Braveheart

by **Lord Nev** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:48 pm

For all'yall who've seen the movie Braveheart post here about it. Did you like it or not? What do you think they could've done better? and so on and so forth...

I liked the music most. I've always liked bagpipes, except the ones used were Irish pipes; still cool though. I also liked the fact that it's Scottish history. I've been wanting to travel there.

The battle scenes were awesome! I mean the shiltrums looked so real! If any of you have the DVD, watch the commentary. It's unreal.

by **Ristridin** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:07 pm

I have seen the move many times. I like it very much. I also like the music very much, a bit Irish/Schottish. It is a bit history indeed, but it`s also based on Herotic-stories. But it`s very cool.
I like the part when William is mad because the English killed his love.

Michiel

by **eNiGMa** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:59 pm

I actually put the Braveheart CD case in a diorama-type thing for my Eagle Scout ceremony a couple years ago. Needless to say, it is one of my all-time favorite soundtracks. Very beautiful, very Scottish, very excellent.

It's been several years since I last saw the movie, but from what I remember, it's a great show. I'll have to dig it out of my basement this weekend and give it a watch....

by **ottoatm** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:22 am

I have a feeling this thread will be sure to create a critic or two that will point out the historical inaccuracies of the movie... but that said, I have to say that I love this movie for what it is... great entertainment and a lil' bit of the ol' scottish/Irish pride for that 75% of me (I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that only us americans would say something like this :-P

)

Speaking solely on the basis of what makes a good movie, I think this one takes the cake - great acting, great villians and heros, some good cases of revenge and romance... not to mention the whole father/son thing going on... well done.

by **TwoTonic Knight** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:09 am

Sophie Marceau. Yum. What a dish. She could even act!

Villiany via enunciation: Patrick (I am not a number!) McGoohan. Hammer of the Scots! Odds are Mel won't live to see tomorrow; Scottish Agent Man...just a great piece of acting on Patrick's part.

Mel (crucify...oops...eviserate me) Gibson. Yeah, he Hollywoodized it, but it was a Hollywood movie - what did you expect? Cool, if overly chaotic, battle scenes (Hollywood doesn't believe in formations, just wild melees). Be honest, didn't you squirm watching Mel get drawn? He was just making faces, but boy, shows you what you can do by acting rather than resorting to special effects.

Loved the visuals and art direction. If you only saw it on the television, you just lose the impact of the hill of dead, dying, and wounded. Mel gets medieval on the extras'.....

by **Blueandwhite** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:44 am

ottoatm wrote:I have a feeling this thread will be sure to create a critic or two that will point out the historical inaccuracies of the movie... but that said, I have to say that I love this movie for what it is... great entertainment and a lil' bit of the ol' scottish/Irish pride for that 75% of me (I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that only us americans would say something like this )

Right here

!

Honestly, I like Braveheart, but there are a few things (one really) that just irk me. That of course is the fictional affair between Isabella of France and William Wallace. I didn't actually mind that they 'aged' her for the film (she was in fact only nine when William Wallace died), but to have her romantically involved with Wallace was too much! Even worse is the suggestion that Wallace sired Edward III (who wasn't born until 1312). This is quite silly when you consider that Edward I didn't die until 1307 (two years after Wallace was executed).

All other historical inaccuracies are easy to overlook, but the afformentioned affair should never have been in the movie. I can forgive the fact that Wallace shouldn't be wielding a claymore, or that jus prima noctis (the right for Lords to "deflower" his subjects) wasn't in force when Wallace led his revolution. The affair on the other hand was completely unnecessary. It didn't really add to the plot, and was too over the top to justify.

I still like Braveheart, but some of the liberties taken were simply unnecessary.

