Braveheart

Tempers moments of despair with deliriously romantic passages abetted by James Horner's traditionally lush score and photography by John Toll ("Legends of the Fall's" Oscar winner).

Startlingly vigorous and entertaining piece of work.

At its best, it's an exhilaratingly grandiose Highland fling. [24 May 1995, Tempo, p.1]

A completely adequate modern facsimile of the classic romantic epic.

Braveheart features some of the most enthralling combat sequences in years, and the excessive ferocity of the violence is part of the thrill.

Never tries to confuse our loyalties or question the strategies of our hero or bring home the all-embracing soul-destroying horrors of war for all sides. Braveheart may be rip-roaring, but it isn't all that brave.

A rambling disappointment.

Braveheart, which tells the story of William Wallace, is a historically inspired epic that paints a vivid picture of English tyranny in Scotland. The film follows the story of Wallace, a hero and freedom fighter who staunchly believed in his cause, fighting against oppression. While critics may argue about the historical inaccuracies present in the film, one must recognize that absolute historical fidelity is rare in Hollywood epics. What matters most is that "Braveheart" captures the essence of standing up to tyranny, confronting bullies, and finding the courage to face fears despite overwhelming adversity. One cannot review "Braveheart" without mentioning its iconic battle speech, a moment that has earned its place in cinema history. The speech, coupled with excellent action sequences, offers a breathtaking cinematic experience that keeps audiences on the edge of their seats. Mel Gibson's portrayal of Wallace is both passionate and believable, contributing to the movie's lasting impact. It's clear that "Braveheart" has been a significant influence in the industry, inspiring future historical epics like "Gladiator" and beyond. In conclusion, "Braveheart" is more than just a film; it's an inspiring tale of resilience, courage, and the human spirit. Its blend of storytelling, action, and historical inspiration make it a must-see for anyone interested in epic cinema.

The 1995 Oscar winning film Braveheart is less a historical document and more a masterclass in emotional storytelling. Every element, from music and performance to imagery and pacing, is crafted to ensure the audience feels every triumph and heartbreak right alongside its protagonist. By the film’s conclusion, detachment isn’t just difficult—it’s unthinkable. If there is a criticism to be levelled at Braveheart, it is that its emotional manipulation is almost too effective. The film rarely allows for nuance or ambiguity; every moment is constructed to elicit a strong response—pride, heartbreak, fury, or triumph. Gibson’s direction gives the viewer no escape, thrusting them into scenes of tenderness, betrayal, and sacrifice with such force that detachment becomes nearly impossible. Yet few films have left as indelible a mark on popular consciousness as Mel Gibson’s Braveheart. Since its release in 1995, the film has been celebrated, criticised, parodied, and referenced endlessly. Yet, regardless of one’s stance on its historical liberties, what sets Braveheart apart is its uncanny ability to push the audience’s emotional buttons so relentlessly that any real detachment becomes nearly impossible. From the very first frames, Gibson’s direction makes it clear that this is a story designed to stir the soul. The sweeping landscapes of the Scottish Highlands, underscored by James Horner’s evocative score, immerse the viewer in a world that is at once epic and deeply personal. The film’s protagonist, William Wallace, is introduced not as a mythic hero, but as a boy orphaned by violence, setting the stage for a narrative where personal loss and longing are placed front and centre. The use of music cannot be overstated; Horner’s soundtrack is manipulative in the best sense, guiding the viewer’s emotions with every note. When Wallace falls in love with Murron, the lilting theme is tender, hopeful. When tragedy strikes, those same motifs return, twisted into mournful, heart-wrenching laments. The audience is carried along on this melodic tide, never offered the luxury of emotional distance. Gibson’s performance as Wallace is pitched perfectly for maximum sympathy. He plays the character with a mixture of vulnerability, steadfastness, and raw passion, never shying away from moments of grief and tenderness. This is not a stoic leader, but a man who feels deeply, who weeps openly at loss, and whose love—for his country, for Murron, for freedom—is palpable. From the loyal Stephen and Hamish to the treacherous Robert the Bruce, each character is drawn with broad, emotionally charged strokes. Dialogue is rarely subtle; lines are delivered with the kind of intensity designed to echo in the heart. Even the film’s villains are depicted with such cruelty that outrage is the only possible response, making viewers yearn for justice and catharsis. Braveheart does not shy away from brutality, and this, too, serves to engage the audience’s emotions. The battle scenes are visceral, chaotic, and bloody, filmed in a way that makes the cost of conflict all too real. When Wallace’s friends and fellow Scots are cut down, the camera lingers just long enough to elicit horror and sorrow. The suffering is not abstract—every wound, every scream, is felt. The violence in the film is a tool to elicit empathy and outrage. The execution of Murron, in particular, serves as an emotional linchpin for the entire narrative. Her death is staged as a moment of such cruelty that the viewer is left devastated, and Wallace’s vow for vengeance becomes a shared burden. From that point forward, the audience is emotionally shackled to the hero’s cause, but one which pushes the buttons that any real detachment is impossible, and the sight of a William Wallace being the lover that Princess Isabelle so needs is a bit too much.

