The story of the life, love and death of William Wallace, the hero of Scotland, who led the rebellion against Edward III.
Probably, it looks especially cool in adolescence, because once it was young men who read Walter Scott, and now there are all sorts of fantasy. Gibson, it seems, guessed the turning point of epochs, including the Middle Ages in the spirit of the same Scott and something modern, but ... on reflection not particularly fabulous. How can I say that? Historians on this score would have screwed up a lot at the temple - by the number of historical blunders it is difficult to overtake Braveheart.
On the other hand, the genre is not quite historical, but rather poetic - a ballad about freedom and a legend about the homeland. And a bit of a night serenade about love, and a double with a mix of adultery and the “true” origin of the English kings (now looks ironic). And all this is diluted with the bare ass of the heroes ... even without kilts, and not much, frankly, correctness to gays, impossible these days. But bows, arrows, spears, horses, long hair and heroic strength with accompanying nobility and valor almost as in our epics. Oh, if not betrayal yet... But then there would be no Robert Bruce, a warrior and poet.
5 Oscars - overkill, perhaps, but for the music would be fair - James Horner was already ready for the Titanic.
The film can be attributed to historical drama. This is a slow work that lasts almost three hours. During this time, the director tries to immerse the viewer in the Middle Ages, where the war for Scottish independence is unfolding.
The main character of the film is William Wallace. He is a brave Scotsman who fights for the freedom and independence of his people. Wallace in battle uses not only strength, but also intelligence, which allows you to successfully fight the Scots against the British.
Special attention should be paid to landscapes and music in the film. The picturesque places of Scotland give the film Braveheart a special aesthetic. There are unique shots from which you freeze for a moment. A striking example: Hive Wallace stands majestically on top of a mountain, and at this moment the camera is like a bird whirling around the hero. And the music of the bagpipes, which accompanies the main battles of the film, and asks to shout the word “Freedom”.
The movie actors are interesting to watch. It’s amazing how Mel Gibson managed to create such a high-quality movie at the same time, and at the same time it’s interesting to play the main character. In the film, William Wallace is a courageous and brave man, you can even say a Byronic hero. Wallace is shown as a charismatic and educated man who skillfully attracts the opposite sex.
The battle scenes deserve special praise. Saturated with believable violence, they keep the viewer's eye on their scale and epicity. What is the mesmerizing footage, when the English cavalry in slow motion attacks the position of the Scots.
I was very pleased with the viewing myself. For all the slowness of the film, there wasn’t a minute when I could get bored. This is a good work that I can recommend to all lovers of historical cinema and large-scale battles.
This film is included in the top 500 best films, one of the thirty best films of the ninety-fifth year. Topping this list is the film “Seven”, which we have already talked about. Now we will turn the vector of our observation towards the historical genre. And consider Mel Gibson's second directorial work. It belongs to the genre that I am very impressed with – historical cinema. Few of these films are my favorites. But this one is. The film is twenty-eight years old this year and I consider it a long time for cinema. It is sad that he left online cinemas with the expiration of his license. But I found a way to make a new acquaintance with him and then I will share with you my impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this matter. Get some fresh drinks, we're starting.
A narrative criterion or narrative. The script was based on the life and exploits of William Wallace, the national hero of Scotland. The Middle Ages are romanticized with moments of color, but there were many moments that deserve to be immortalized. The year is 1280. Scotland is in vassal dependence on England and the tribe in which the main character lives is forced to fight, defending his position. In one of these moments, young William loses his parents and leaves with Uncle Orgyle, who gives him an education, teaches him to read and sharpen his mind. After a while he returns, meets the love of youth and everything is perfect. But the troops of Edward Longfoot have the right to the first wedding night to express their "approval" of the choice of a man. With these rules, William fundamentally disagrees. Having lost his love, he set out to unite the nobility and the Ratiborites in order to oppose the English with great force and to demonstrate Scotland's readiness for the War of Independence. Before us is a real biopic about a historical character. It is an ode to his feat and a celebration of the value of sovereignty. That self-determination is worth fighting for. This film also evokes patriotic feelings. Heroic pathos in this context does not seem to be something out of place and fits perfectly into the atmosphere created.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. From the very first shot, we can enjoy the camera work of John Toll. The camera relentlessly follows the characters in episodes where there are characters, but at the beginning we will note the skill of working with general plans and landscapes. We are greeted by Scottish landscapes and these natural beauties already inspire a sense of majesty. Then we see this in the staging of battles, where we take part in the clash of the opposing sides with the eyes of an outside observer. The massacres were bloody, that is, not a couple of drops in one frame, but even reached the extremities. At the time of pronouncing the main character motivating speech manages to hurt not only those to whom it is addressed, but also the audience. At least for those who are maxed out. At this moment, more than ever, one is imbued with a patriotic feeling and a sense of belonging to what is happening. Not least, the manifestation of all these feelings contributes to the magnificent soundtrack of James Horner. Each melody is timely and twists the dramaturgy to the maximum. And musical themes with bagpipes are separate works that work even outside the context of the film.