Later.

by **Ristridin** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:23 pm

Honestly, I like Braveheart, but there are a few things (one really) that just irk me. That of course is the fictional affair between Isabella of France and William Wallace. I didn't actually mind that they 'aged' her for the film (she was in fact only nine when William Wallace died)

Whell, maibe he loved children a bit to much! :lol:

But that`s true, and a relation between a Scotish barbarian and the queen of Englend is a bit to fictionel. But has the western studios ever made a film without romance?
About that, the film Pearl Harbor was really crap. I went to it to see a movie about war, but all I saw was a movie about romance.

by **Damien** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:31 pm

Like any other 'historical' film - it was laughably inaccurate. But it was enjoyable. It's in my collection and I watch it every so often. Not as good, in my opinion, as later historical fiction such as Kingdom of Heaven and Alexander, but still good and worth owning.

Really, though, this movie would be ten times better if A BIT more attention was paid to historical accuracy. In some cases it would have only required a slight alteration. Oh well.

by **Lord Nev** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:13 pm

About all your posts...

The music is Irish only. It's Scottish history.

Now now, let's not be crude. We're not talking about Michael Jackson here *BURN*.

I personally like Catherine McCormack. She looks almost exactly like a girl I like.

Damien, if it was too historically accurate you would have a five hour movie. Wallace attacked and destroyed many many more English cities than what the movie shows.

Stirling was fought by a river and the English cavalry were defeated because the bridge was big enough for two Claymore men :twisted:

Stirling was across the river.

Ristridin, Pearl Harbor was all "love". But the attack and the raid at the end were very well done. The cinematography and the SFX were awesome. It was very chaotic, dramatic, tragic, and exhilerating all at the same time. Okay but about Braveheart.

Did you know that whwen the axe was coming down they filmed that backward. The axe dude pulled the axe up and they played it backwards.

They had to edit out a couple things because at the execution scene Mel was afraid the women might walk out.

The executioner originally said as he uncovered the instruments "Before this is over, we will have used every one of these!"

One thing I like about the movie is that they kept Wallace's line about never swearing loyalty to Longshanks in the first place.

When all the Scots got hanged in the start of the movie, that happened when Wallace was still purifying Scotland. Boy, did he ever wreak vengeance on the English that night.
Even some monks helped him.

OK Blueandwhite, WALLACE WEILDED A CLAYMORE IN HISTORY TOO, so what you said was inaccurate.

by **Damien** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:33 am

Damien, if it was too historically accurate you would have a five hour movie. Wallace attacked and destroyed many many more English cities than what the movie shows.

Lots of things can happen 'off-camera' in a movie and still be alluded to. PLENTY of movies, for example, use captions:

"4 years later. . ."

Things like that. Essentially, there's never any reason to flat-out ignore the passage of time and the happenings in the world just for time constraints. The implication is all that's necessary.

Besides, by 'a little more historical accuracy' I simply meant closer attention to details. More realistic armaments, more believable scenarios, etc.

OK Blueandwhite, WALLACE WEILDED A CLAYMORE IN HISTORY TOO, so what you said was inaccurate.

No, he didn't.

At least, there's no historical support for that. In all likelihood his preferred weapon would have been the same weapon preferred by most other men of station - a single-hand sword. What he -actually- used is the subject of much debate. It is exceptionally unlikely that he used a two-hand sword (which was NOT called a claymore, by the way).

by **Sir Kohran** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:23 am

Braveheart...what a horrible movie. I cannot express how much I despise it.

I can understand why historical changes are made sometimes - Gladiator and Kingdom Of Heaven had plenty, and yet the changes were only there to help the plot and give you a better idea of the movie's big message. I enjoyed both thoroughly.

The problem with the changes in Braveheart is that they were only made to heighten the movie's plot, not the historical story. As a result, we got a story that seemed neither historical nor fictional.

The changes made promoted a very anti-English theme, which is what I hated most about it. It made every Englishman in the movie out to be either be pathetic, foolish or cruel, or all three, an insult from Mel Gibson that I, as an Englishman myself, take very personally. Belive it or not, we aren't all weaklings and monsters. Okay, yes, Longshanks WAS a brutal leader at times, but most rulers back then were. In fact, he was quite a strong leader, who revolutionized Britain, imposing new laws to keep the country in better order. However, the movie takes this flawed but strong ruler and turns him into a ruthless tyrant, who tricks and hangs unarmed Scottish nobles (completely untrue) to take control of the country. Historically, he took over because Scotland had no ruler and the Scottish nobles actually asked him to sort out the situation. Also, it was thought at the time that the Scottish were going to form an alliance with the French, England's greatest enemies, so I actually find his historical reaction fairly reasonable, unlike the monster that the movie showed.

