Braveheart (4K UHD + Blu-ray + Digital)

In order to maintain the appearence of objectivity, I was going to rate this movie 4 stars. But I just couldn't. It really deserves 5, and it's going to get every one of them. This movie features some of the most stunning cinematography I've ever seen (scenes of particular brilliance include the deer-hunting scene and the slo-mo shots right before Gibson's first rebellion), impeccable acting (I don't know why the British have been hiding their actors from the American film industry - every one of the British/Scottish actors in the film was amazing, and Patrick McGoohan (sp) gave an incredible performance as Longshanks, not to mention newcomer Sophie Marceau), a magical musical score, and on and on and on and on. Physical elements alone qualify this work for the title of Best Picture.Yet, a number of people chastise Gibson and the movie for a number of reasons, primarily its departure from historical accuracy. I do believe these people have missed the point, for I do not believe it is fair to criticise a movie for failing to realize a goal for which it never really strived. I wonder: do these same people criticize Homer's "The Odyssey"? Do historical hardbodies cast aspersions at T.H. White's "Once and Future King" for taking historical liberties with "King" Arthur? (For that manner, any of the hundreds of contributions to the Arthurian legend). What about Robin Hood? Beowulf? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? Why is it copacetic for a book to create a myth around a cultural hero, but when it comes to film we must be expected to be as straightlaced about historical fact as an army bootcamp is about bedmaking and floor cleaning?I have read a lot of reviews below and a number of criticisers of the film's historical authenticity spit out the word "epic" as if it is a word that the American film industry has abused and transmogrified into a catchphrase for luring in gullible American movie-goers. But I argue that Braveheart, and the historical inaccuracies which it adopts (and it adopts many, which are nicely pointed out elsewhere), fit the same formula for "Epic Fiction" that we use to classify great (and I mean, universally accepted as great) epic works of fiction such as the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc. These works are not about who did what where and when and in what fashion. They are about the myth, the hero, and the way that they have influenced the ideals of the culture (italicize that). Was there really a Grendel, a Cyclops shepherd, a Wizard named Merlin, or Chinese war heroes who could single-handedly take on a small army? No. And yet, these works of fiction (and the mythological heroes that they have created) have had as much if not more of an impact on their respective cultures than any real life historical event. The impact of the epic is therefore not to be underestimated. Does the fact that Gibson portrayed the battle of Sterling Bridge without a Bridge really make that much of a differnce? The end outcome was the same, at least from an idealogical point of view. He rallied his men to victory with brilliant tactics against insurmountable odds. The presence or absence of a bridge, naked men, or twenty foot spears does not change that. The myth survives.Finally, regarding historical accuracy, there is the fact that although the movie does take a lot of liberties in order to portray a THEME - I am intelligent enough to suspend my disbelief during the movie. Furthermore, after the movie is over, (and this is a credit to the movie-maker) I was intrigued enough to go do some research on the subject from an objective historical source to find out what really happened. If a work of art (which is not, I remind you, required to be objective - artistic objectivity is almost an oxymoron and film should not be treated differently in this regard than any other form of art) instills in me a desire to learn more about a subject while at the same time portraying well the epic themes it sets out to portray, then in my book it was a successful venture and worthy of all the accolades it receives....Again, this is an epic, and just as a Greek epic might portray the Trojans as ruthless savages and their own members as heroic visionaries, I think it is acceptable for a Scottish epic to do the same to the British. And calling Gibson a homophobic is just ridiculous. Whether or not Edward II was really gay is not important. If he was, then BY THE STANDARDS OF THE DAY, he was an outcast, and would have been perceived, especially by his father, as weak, without potential, and unfit to rule. If he wasn't gay, but was just disinterested in ruling a kingdom (and history is filled to the brim with examples of less than sterling royal progeny), he would have again been seen (especially by his father) as weak, without potential and unfit to rule (because fathers - especially kings - have expectations of their sons), and questions about his sexuality would have naturally begun to arise among the nobility and commonfolk. What we as viewers of a historical or epic piece of artwork must do is refrain from judging said work by our standards. Today, homosexuality is (for the most part) accepted by society. Back then, it wasn't, and the mere rumor was enough to get you rejected from society (and vice-versa). Therefore, in light of the times in which the movie is set, the portrayal of the weak fop of a prince, EdwardII, as homosexual is both acceptable and indicative of the society that the movie was trying to portray. It wouldn't, for example, have made much sense to portray Edward I as gay. Not because a gay man couldn't be a successful King or military leader, but because a gay man would never have achieved respect as a monarch - THEN - by the people or his enemy.In closing, this is an excellent film that deserves its status as a best picture, despite (and perhaps because of) its historical inaccuracies. I encourage anyone with any interest in medieval history to view it, because it might just entice you to look into more historically accurate documents that, while not as entertaining as the movie iteself, will give you a more wholistic picture of what really happened.