Acting work is commendable. Mel Gibson played the lead role. But in fact, none of the actors was able to satisfy the studio, and then the director took on this mission. Plus, Gibson found distant similarities in appearance with his historical prototype. Sophie Marceau plays Princess Isabelle, a delicate diplomat who can support the right people. At the same time, she has become royal blood and she changes throughout the film, which means she is able to learn. Quality worthy of a diplomat. Angus McFadyen played Robert the Bruce and the Scots have long booed about his incarnation on the screen. But the actor does not need to be charged for this. He was doing an acting job. Of the secondary characters, Brian Cox is remembered as Argyll Wallace and Brendan Glisson as Hamish. It is also worth noting the work of dubbing actors. Vladimir Antonik wrote Gibson and his timbre is ideal for strong moral cores and characters of the heroic epic. Svetlana Oleshkovskaya wrote to Sophie Marceau and getting into character happened. Sergey Burunov became the voice of Robert Bruce.
Not the most historically reliable film, but personally I have the most positive feelings. The main advantages of the tape are acting, musical accompaniment, plot and general patriotic vibe, achieved due to the coordinated work of all the above advantages. I recommend acquaintance if you like large historical epics and are not afraid of inaccuracies of factology and large timekeeping. All health, peace and good cinema.
First of all, I want to say that historicity and documentary accuracy are not of fundamental importance in art cinema.
In my opinion, the Gibson tape is a masterpiece and the best film ever made! A real work of art!
Screenplay, actors, music, costumes – everything is perfect!
To write a negative review about this pearl of world cinema, you need to be born a person without a sense of taste, harmony and beauty.
However, it is important to watch the film either in the original or in a good literary translation, which was in the 90s on cassettes. Where you can clearly hear the original speech of the actors and only after it high-quality multi-voice translation. All other Russian-language voiceovers were performed negligently and negligently.
In no other film you will find so many moments and scenes, each of which individually already deserves an Academy Award.
This is the scene in the cemetery at the beginning of the film, when a young Meron hands young Wallace a flower of thistle - a symbol of Scotland. . .
And the funeral scene, when the uncle tells his nephew that he will teach him everything he knows, to the sound of magic bagpipes.
Heartbreaking episodes of father and son: William and his father at the beginning of the film, Hamish and his father, King Edward and his effeminate son and of course two Robert Bruces.
And many others.
And the inspiring speeches of the commander Wallace have forever become the standard that all other filmmakers, where there are battles and battles, are trying to cosplay. Not even close to Mel Gibson in terms of epicity.
This is the best soundtrack in the history of world cinema. Thank you to the late James Horner!
This is certainly the best role of Sophie Marceau, and at the same time the best roles of all the other actors who starred in the film from dwarfs on the scaffold to Mr. Gibson himself (William Wallace).
Edward Longfoot is still the best villain I’ve seen in movies.
In the final part of the film, we see the most powerful scene, which, in my opinion, became the crown of the development of all cinematic art. . .
Do you love film as much as I do? Films of this genre are remarkable in that they give the viewer the opportunity to immerse themselves in the events of days long past. Become a participant in significant battles, spend some time in the Middle Ages, or in ancient Egypt, watching the deeds of the great pharanas, or learn about the first woman on the Holy See. Elements of history are also found in adventurous adventures and films about the search for treasure. But most of all such a story in biopics, where you have to combine a detailed reconstruction of the era with a portrait of a historical character who is glorified in the tape. His second directorial work in this genre was presented by Mel Gibson, who told us the story of the life and victories of the national hero of Scotland William Wallace. A new acquaintance with the film was carried out the day before, and therefore I am ready to share my impressions of what I saw and some thoughts on this matter.
A narrative criterion or narrative. If we talk about the plot in brief, without excessive wisdom of the evil ones, then before us is a biography of the national hero of Scotland. His path of becoming, iconic feats and revealing the driving force of all his actions. In the reviews criticizing the film “The Shawshank Escape”, I found such a thesis that Gibson covered the topic of freedom better than Frank Darabont. I think both movies are talking about the same thing, but in different languages. In Shawshank, it is more about the inner freedom to remain human, despite the circumstances that push you to scoot. Here freedom is quite concrete, territorially and geographically conditioned. There is Scotland, which is in vassal dependence on the English crown. And there are the French with whom Edward Longfoot made an alliance. They are all enemies, from the point of view of the common Scotsman. From the film, it can be concluded that Wallace did not intend to become a national hero at all, and he was initially motivated by retribution. In official historiography, the heroic figure is Robert Bruce, who here seems to have been demoted into secondary characters. As for the historical part, claims were made to the film, but I was more interested in the film as a biographical narrative, and in this respect the tape is excellent, covering the most vivid episodes from the life of the main character.
Visual criterion or technical support of the tape. From the very first frames, you notice the operator's work for yourself. The way he builds the camera angle to feel the grandeur of this place in the sight of the Scottish Mountains alone. In the staging of battles looks convincing blood. Oh, and the flying limbs were also brought here. Each stop frame is worthy of getting to the desktop of your personal computer. Of all the symbols of the region, only whiskey received no lighting. Kilt skirts are reflected in national costume, and bagpipes are presented in musical accompaniment. Composer James Horner well combined symphonic instruments with bagpipes in the sound material, and the result was interesting. A few tunes are worth visiting your playlist.
