing. It's like a well written book that you can't put down until you get to the end. Now - on to the title of this review: Nearly every review which gives this movie less than five stars mentions historical inaccuracies as the reason for the lower score. Now, I'm not an expert on William Wallace or anyone else who was living in Scotland in the 13th century, but I do know that I wasn't watching this on the history channel. I was on a movie channel - it's a movie! Braveheart doesn't claim to be (and shouldn't be) a historically accurate representation of the life and times of William Wallace. It's a passionate love story about a pacifist who becomes a warrior because he can no longer accept the tyranny of the Britains. (And for you British folk who are tweaked by this - get over it. It's just a movie and "strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government" anyway). Bottom line: This is a really really really good movie and you should buy it instead of renting it because it'll save you money in the long run - but wait for the DVD because VHS will wear out too fast.
2.0 out of 5 stars Inaccurate and frustrating.,
By A Customer
First of I'm 100% Scottish and proud but this film is disgraceful. It's annoying how inaccurate Hollywood has made Scottish history for the sake of entertainment. The wars of Independance were a massivly important time in both Scottish and English history and Hollywood has done a great job or twisting facts for the sake of a juicy story.
The script for Braveheart was based on a poem by a medieval poet called 'Blind Harry' This man was highly biased, anti-English (as most were at the time) and at one stage claimed defiantly that Scotland won the batle of Falkirk. Now, imagine a 'history of Iraq' based on personal accounts by the Iraqi Information Minister. It's much the same thing. Biased drivel.
One top of this, the film is historically very, very inaccurate. It's true that Bruce did change sides often, but he never fought Wallace on the battlefield. Bruce wasn't even at the Battle of Falkirk. And as it says on the inside of the box: "And won their freedom...forever" is also frankly, rubbish. If Scotland won it forever we wouldn't be part of Britain at this moment in time.
This film is only good for blood and guts and a bit of swordfighting and that's why I gave it 2 stars.
I see the effect this film has had when I visit the Wallace Monument in Stirling. There's a stone carving of Mel Gibson in the classic Wallace pose outside the gift shop. It embarassing to see the tourists snapping pictures of the Hollywood replica. The real statue of Wallace is hidden in the background only visible to those who know it's there. Most of the tourists don't notice it, and it's sad. He deserves to be remembered for what he was, and not what Hollywood has made him.
5.0 out of 5 stars "Arrows cost money. The dead cost nothing.",
This is truly one of the most inspired films to come out in the last ten years. Mel Gibson has double-duty here as lead actor and director and acquits himself admirably at both. His performance is so heart-felt that many times during the film I was impassioned to cry out with the collective shouting of his men. He also uses nuance in the more intimate scenes between characters, using glances and gestures to propell the story. His acting is just one of the many splendid performances in this epic; and all the other actors feed off Mel Gibson's passion. His direction is also incredible for a first film, and it is remarkable how ambitious an undertaking this is. All concerned with the making of this spledid film should be congratulated. The costumes are extravagant and glow with authenticity, the art direction and set designs are all meticulously crafted, while the greatest star of this film is cinematographer John Toll. His work here recieved the Oscar for Best Cinematography, which made him a back-to-back recipient of the award, having won the previous year for "Legends of the Fall." The photography here is stunning and captures all the beauty of the landscape, and the subtlety of character emotion equally well. John Toll has continued to garner recognition for more recent work, including another Oscar nomination in 1998 for "The Thin Red Line." Another notable behind-the-scenes collaborator is screenwriter Randall Wallace. His writing is excellent, with impressionable, quotable dialogue and incredibly memorable lines that I've heard many times over in the years since this film's theatrical release. While I could nitpick and point out some obvious film editing flaws, those flaws are negligible when compared to the inspiration with which this film absolutely sparkles. This film has everything: romance, tyranny, hope, betrayal, epic battles with intense realism, love, passion, wit, and loyalty. This is an extraordinary film. Not altogether perfect, but perfectly inspired.
5.0 out of 5 stars Absolute perfection!!!,
For those who don't know the story behind the film, it is a simple but affective one. Mel Gibsion plays a Scottish commoner named William Wallace, who leads an uprising against the cruel and tyranic king of England named Edward Longshanks (Patrick McGoohan)to free Scottland from English rule.
Very few films come close to Braveheart. It is perhaps one of the most inspiring and powerful films ever made. Mel Gibson could not have done a better job. He not only took on the difficult task of directing this film, but he also played the lead character. The passion and energy that he brought into the character of William Wallace is incredible, and watching him act out the role will amaze you. The rest of the cast was filled with talented actors who nailed their roles as well such as Angus MacFadyen ( Robert the Bruce), Patrick McGoohan ( Edward Longshanks), and Sophie Marceau ( Princess Isabelle). However, the performances given from the entire cast, is not the film's only strong point. The battle scenes are incredible. The sheer violence and authenticity of each battle scene is unreal. It is so realistic looking, that you will be made to flinch at times. The film also features a powerful soundtrack filled with beautiful bagpipe scores that really add to each scene. Last but not least is the film's ending. It is perhaps one of the best I have ever seen, and it brought the film to a thrilling and satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Braveheart will go down as one of the best films ever made in my opinion. There are very few films that match its intensity, authenticity, and inspiring story. Mel Gibsion should be proud because he created a masterpiece. The DVD is definately the way to go in this case. First of all, the whole film is captured on one disk, and you do not have to worry about switching tapes. Secondly, you get a behind the scenes featurette on the making of the film and commentary from Mel Gibsion. The picture and sound quality is excellent as well.
A solid 5 stars...
Most Helpful First | Newest First
Braveheart (Bilingual) [Import] by Mel Gibson (DVD - 2007)