Shockingly one-sided portrayal of real, tragic events that left thousands of innocents dead on both sides of the Anglo-Scottish border.
Previous historical epics have dealt very maturely with the subjects of conquest, rebellion, repression, etc - 'Spartacus' being one good example, 'El Cid' another so for that reason alone, this self-indulgent, schoolboy fantasy rates as a big disappointment.
Basically, Mel Gibson throws the history book away, and makes Scottish knight William Wallace into a Geronimo-like hero, constantly on the run, constantly outwitting (and brutally slaughtering) his cruel, pompous, haughty, tyrannical, cowardly, ignorant, 'pagan' (!) enemies. Rarely is it mentioned that the real guy killed anyone who understood the English tongue, and often skinned and burned alive his prisoners many of whom were taken during Scottish raids into England (yes, it happened both ways, though this film would have you think differently).
Does it work? Sure it works, on a very simple level. The scenery is lovely, the battles are probably the most convincingly filmed to date (though if you look closely, you'll see that they mainly consist of brawny Scotsmen bloodily butchering screaming, squawking Englishmen). But it does work. It's pacey enough, it's entertaining and it has as raw, gutsy feel.
If, however, you're like me, and you prefer at least a little bit of historical accuracy, then it's a dog's breakfast. To begin with, the armies Wallace led are portrayed in the movie as poorly-armed highlanders, whereas in reality they were lowlanders, easily as well equipped as the English armies they fought. The battle of Stirling Bridge was decided by the collapse of the bridge under the weight of the English cavalry, most of whom then drowned in their armour. The Scots did wreak some butchery, but mainly on the small infantry vanguard who'd got to the other side the English 'heavy horse' were never involved. At Falkirk, the Irish didn't side with their fellow Celts (they despised the Scots), and though the battle was indeed won by the English because the Scottish nobility fled the field, Wallace also fled how else did he survive? The characterisation is extraordinarily weak. Gibson himself, though his performance strikes a convincingly muscular, patriotic note, speaks in modern Glaswegian and sports blue woad and Celtic plaits that predate the Dark Ages never mind the Middle Ages. Sophie Marceau's beautiful French princess is totally one-dimensional as an abused innocent (in truth she was a scheming harpy, who later connived in the savage murder of her own husband and then an attempted coup). Patrick McGoohan (who steals the show for me at least he gives his character some charisma), concentrates mainly on the stern, unyielding side of Edward Longshanks we don't learn that he founded Parliament, or revised countless laws for the benefit of the underclass, etc.
It's a big missed opportunity. The same story could still have been told, painting Wallace as a hero, depicting Scotland as an oppressed society, but a bit of balance and political back-story would have made it much more interesting and, dare I say it, more adult.
It sill works, but only the way a pre-1960s cavalry vs Indians western works: as a bit of rousing fun, anachronistic in a more educated age.
Previous historical epics have dealt very maturely with the subjects of conquest, rebellion, repression, etc - 'Spartacus' being one good example, 'El Cid' another so for that reason alone, this self-indulgent, schoolboy fantasy rates as a big disappointment.
Basically, Mel Gibson throws the history book away, and makes Scottish knight William Wallace into a Geronimo-like hero, constantly on the run, constantly outwitting (and brutally slaughtering) his cruel, pompous, haughty, tyrannical, cowardly, ignorant, 'pagan' (!) enemies. Rarely is it mentioned that the real guy killed anyone who understood the English tongue, and often skinned and burned alive his prisoners many of whom were taken during Scottish raids into England (yes, it happened both ways, though this film would have you think differently).
Does it work? Sure it works, on a very simple level. The scenery is lovely, the battles are probably the most convincingly filmed to date (though if you look closely, you'll see that they mainly consist of brawny Scotsmen bloodily butchering screaming, squawking Englishmen). But it does work. It's pacey enough, it's entertaining and it has as raw, gutsy feel.
If, however, you're like me, and you prefer at least a little bit of historical accuracy, then it's a dog's breakfast. To begin with, the armies Wallace led are portrayed in the movie as poorly-armed highlanders, whereas in reality they were lowlanders, easily as well equipped as the English armies they fought. The battle of Stirling Bridge was decided by the collapse of the bridge under the weight of the English cavalry, most of whom then drowned in their armour. The Scots did wreak some butchery, but mainly on the small infantry vanguard who'd got to the other side the English 'heavy horse' were never involved. At Falkirk, the Irish didn't side with their fellow Celts (they despised the Scots), and though the battle was indeed won by the English because the Scottish nobility fled the field, Wallace also fled how else did he survive? The characterisation is extraordinarily weak. Gibson himself, though his performance strikes a convincingly muscular, patriotic note, speaks in modern Glaswegian and sports blue woad and Celtic plaits that predate the Dark Ages never mind the Middle Ages. Sophie Marceau's beautiful French princess is totally one-dimensional as an abused innocent (in truth she was a scheming harpy, who later connived in the savage murder of her own husband and then an attempted coup). Patrick McGoohan (who steals the show for me at least he gives his character some charisma), concentrates mainly on the stern, unyielding side of Edward Longshanks we don't learn that he founded Parliament, or revised countless laws for the benefit of the underclass, etc.
It's a big missed opportunity. The same story could still have been told, painting Wallace as a hero, depicting Scotland as an oppressed society, but a bit of balance and political back-story would have made it much more interesting and, dare I say it, more adult.
It sill works, but only the way a pre-1960s cavalry vs Indians western works: as a bit of rousing fun, anachronistic in a more educated age.