It seems incredibly remiss of me not to have reviewed one of my favorite movies, a definite Oscar-winning `Desert Island' disc of mine. As an early adopter of the DVD format it was a movie that I eagerly awaited on the shiny little discs, there was even a Web site launched by another fan with the sole express purpose of pressuring the studio into releasing the movie on the format. Thankfully Paramount relented in 2000 and finally released the movie and I was there the day it came out to eagerly snatch up my copy.The historical inaccuracies have been well documented in the past. Very little is known of the background to William Wallace, and what we do know comes mainly from an oral history originating after his death. Even what we do know is not translated accurately into the film. Perhaps the most glaring example of this is the Battle of Stirling Bridge, which is portrayed here without the bridge. This is seen as critical by historians since the bridge played a role in the Scottish victory.However, as screenwriter Randall Wallace (who had never heard of his famous ancestor until a fateful trip to Scotland) said in a HISTORY channel documentary on the movie, the script holds true to the spirit of the Wallace history and technical issues finally proved prohibitive to filming the battle as it happened.The movie follows the story of William Wallace who led his native Scots in a revolt against the English King Edward the Longshanks (played with wonderful villainous relish by Patrick McGoohan). In an effort to "breed" out the Scots, Edward re-instigates an old practice whereby the English Lord blesses a marriage by taking the newly wed bride into his bed on the wedding night.Not willing to accept this Wallace and his bride (played by the impossibly beautiful Catherine McCormack) wed in secret. Then shortly after Wallace feels compelled to protect her from the lecherous advances of one of the Kings men, an action which leads to his bride being murdered by the English.The reaction by Wallace is swift and brutal, and the Scots march down into England to wreak revenge on their occupiers. Some of the violence is very graphic with heads getting lobbed off and severed arms spurting blood, but the graphic depiction of violence is necessary given that battles in that time were usually fought in close proximity and were violent.It's a story that I, as a native Scot, feel close to my heart and one that no doubt left an impact on the voters of Scotland who finally voted in the 1990s to partially secede from the United Kingdom to the extent that they now have their own parliament and are in control of most of their domestic policy.Perhaps surprising given his stature as one of Hollywood's leading men, Gibson handles his directorial duties expertly and in fact was recognized by the Academy in 1996 with a Best Director Oscar. He manages to weave together all the elements in what was a gigantic undertaking and gets fantastic performances from all involved.Special features on this DVD include a rather short behind-the-scenes featurette that includes shots of the Irish army dressing up as Scottish soldiers (yes, it was inexplicably filmed in Ireland and Scotland) , casting the movie (Gibson quite understandably was enchanted by McCormack's beauty) and problems they had in the making of the movie. There is also a rather breezy commentary by Gibson that I liked with only one exception. My favorite dialogue in the movie is the stirring pep talk given to his troops by Wallace before engaging the English, however in the commentary Gibson talks right through it. Still it's great to have the commentary on the disc, which was released at a time when star commentaries were rare.Overall then, the movie is an inspiring tale of courage and love. It's well worth giving it a spin in your DVD player and clocking in at three-hours well worth the price.Recommended.

One of the best of Mel Gibson. Highly recommend this movie

Excellent movie