Something I didn't think about during my first three viewings, as a child and then teen, was the historical inaccuracies and there's quite a lot of them. Then again, not a lot is known about William Wallace. Mel Gibson who directed, produced and starred, along with Randall Wallace who penned the screenplay. They could have made a more historically accurate film but for dramatization purposes and to create the story they wanted to tell, I would say they succeeded. Braveheart is a story with themes of leadership, heroism, courage, love, sacrifice, friendship, and the betrayal. With the iconic quote of freedom from the central character, it's the Scottish freedom in their war of independence. I truly get why a rating decreases heavily because of historical inaccuracies, at times they can break a film but I think lots of things in Braveheart can easily be looked over and see the reason behind it. Before delving deeper into the film, I just want to say how nostalgic and how incredible it still is after all these years. I understand why it's one of my father's favorite films even more now than then.
What a different performance it would have been if Brad Pitt played William Wallace who was the first consideration for the role, instead the producer-director Mel Gibson took on the role in what's possibly one of his best performances. Drawing in different emotions throughout the film, from the love story and innocence in the beginning to the military leader he becomes who is solely bent on revenge and getting freedom for his fellow Scotsmen, to the final scene where the iconic quote "Freedom" is spoken by Mel Gibson's character. Three hours of brilliant performances by him and everyone else, from both perspectives (the Scottish and English sides). To the main cast of Sophie Marceau, Angus Macfadyen, Patrick McGoohan, Catherine McCormack, Brendan Gleeson, James Cosmo and David O'Hara. To the smaller performances by Brian Cox, Ian Bannen and Tommy Flanagan.
As I wrote before, Mel Gibson serves as producer and director, in what might be his magnum opus. His direction to the actors is top notch and the vision for the movie is fantastic, directing each scene with brilliance in mind. Could he have made it more historically accurate, sure, but he had a vision for it all and stuck with it. For example the kilts used, the kilt originated in the 16th century whilst the film is set in the 13th century. Why did they do that big of historical inaccuracy? For the imagery and how people nowadays recognize the Scottish kilt, back to the imagery though, during the battle sequences it just looks epic and the sequence wouldn't have been as cool and epic if it weren't for them, or so I think.
The battle sequences are brutal, epic and simply brilliantly shot. The mise-en-scene in those scenes and honestly the entire movie, is fantastic. All from the village fight which begins the journey for freedom, to the different battle sequences throughout the film which was visually violent and chaotic. In a filmmaking standpoint, Mel Gibson directed all of those actors and extras whilst acting out the scenes himself, a truly breathtaking couple of sequences. I want to focus on the battle at Stirling which is the first major battle and in my opinion the most stellar one, truly cinema. The huge amount of extras and actors used, the work behind it. The scene highlights how outnumbered the Scots forces were compared to the English, how they succeeded using their wits and strength. With the battle sequence set entirely on a grassland and not by a bridge which it was in reality, the film delves deep into its historical inaccuracies. Yet, it still succeeds in telling the story it needed to, showing in partly fictional ways how the real Scotsmen succeeded. In the course of a six-week shooting process. The scene required nine cameras to film it, one of which was a computer-controlled stop-motion device that had been used to great success before in Jurassic Park. Gene Siskel wrote that "in addition to staging battle scenes well, Gibson also manages to recreate the filth and mood of 700 years ago."
In an interview back in 2016, Mel Gibson told of a 4 hour cut he would release if the studio wanted to, and that's something I would gladly watch. Braveheart is a film with a lot of passion behind it, with the crew and actors putting their heart into it. It's a film on such a big scale and could easily become a box office bomb but it went and made $213.2 million on a budget of $65-70 million. Mel Gibson is a big reason for its success and so is the big cast, but also the writer (Randall Wallace) and cinematographer (John Toll). Two other names I want to praise are the editing done by Steven Rosenblum and music done by James Horner. As you notice with all these big names, these talented people, their work made Braveheart into what it became. Technically, a masterpiece and of course cinema. Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half out of four stars, calling it "An action epic with the spirit of the Hollywood swordplay classics and the grungy ferocity of The Road Warrior.". What's also worth adding is how the film won five Oscars among other awards, winning for: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and another award; also being nominated for other Oscars. Critics have argued if the film should have won all its awards especially Best Picture, honestly I think it's deserving. Braveheart is exquisite in lots of ways, a film for everyone to enjoy.