This movie is flat out sick and disgusting but it had a compelling story and Mel Gibson gave a great performance. The movie was a little long and a bit boring at times though.

Voici ce bon vieux Mel -pas encore si vieux ici- en défenseur de la cause écossaise face aux fourbes Anglais, de très méchants et très cruels Anglais à l'image de leur roi Edouard le Sec, assurément très sec et très strict. Et campé de façon hilarante par un Patrick McGoohan excellent de satire. Car le film est une satire ou bien une sorte de caricature ambulante de la cave au grenier et du début à la fin, pourvu qu'on tienne évidemment jusqu'à la fin de ses 3 plombes, cela va de soi. Mel n'est ici que rage, passé un début laborieux et neuneu, qui passe son temps à brailler "liberté" comme à une manif de la CGT. Il a sans doute cru que le visage barbouillé en bleu, ça suffisait à lui donner toute la crédibilité d'un messie libérateur pour son peuple, trahi par une noblesse décadente bien entendu. On ne va pas s'étendre sur l'invraisemblance générale du film qui n'a d'historique que le nom (depuis quand envoit-on une princesse négocier une trève ?) car après tout, il faut le prendre comme un gros divertissement et rien d'autre. Les moyens déployés sont impressionnants, les figurants nombreux, les costumes flamboyants et la réalisation plutôt correcte. De beaux plans ici et là, une violence assez prégnante... mais dans le coeur des batailles, le montage nerveux et la caméra agitée donnent le mal de mer. Notre Sophie nationale a l'air d'une cruche au simple service de la pâmoison sur commande du valeureux guerrier en kilt et le fiston du roi anglais semble appartenir à l'autre bord, comme pour mieux faire passer les Anglais soit pour des tantes, soit pour des sadiques. Quant au personnage de ce Wallace, il doit se retourner dans sa tombe -même s'il n'en a jamais eu- car incarné par le Mel qui en fait des caisses et des pas belles, il y a de quoi demander réparation pour outrage et foutage de gueule. Voilà, pas grand-chose à récupérer de ce coeur vaillant : dès qu'on croit y dénicher une qualité, on tombe encore sur un défaut : alors la bataille est gagnée mais par défauts seulement.

A shame: history didn't pass here. This film tells the story of William Wallace (Mel Gibson), a champion of Scottish independence that urged the Scots to fight against the attempts of invasion and domination of the English. Directed by Mel Gibson (who also plays the lead role), has Randall Wallace's script. This film is especially dedicated to those who don't know absolutely nothing of Scotland's history and don't wish to understand anything about it anytime soon. This is because the whole film is a complete nonsense, one slapstick that should never have been filmed, an insult to Scotland and its past. Why am I so hard? Because this film not only ignored the real life of William Wallace, lying about that and inventing the most of things, but also portrays the Scots (and even the English) in a historically inaccurate manner. There is absolutely nothing good in this movie. The costumes don't match (even the kilts didn't exist yet at Wallace's time), battles didn't happened that way, Gibson's performance was poor and theatrical, photography is boring and ordinary and the psychological depth of all characters is comparable to a dry river in Summer. Oscars for this film? Yes, he got some (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Effects and Best Makeup)... but I don't even want to know how it's happened! Even the Razzie Awards are something too good for this movie. Mel Gibson is usually a good actor. He can be a good "Patriot", he may even know "What Women Want", have a "Lethal Weapon" or even several. I don't care. But making a "Braveheart" so bad that even the Monty Python would easily do better is such a shame that leaves me in the "Edge of Darkness"... This movie takes one star from me because i'm feeling generous today. Only for that.