Acting is good. Mel Gibson made a tape in which he gave himself the role of the first violin. I can’t talk about the similarity with the real prototype, but the actor plays convincingly, believing in the correctness of each step. He is a noble man, but he looks like a barbarian. Here is the case when the book cover is not worth judging. The voice of Vladimir Antonik perfectly fit into the heroic essence of the character, was in its place. Sophie Marceau plays Princess Isabel. No less interesting character than the main characters. It has a royal make, but it doesn't put it on display. And she knows how to learn, as evidenced by the scene of her being on board with Edward Longfoot. She clearly has a fig in her mind, but natural diplomacy allows her to be careful when it comes to choosing tactics to communicate with her opponent. The most memorable scene with her is when William comes to her tent to negotiate with Isabelle. There is a great deal of significance in this scene, where Wallace's image is revealed from another side. In our dubbing, she speaks in the voice of Svetlana Oleshkovskaya and the actress managed to accurately notice all the details of her character and mannerisms. Angus McFadyen plays Robert the Bruce, as mentioned above. In our dubbing, he speaks in the voice of Sergei Burunov. He can not only be in comedians and in DiCaprio.
As a verdict. I liked the tape. High-quality directing by Mel Gibson, his acting, the work of the director and the main idea that this tape conveys to us. This film inspires great things, at least that’s what happened to me. I recommend dating to form my opinion. All of you have good health and good viewing.
Undoubtedly, Braveheart is an absolutely cult, unique and recognized movie. So when almost all three hours that I spent in front of the screen nothing outstanding (except perhaps the scale) did not see, of course, I was disappointed.
Why? Well, in my opinion, this is a long, often illogical, rather drawn-out craft.
The plot on paper is very good, but in Gibson’s performance with constant breaks for fights, it doesn’t work. History does not seem as monolithic and important as it is in fact, and this is almost the most important in large-scale biopics.
Moreover, this is not just a poorly staged movie, but also rather strangely written. There are a lot of sudden changes in character vectors and illogical actions. However, they are filled with pathos and “motivation”.
Although, it is worth admitting the actors worked for glory. Mel Gibson here is almost the best in his career, with his piercing look. Another young (though in fact he is 40) Brendan Glisson with a charismatic role. Charming Sophie Marceau and Catherine McCormack, captivating with their femininity and beauty. Angus McFadyen with a slightly ridiculous role, but a powerful game.
On the technical side, everything is fine. Very large-scale battles, inspiring scenery, and just a legendary soundtrack. This is probably the best part of the movie. At least for me.
And something ran out of thoughts on the movie. It was quite a passing (for me!) project. Sometimes. Well, it was disappointing, but it wasn't even the 90s. It's still behind Scorsese's Casino.
6 out of 10
'Your heart is free. Have the courage to follow him.
This film tells a lot about the fate of one ordinary citizen of his country, about the struggle for his life and the right to choose, that first of all we are responsible for what we will be people and whether we will be proud or ashamed of it, about betrayal, selfishness and love. .
Conventionally, this film can be divided into two parts: the first part about the formation of Wallis, his desire to live peacefully and not cause anyone suffering in vain. He was shown as a character who had his own dreams; as a person who had already understood a lot, this is what characters usually come to at the end of the story, but it was the opposite. In the second part, despite the fact that they collapse, it does not break, but acquires a new motivation.
Neil Gibson played like that, you just have to see it. He plays not with actions, articulation, but with his eyes alone. I would also like to say about his character that despite the obstacles he encounters on the way to his goal, he remains true to himself. There are times when you think everything here will break and be broken, but he gathers himself and moves on.
His love for Maron is something you admire. She is the light of his whole life and the support that made him move forward. Maron herself was the image of a pure and bright girl, a kind of ideal, everything in her was beautiful.
The main theme of the film is the struggle for freedom. That’s what we sometimes lack at this time. That strength, courage and loyalty to yourself, to "fight for your life," to put everything on her stake. Maybe that’s why the film is not quite historical, but it does its job. However, I would agree with some that the battle on the bridge would have been much more epic. And the branch with Queen Isabella in terms of romanticism is superfluous, I did not see revenge here.
Secondary heroes are memorable, they are all bright, have individuality and distinctive features.
There’s so much to say about this movie that you can’t fit everything, you just have to watch it. Watching the movie Braveheart will create one of the soulful evenings in your piggy bank.
Today, great films on historical themes come out not so often. Even more rarely, they come out good. It is more pleasant to review and recall the classics of a good feature film on a historical theme.
Braveheart is a very free interpretation of the story of the Scottish national hero William Wallace, who fought against the English invaders and for the free kingdom of Scotland.