Basically, to me, this aren't historical inaccurasies, they're downright insults to my country.

The only good thing about this movie was that the fighting was suitably brutal and bloody, showing you just how violent and terrible the Middle Ages were. But even the fight scenes were at fault. Tell me how downtrodden, untrained peasants with crude weapons can each slaughter many more professional, well-equiped soldiers. Or how an unarmoured, battle-weary man can take an arrow in his unprotected stomach, but still continue fighting, then ride a horse perfectly well and even take down a fresh knight?

However, when the director thinks he's descended from William Wallace, what can you expect?

- Matt

PS: One last rant: the Battle of Stirling Bridge is missing a bridge...

PPS: Seems ironic that I posted this on the day of the England vs. Scotland rugby match...

by **MaxiVisVires** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:37 pm

Ok ok, this entire topic reminded me of something my grandmother once said while watching Serenity (she loves action flicks)

"I don't like Science Fiction Movies because they're not real"

Well, of course they're not real, it's a movie! My point is, these movies, wether or not they are historically accurate, are to entertain us. More importantly, they are meant to entertain the masses, not individuals. If these films we're ultra historically accurate, they would either be a) Independent Film that 5 people have seen
b) History Channel Show

Now, myself, I am a big history fan, and when a movie comes out, for example Alexander, I usually watch the "History Channel tell all" of Alexander 2 weeks before the movie comes out. But when I watch the movie, I don't hiss and snarle when it's not accurate. I'd have to be an idiot to expect such. If you want to learn about history, watching a Hollywood movie is surely the wrong place to do it.

Just like with the Harry Potter films, I get so annoyed when kids start saying "That's not the way it was in the book!". Well Yes, the movie is based off of the book, but we're not reading a book we're watching a movie!

This applies the same with the comic book movies. They have to produce the movie so everyone can understand it and they change things so that it can be easily followed and entertaining. If the movie takes a good effect, then afterwards the viewer would later research more of the subject manner.

Can you imagine people criticizing Star Wars because certain things are physically or technologically impossible? It's a movie people.

Now back to Braveheart. I give it 2 grades...

Hollywood Grade - Great Movie, entertaining, great story, made tons in the box office, many awards and nominations.

History Channel Grade - Credibility of a late night Info Commercial

Now to what Sir Kohran posted...

The changes made promoted a very anti-English theme, which is what I hated most about it.

Yes, I remember this whole thing when Mel Gibson released "The Patriot" another Anti-British History movie. I think there was an outcry to boycott all of Mel Gibson or something along those lines.

Well, isn't History (or in this case Movies) based off the views of the person writing the records? In that case is History even Historically accurate? Of course this movie is bias against England, it's from the view of the Scotts (or Mel Gibson). Star Wars is based off of the Rebels right? I am pretty sure from the Empire's view they would look like the bad guys instead.

All movies are guilty of this, because this is how you tell a story. My German friends brought this up to me one time, when talking about WW2 movies. They claimed that American WW2 movies we're bias in some things. I couldn't believe it until compared with German WW2 films. They were right, though German WW2 films are also bias in certain areas. They weren't bias in the historical accuracy of the movie but instead of how each side was depicted in the movie.

My point is... if you want to go out with your friends or your special squeeze, get a couple hours of entertainment and spend 4.00 on a coke, go to the movies. If you want to watch a film that is neutral, historically accurate, and make some home made nachos, go watch the History Channel.

by **Damien** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:26 pm

b) History Channel Show

History Channel shows are about as historically accurate as those crazy people talking about how The Holocaust never happened. Really, it sounds harsh and ironic - but the History Channel hasn't made an historically accurate program in almost a decade. No surprise considering they have stunt men and re-enactors, rather than historians, hosting shows about the Medieval era.