What a different performance it would have been if Brad Pitt played William Wallace who was the first consideration for the role, instead the producer-director Mel Gibson took on the role in what's possibly one of his best performances. Drawing in different emotions throughout the film, from the love story and innocence in the beginning to the military leader he becomes who is solely bent on revenge and getting freedom for his fellow Scotsmen, to the final scene where the iconic quote "Freedom" is spoken by Mel Gibson's character. Three hours of brilliant performances by him and everyone else, from both perspectives (the Scottish and English sides). To the main cast of Sophie Marceau, Angus Macfadyen, Patrick McGoohan, Catherine McCormack, Brendan Gleeson, James Cosmo and David O'Hara. To the smaller performances by Brian Cox, Ian Bannen and Tommy Flanagan.
As I wrote before, Mel Gibson serves as producer and director, in what might be his magnum opus. His direction to the actors is top notch and the vision for the movie is fantastic, directing each scene with brilliance in mind. Could he have made it more historically accurate, sure, but he had a vision for it all and stuck with it. For example the kilts used, the kilt originated in the 16th century whilst the film is set in the 13th century. Why did they do that big of historical inaccuracy? For the imagery and how people nowadays recognize the Scottish kilt, back to the imagery though, during the battle sequences it just looks epic and the sequence wouldn't have been as cool and epic if it weren't for them, or so I think.
The battle sequences are brutal, epic and simply brilliantly shot. The mise-en-scene in those scenes and honestly the entire movie, is fantastic. All from the village fight which begins the journey for freedom, to the different battle sequences throughout the film which was visually violent and chaotic. In a filmmaking standpoint, Mel Gibson directed all of those actors and extras whilst acting out the scenes himself, a truly breathtaking couple of sequences. I want to focus on the battle at Stirling which is the first major battle and in my opinion the most stellar one, truly cinema. The huge amount of extras and actors used, the work behind it. The scene highlights how outnumbered the Scots forces were compared to the English, how they succeeded using their wits and strength. With the battle sequence set entirely on a grassland and not by a bridge which it was in reality, the film delves deep into its historical inaccuracies. Yet, it still succeeds in telling the story it needed to, showing in partly fictional ways how the real Scotsmen succeeded. In the course of a six-week shooting process. The scene required nine cameras to film it, one of which was a computer-controlled stop-motion device that had been used to great success before in Jurassic Park. Gene Siskel wrote that "in addition to staging battle scenes well, Gibson also manages to recreate the filth and mood of 700 years ago."
In an interview back in 2016, Mel Gibson told of a 4 hour cut he would release if the studio wanted to, and that's something I would gladly watch. Braveheart is a film with a lot of passion behind it, with the crew and actors putting their heart into it. It's a film on such a big scale and could easily become a box office bomb but it went and made $213.2 million on a budget of $65-70 million. Mel Gibson is a big reason for its success and so is the big cast, but also the writer (Randall Wallace) and cinematographer (John Toll). Two other names I want to praise are the editing done by Steven Rosenblum and music done by James Horner. As you notice with all these big names, these talented people, their work made Braveheart into what it became. Technically, a masterpiece and of course cinema. Roger Ebert gave the film three and a half out of four stars, calling it "An action epic with the spirit of the Hollywood swordplay classics and the grungy ferocity of The Road Warrior.". What's also worth adding is how the film won five Oscars among other awards, winning for: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and another award; also being nominated for other Oscars. Critics have argued if the film should have won all its awards especially Best Picture, honestly I think it's deserving. Braveheart is exquisite in lots of ways, a film for everyone to enjoy.