It is worth noting that this is not a historically correct movie. There are so many inaccuracies and distortions that there is no patience and time to list them. It’s just worth keeping in mind the fact that everything was far from the way it is portrayed in the film, but that doesn’t make it bad – just don’t learn the history of medieval England and Scotland from this picture. It’s a good story about one man’s fight for the freedom of an entire nation and how one can raise thousands and stand up against those who come to your house and want to tell you what to do. In addition to a good plot about the national liberation struggle of the Scots, in the cinema there is a place for a love line and intrigue and spectacular battle scenes.
Mel Gibson, who played the main role in the film very well suited to his role - this is not historically accurate Wallace, but a clear and pleasant character to the viewer who wants to empathize. The rest of the caste is also extremely smart and well selected - all the characters turned out to be very expressive.
The music and the picture are good, too. The budget was enough for large-scale shooting, scenery and battle scenes. The beautiful mountain views of Scotland are shown perfectly.
The film received its Oscars for good reason - it is a beautiful, mass entertainment film on a chosen topic with a popular and always relevant message of the struggle for freedom. This is a well-made and tailored film, watching which you do not get bored despite the large timekeeping.
9 out of 10
Braveheart is a great example of a film that tells about modern and understandable contradictions against a historical background. There are many inconsistencies in this film with events and figures from the history of Scotland and England, but this is done deliberately to focus on class struggle. For example, in the XIII century, the Scots were not under the heel of the English and did not have a national identity (in the Middle Ages, no one had it). Feudalism generally presupposes a system built by vassal relations, where the land together with the people could belong to the lord of any ethnic group. The owner of hundreds of English acres, along with the serfs on them, could easily not speak English, be a Norman by blood, and be explained in French. Like King Edward I in real life. The right of the first night, or primae noctis, which is shown in the film, in that era was no longer applied (if ever applied), especially by the English in relation to the Scots. This is done in order to show that with ordinary people, gentlemen can do any abominations.
William Wallace was simple and did not strive to fight, but a cruel injustice to his beloved forced him to raise his weapon. It is in the national-liberation spirit that the class struggle is going on here. To make it stand out, Scots are dressed in kilts that were not yet worn at the time. In addition, they fight without armor, lightly, unlike the British. But that's not what matters. Everyone knows, all feudal lords - both English and Scots - are represented by villains. They either commit evil or betray. The Scottish nobility simply looks poorer and shrieks at more affluent colleagues.
In general, a policy that is disgusting, cynical and dangerous according to director Gibson, in this movie is presented by the ugly Robert Bruce Sr. due to illness. In fact, he never suffered from leprosy, was a powerful, stately man. His policies, which he whispers to his son, at times seem fair, at the end turn into vile vileness. Against this background of an idealess desire to adapt and make short-term money – Wallace’s slogan about the freedom of the people looks like a dream. Unspecific, reckless, but beautiful. This movie. This is the main meaning that runs through the plot. Because of this, the film does not age and still makes an impression.
How to make a legend real, without losing its greatness, without trampling it into the mud, carried away by reconstruction and the pursuit of historical truth? How to get into the heart of the viewer, so that he does not remain a sideways bored observer of the affairs of bygone days?
Here, the approach used by the creators of the picture is completely justified, when the narrative sometimes significantly departs from historical realities in favor of cinematography, without losing the existence of characters in convincing and truthfulness. Because in this case, it is a legend that is always higher and more extensive than its historical prototype.
And at the same time, this is not a tradition told in high syllables. This is a rough texture of medieval life, this is the ultimate “density” of the frame. You feel the manifest world, its living beat. Steel ravages the flesh, blood floods the faces and bodies. It was in this film that a new level was set in the production of large-scale battle scenes. The screen here is really like a window to another, harsher and merciless time.
But for all the brutal reality of history, the picture does not savor violence or revel in the dark side of the human person. This is presented as a given, as a background for the main theme – the power of the human spirit. Through pain, through betrayal, through temptation and all the thorns of this world.
Such a theme could not be embodied only at the level of text, acting, costumes, makeup, scenery – they are only faithful assistants. There was a lot to come together. It becomes clear why subsonic cinema was called the Great Silent.
Just two examples from the picture:
The hero who crushed the enemy and was close to victory sits without strength on the ground. His closest companion betrayed him, his enemies are getting closer. He looks almost childishly into the eyes of a traitor and cannot understand, “How come?” Why? ...
... The man is looking at the little boy. The life that is now being cut off looks at the life that is just beginning its path. And then behind the baby's back she will appear and smile at the man in his last moments. And he will smile back...
These are the moments that make the legend alive. Neither fervent speeches, nor authentic costumes, nor authentic scenery will breathe life into history and make it great if it does not know how to “silence.” And then you sit, stunned by this silence, and with a lump in your throat.
Because the screen is not just a hero's fight for the independence of his people. This battle goes on at all times in the soul of everyone. And the farewell cry of the Man on the block reminds us all that only he who has kept Freedom in his brave heart truly lives.