If I ever see that guy that hosts "Conquest" I'm going to slap him right across the face.

Yes, I remember this whole thing when Mel Gibson released "The Patriot" another Anti-British History movie.

Anti-British? Now, the Patriot may not have been historically accurate by any measure, but calling it Anti-British? I suppose the movie "Patton" is anti-German? There's a difference between being 'anti-' something and simply portraying a historical event. Portraying one side in a 'bad' light doesn't make it anti-thosepeople. In a very real way the British soldiers were the enemy, so they were portrayed as such. Nowhere does the movie say "all Brits are big jerk-faces."

The changes made promoted a very anti-English theme

I disagree. The changes, while sometimes disagreeable, were designed to give the film an enemy. In order for Wallace to be a hero to modern audiences outside Scotland, his antagonist needed to be a 'bad' person. That does NOT translate to an anti-English attitude anymore than Dark Prince is Anti-Turkish. Was Edward demonized for the film? Oh, God yeah. Like crazy. But Edward is not representative of ALL Englishmen. The film may have been Anti-Edward, in order to function, but it was anything but anti-English. They just happened to be the 'bad guys' of the movie. Most movies need a clear bad guy. Kingdom of Heaven didn't have that and it BOMBED in the United States.

I'll also point out that Robert was a total twit through most of Braveheart. Yet I don't see anyone clamouring on the "Braveheart is anti-Scottish" bandwagon.

Historically, he took over because Scotland had no ruler and the Scottish nobles actually asked him to sort out the situation.

History is subjective. And the fact is that both the English and the Scottish have screwed up views of their own histories. Wallace was flat out a murderer. So was Edward. Englishmen like to think their history is a glowing beacon of rightness. It isn't. Neither is Scottish history. So let's not assign more noble motives than actually existed. Edward wanted to control Scotland, its people and its resources and went to terrible lengths to do that. Wallace wanted a free Scotland and went to terrible lengths to do that.

Part of making a movie is the art of exaggeration. You exaggerate the 'bad guy's' bad qualities and eccentuate the good guy's good qualities. Being offended about that is silly.

Basically, to me, this aren't historical inaccurasies, they're downright insults to my country.

Your country has a pretty checkered past. But to say that portraying a single person in a bad light is an insult to his entire country is... extreme to a fault.

Tell me how downtrodden, untrained peasants with crude weapons can each slaughter many more professional, well-equiped soldiers.

With difficulty.

But they did do it. And not only in Scotland. The Polish did it during their peasant revolt in the.. 1500s(?). Etc.

Or how an unarmoured, battle-weary man can take an arrow in his unprotected stomach, but still continue fighting, then ride a horse perfectly well and even take down a fresh knight?

Adrenaline.

Same thing happened to Godfrey in Kingdom of Heaven. And there are plenty of records of historical figures taking severe wounds and still fighting through it (often dying afterward, though). Tell me how, in so many movies, the 'hero' gets shot, stabbed, clubbed, or otherwise severely injured and still wins. He's the hero, and there -is- precedent for people suffering injuries and still being victorious.

However, when the director thinks he's descended from William Wallace, what can you expect?

Does he? I thought he was mostly of English and Irish descent.

by **E of Alshire** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:45 pm

I sense a locked thread coming on...

A good movie, historical purposes aside. I'm not going to pretend to know much about history here, but I managed to catch a few errors during the movie. That said, the movie completed its intended purpose extremely well - to entertain. It wasn't special-effecty (not a word, you say? It is now). Decent acting; especially considering some of today's "films".

And Nev, son't you mean schiltroms?

Are posts like these really the purpose of this thread? It seems to be a movie-review of late :wink:

.

by **MaxiVisVires** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:51 pm

Quote:
Yes, I remember this whole thing when Mel Gibson released "The Patriot" another Anti-British History movie.

Anti-British? Now, the Patriot may not have been historically accurate by any measure, but calling it Anti-British?

Ok, I stated that wrong, what I meant was "another movie in which British thought was generally anti-British or that Mel Gibson hates England". I personally did not think it was anti-British.

Braveheart

Braveheart

Who is online