Historical cinema is one of my favorite genres, since it has never been unambiguous in the interpretation of events, when it is not designed to agitate for this or that idea, a political platform. The medieval period is interesting because it is as romantic as it is violent. Films and books abound, but the Scottish War of Independence was a small but significant part of this historical period. I look at this picture again, and each time it does not have time to get bored. I will share my thoughts and thoughts on this.
A narrative criterion or narrative. The film is largely autobiographical and tells about the life and exploits of William Wallace. He had the chance not only to get a good education and learn several languages, but also to become a symbol of resistance. As an image of absolute evil here is the character of Edward Longlegged. And he is concerned not only with the unification of the islands around his person, but also with the succession to the throne, and there are circumstances not related to him personally. There, the son’s personal choice confused all the cards for the king. But it is vital to put the upstart Scots in their place. In fact, the message of history is life-affirming about freedom as an enduring human value and worth fighting for. Good right heroism is embedded in this film, creating the right atmosphere.
Visual criterion or how it is removed. The technical equipment of the painting is good. The camera work is amazing. The angle is exhibited in such proportions that we see how two armies fight against the background of a stunning natural view. Blue sky, green grass and rocky terrain. Also note the staging of battles and tribal speeches before battles. Heads are cut off, blood is shed from wounds and you experience a steep effect of presence. Plus, the musical accompaniment works for all two hundred, and the main theme, which goes with a red thread throughout the film, is asked to be included in the playlist.
Acting jobs. Mel Gibson himself shot the picture and played a major role in it. William Wallace did what he needed: a warrior’s heart, a loving soul, and a righteous thirst for revenge. In our dubbing, he speaks in the voice of Vladimir Antonin, who sounds organic in such roles. Brendan Gleeson played his brother in tribe and arms. If Wallace is used to thinking first before doing, then Hamish is the personification of the proverb - power is and mind is not needed. Sophie Marceau as Princess Isabel. With the appearance of the first lady, she is a visionary strategist, a negotiator, why fists when you can just talk. Angus McFadyen embodied the image of the noble Robert Bruce, who saw Scotland being torn apart by clan wars.
As a verdict. Maybe not the most historically reliable film, but it attracts high-quality directing, cinematography and acting. After him, you feel patriotic feelings and a desire to accomplish the feat of a military warrior. Definitely the maximum score and recommendation for dating. All health, good and good movie!
10 out of 10
A simple film about the Scottish avenger of the 13th century.
William Wallace's father and brother are killed in battle at the beginning of the film. His uncle takes him away to raise him. Growing up, the hero returns to his home and marries the girl he fell in love with as a child. Under English law, the English lord has the right to the first night, and they are married in secret. Upon learning of this, British soldiers attack the girl, and the local sheriff kills her. Wallace takes revenge on his abusers and raises a revolt against the English occupation.
Although William Wallace himself is a real person and a hero of Scotland, like the other characters in the film - Robert Bruce and Edward Longfoot, the script is very different from the real events. The story of the Scottish Rebellion cannot be studied in the film. This is just a traditional knightly ballad, a song about a hero.
It’s no wonder the movie only reveals one character. And Mel Gibson in the lead role is good. In his hero there is courage, firmness, and faith in freedom. He knows how to inspire his people before the fight, fights on a par with everyone, a real role model. He is not a fool, but he is a fool, and he is a fool. His uncle told him: “First learn to control the brain, and then the brain will learn to control the sword.” Righteous avenger, in short.
The other heroes of the film are written very flat. Typical villain king, typical lesser villains, typical soldier friends, typical female assistant.
Now it is unfair to evaluate battle scenes, but I thought that the battles could be larger.
I would like to praise the choice of locations. The Scottish landscapes are amazing. Hilly terrain, all in green grass, impregnable rocks – this proud beauty formed the national character of the Scots, which is what the film conveys.
Summing up, I want to say that I personally empathized with the main character. And the most important thing that a movie should do is to create emotions, I think. Good, interesting movie, not without flaws.
You know, I began to notice an interesting trend - in all the films where Mel Gibson plays - he is either a father of many children (as in ' Patriot' and ' We were soldiers'), or an almost holy family man (as, in fact, in ' Braveheart' and ' Mad Max') and every time someone violates his idyll and forces him to revenge. But that’s not all – in films directed by Mel Gibson, something similar happens, even when he does not play the lead role – for example, in 'Apoclypto'. 'The Passion of the Christ' - so without comment at all, the main character is clear who. Well 'For reasons of conscience' you can also pull your ears to this trend.
In short, before us is the story of the classic character Mel Gibson, who is brave, brave and devoted to his only love. The lady of the heart is brutally killed, and Mel is forced to go to cut the cursed Englishmen with a two-handed sword, which he - with his build - would hardly raise even horizontally. Just as thoroughly, the filmmakers approached the story of the real William Wallace - there is little to struggle with historical facts, but it has never been an obstacle to a good film.
However - ' Braveheart' swings for a very long time, almost an hour will pass before William picks up the sword. That's both good and bad, depending on how you feel about Gibson's acting. I'm average. And then he's overplaying it.
The second part of the film will be followed by a kind of crusade of William against the English, which is served without feeling any progression. A few battles, shown with a sufficient degree of elaboration, do not give much insight into the situation, and the constant negotiations and betrayals further confuse it. And it ends with another beloved Mel Gibson in his films action.
To sum up - 'Braveheart' certainly an epic film. It looks authentic, it breaks through to emotions, it will please fans of reconstructions of medieval battles. However, the story is not told too well, the characters are quite cardboard, and the end is predictable and joyless.
A beautiful film about the strength of the spirit, shot on real historical events
Repeatedly convinced that each film, which had a hand Mel Gibson, turns out to be very high quality and invariably causes me bright positive emotions, I could not miss the picture in which he not only acted as a director, but also played a major role. The film begins in 1280 in Scotland. William Wallace, a simple Scotsman from the bottom of society, having lost the most precious thing he had, through the fault of the English, festering Scots for many years and establishing their own order among them, decides to raise the Scots against the English. Not initially a revolutionary, Wallace was able to lead the people and defeat the usurpers and win Scottish independence.
The film is based on real events, in Scotland there is even a tower named after the famous revolutionary, from which you can see the battleground of the Scots and the British. His famous sword is kept in the tower. At the moment it is a very popular tourist place. Despite the fact that long-suffering Scotland and after the victory of Wallace for a long time fought for its independence, it was his feat that became the most famous and famous. The Scots fought with practically improvised means against well-armed Englishmen and took their way, in fact, with one strength of spirit. Such stories are very impressive.
If you look at the historical background, you can find quite a lot of discrepancies between the plot and the story, but the essence of the film does not change. I say this, anticipating possible discontent about the authenticity of the facts of the picture and directing curious people, for example, to the same Wikipedia – this is what I wanted to do immediately after viewing. I was particularly interested in the final. And it struck me that a lot of that was the case. The film itself turned out to be very interesting and colorful – the color of those times and the worldview of different peoples and layers of society are perfectly shown. There are well set for the year of creation of the picture of the battle and a touching love line. And the brightest pearl of the picture is a very strong finale, which will not leave anyone indifferent.
You can, of course, pick on Mel Gibson’s performance, as you like to do when one person directs and plays a key role, but I’m not going to do that. I believed the hero. Brendan Gleason and Sophie Marceau also graced the picture with their play and remained in memory. Separately, I want to mention the wonderful music and stunning views of Scotland, from which it is impossible to take your eyes off.
I would definitely recommend the movie!
Where?
- In Scotland.
- In Scotland?
- In Scotland.
- In Scotland?
- Yes! In Scotland! Well, that's where bagpipes, whiskey, golf, a lake with a monster, men in skirts, Sean fucking Connery! Scotland.
Karl Marx once said: History repeats itself twice: first as tragedy, then as farce. In any case, I was inspired by the events of 2014, when the referendum on Scottish independence was held. And exactly 700 years before that, King Robert I's forces had won the Battle of Bannockburn, accelerating the restoration of Scottish independence.
Little is known about William Wallace except that, according to an ancient epic poem, he united the clans of Scotland and won famous battles against the English before being captured, tortured and executed as a traitor. It is impossible to fully verify the reliability of the events shown. I may not believe in the affair between Wallace (Mel Gibson) and Princess Isabella (Sophie Marceau), just as it is impossible to be 100% sure that 'Freedom!' is the last word of a glorious warrior. But it is worthwhile to understand that despite all the embellishments, we have a combat epic about people who have dedicated their lives to the struggle.
With a good movie, ten minutes counts as one, a'' the case where three hours go by so quickly that you don't even go into a detailed analysis of the story. I won't say it's bad, it just happens. What can I say about the plot? There is the English King Edward Longfoot (Patrick McGuhan), who abuses Scotland as he pleases. In 1280, the father of William Wallace dies in a fight with the English, and the boy takes under his wing his uncle.
Time passes. The boy grows up, but does not think about war. His goal is to get married and settle in a hut, but alas. A local detachment of Englishmen assigned to his village, in full use of the decree from the king on the right of the first night. William is dissatisfied with such a test drive and beats off his wife, but she is still caught and executed. Then Wallace goes into the mode 'Mad Max', decorates the face, like a football fan and encourages the people to liberate their country.
In my opinion, the feeling of transience of the picture is given by competently constructed action scenes. No green screen, everything was filmed on nature, with live people. Plus the music of James Horner adds its charm. But at the same time, I can highlight one point that will become a scapegoat. Injuries fighters look very natural, makeup masters deserved respect, but when William cut off the enemies limbs, it looked fake. No, I've heard William Wallace's Sword is an artifact, but... Cut it off. A limb. The sword of the time. In line? Obi-Wan Kenobi, Beatrix Kiddo and Nikolai Pirogov nervously smoke on the sidelines. Of course, I may be wrong, so if so, correct me. By the way, William... Bill... I think the bride would have killed Bill in a duel between them.
You look at William Wallace and you realize that charisma is an innate skill rather than an acquired one. For such a short time to win the trust of the peasants, to convince them to fight & #39; for your and our freedom & #39; while pushing one loud speech before the army ... Not many characters get away with it, but Wallace can. Motivating people would be much easier. To Scotland. To my father. To the Horde and the Alliance. To Frodo. For myself and for Sasha.
In 10 years, readers of Empire magazine will call Braveheart the worst film ever to win an Oscar. But this is not the worst thing that awaited Mel Gibson. Drinking, deprivation of rights, divorce proceedings, unflattering statements. But Gibson's skill was not affected much. It took 9 years, and he shot "The Passion of the Christ". It has been another 10 years since 'The Apocalypse' — issued “For reasons of conscience.” You can't drink talent, as they say.
Mel Gibson (Irish by birth, by the way), taking as a basis the semi-historical script of the namesake of the main Scottish hero, put a magnificent biographical action movie. Militant (this is a word, to be honest), where none of the sides of the plot (in this case, dramatic and documentary) pulls a blanket, holding, as they say, “the middle ground”.
And this is the moment when the role is not played by excessive frankness of conversation with the viewer. So what if the beauty Isabella, performed by Sophie Marceau, barely walked under the table during the events in the film. And nothing that the kilt will begin to wear only after two hundred years. All this and the comments of picky viewers do not detract from the fact that at the time of the 95th Gibson made a beautiful story about courage, honor, love and, of course, freedom.
The latter is not alien to anyone and has a very specific form. And acquiring such a “framework” from a spectacular staging of scenes, costumes and charismatic actors, this movie generally risks getting into the category of classics. It is well deserved.
When I turned it on, I could smell the United States. It came from the laptop speakers, and, oh Gods, from the screen itself. A completely familiar smell, similar to those that please us and from other Oscar-winning films.
A film about the Higher! I am not afraid of this word. And the highest is freedom freedom! Yes, she is. It is so beloved by Americans and promoted by all democratic countries. Touch on the subject of freedom, racism, war, add a martyr - an example to emulate and... Voila! Oscar is yours.
This film is no exception. Take freedom, take a bad dictator, take the poor people whose freedom he infringes, take a hero who sacrifices himself everywhere. By twisting historical facts, Mel Gibson made himself a sun in the solar system of this painting. A superhero on whom everything depends. It, as it were, can not be otherwise, if the main role is played by the director of the picture.
Despite all the clarity and banality, and at that time it was far from true, the film is really worth watching. In terms of 1995.
No matter how ordinary it is, it is immortal.
A very beautiful picture, shot in the mountains of Ireland with a considerable budget, a detailed and logical (rarely) plot.
All this makes ' Braveheart' a film that reveals one of the main problems of our time, watching which you will not waste time.
8 out of 10
There are a few historical films that I can call my favorite and among them are 'Braveheart' Mel Gibson, as far as I can remember, this was his second film. I watched it twice as a kid. Now I will open it again to share my impressions. Let's make some seagulls and make ourselves comfortable. The process is underway.
At the heart of the script and plot is the story of a man who became a national hero of Scotland. The Middle Ages are so far away from us that it is difficult to remember all those whose deeds stand at the origins of the New Age. The film begins in 1280 in Scotland. This is the story of the legendary national hero William Wallace, who dedicated himself to the fight against the British under King Edward Longfoot. He lost his father at the hands of the English and was taken by his uncle Orgyle, who gave him a good education in Europe. William returns to his homeland as an adult who dreams of starting a family and living a peaceful life. But fate ordered otherwise. His fiancée was murdered by the British and he began his crusade for freedom. Events plunge us into the War of Independence, when Scotland seeks to get rid of the oppression of Britain and France. William Wallace proved himself a hero and the whole film is a laudatory ode to his feat. Paphos is mainly heroic, there are many of it, but it fits perfectly into the atmosphere created.
The visual part, or how it was shot. The camera work is exceptionally praiseworthy, since the camera follows the characters everywhere, especially successful observation flights in battles, where it is as if from the outside you watch how two armies clash. The views of the nature of Scotland are magnificent, especially as the cameraman built the frame in order to capture for us these views, stunning in their splendor. It is also worth noting the author’s desire to show the viewer the most realistic fights and battles. At the moment when the main character grabs the pitchforks and cuts right and left the Aglitsky cottoners, then involuntarily the hair will stand on end, and when he makes an inspiring speech before the battle, you absorb a share of patriotism and a sense of pride for those on the screen, you feel involved in what is happening. I think these feelings are like the presence effect. I could be wrong.
Actors play as they should. I want to mention Mel Gibson, I think it is very convenient to put the film, and play in it, but somewhere I read that Gibson looks like the real Wallace, so the remark that you can capture the most interesting roles loses all sense. But here everyone contributes to the atmosphere. Sophie Marceau is rarely filmed now, but here she played, in my opinion, one of her best roles. Princess Isabel has become a worthy queen and the ability to learn, which makes her an interesting character and her developmental arch is also interesting to watch. There's something attractive about her. Many Scots were offended by the way Robert Bruce was portrayed in the film, as he is considered a national hero on a par with Wallace. But I have no complaints about the acting of Angus McFadyen, and the fact that Robert Bruce was shown one way and not another, let it remain on the conscience of the writers. Which, in relation to historical events, ascribed a lot of scars. It is worth saying that the father and brother of William Wallace died when he was twenty-one years old, not 10 years old, as in the film and by origin he was a nobleman. Hardly close to the Stuart dynasty.
The soundtrack is excellent, it is a decoration of all battle battles and perfectly complements the mood in the opening scenes. James Horner wrote great musical themes, recognizing the handwriting used later in the Titanic and Avatar. This composer was able to put a sense of epic in every sound. It has been five years since he has not been with us, and his melodic legacy is still alive.
Verdictating. Declared historically inaccurate, this film still commands my respect. The charisma of actor Mel Gibson and his belief in the hero’s affairs are contagious, and I still get goosebumps from this film. At ninety-six, the film won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture. And there's a reason. The assessment speaks about my impressions better than any words, so I advise you to get acquainted. Good to you all!
They fought selflessly, they fought like the Scots!
The pearl of the historical genre of the mid-90s. The picture collected 5 Oscars, a very impressive harvest. And it's well deserved, I'll tell you. Everything is at a very high level.
The storyline, I think, is very close to the historical events described in this film. And at a time of historic battles to redraw Britain's borders, I tell you, the subject is not easy. Very accurately recreated the color of that time. The way of life of ordinary Britons, soldiers, gentlemen of the British government. This is now on the northern island everything is so pretentious, brilliant and brought to mind. And at that time everything was far from perfect. But, naturally, all respectful states have gone through this. As you can see, some are still happening today, but this is a separate story.
The film describes very terrible events. The monstrous suppression of rights and freedoms of non-English people. All came under the distribution - Scots, Irish, other nationalities. King Edward (Long-handed) was known as one of the most cruel and bloodthirsty rulers of England. He was perfectly played by Patrick McGuhan, who earlier, in the distant 60s, was remembered as a British spy. Those movies went along with the great Bond. This time he was in a different role. It is also worth noting the novice actress, Sophie Marceau, then especially unknown. It is unlikely to leave indifferent representatives of the male sex, who will witness this tape.
Mel Gibson's Star Time. I personally associate it with this film. Excellent performance in his own film, by the way. He was also a director if you didn’t know.
In general, a film for fans of historical cinema. For lovers of battle, and the strength of spirit of ordinary people. The final scene, as usual, will not leave anyone indifferent. I still keep a handkerchief nearby as the timing approaches the final.
10 out of 10
The film “Braveheart” for me is a reference representative of the genre of historical drama. Its plot is dedicated to the life of the real national hero of Scotland and liberator William Wallace. In the history of cinema as a whole, there are many films devoted to the theme of the struggle for freedom, for example, the film “Spartacus” by Stanley Kubrick or a later film with the participation of the same Mel Gibson “Patriot”, but in contrast to them, the Scottish plot is imbued with the spirit of medieval romanticism, and the images and actions of the film leave an incredible emotional impression.
The film is made at an excellent technical level, the wide expanses of the valleys of Scotland and high mountains impress with their beauty, skillfully done work with lighting conveys the life and atmosphere of those times, a huge number of historically correctly made costumes and props organically complement the images and characters of the heroes, and most importantly, these are beautifully staged battle scenes that convey the cruelty of war.
But the most important virtue of this film is its main character, played by director Mel Gibson himself, who did an amazing job. From the very beginning, you feel an emotional sympathy for him, which only grows throughout the film. In the events of the film, he is presented as a perfect hero who does not compromise and does everything possible for the freedom of his people, while being a simple-minded and childishly naive person.
The film is filled with symbolism and details, the combat coloring of the main character and his comrades in the sky-blue color of Scotland is a reference to the older culture of the ancestors of this land, the scarf, which throughout the picture appears in the frame, does not allow the audience to forget about the cause of the struggle of the main character, it is also impossible not to note that the big two-handed sword becomes a symbol of the will, purposefulness and steadfastness of the guardian of Scotland.
In general, it is rare to find such a deep and holistic film, an exceptional creation that is an example of historical cinema. The exceptionality of the film lies in its originality, it harmoniously intertwines the story of the main character, which unfolds against the backdrop of a bloody war, with the events of those years.
It motivates and makes you believe in the role of a small person who can change the world around him and find freedom.
Epigraph: "Some birds in captivity can not be kept."
Briefly: The Song of Freedom
Details: The biggest mistake you can make when watching this film is to assume that it claims historical authenticity. I don’t know how the authors positioned it back in 1995, but the fact remains that historical events and characters were redrawn here, despite the fact that the main milestones (the situation with Wallace’s wife, the Battle of Sterling, the Battle of Falkirk, etc.) seem to be in place. But I think that the authors were interested not so much in authenticity as in the background for the story of freedom, about the love of freedom and the struggle for it.
Freedom in the context of this film is primarily freedom of choice, which, in fact, is personified by the main character. The path chosen, the decision making and the responsibility for it is what he does. In a certain way, he is opposed by Robert Bruce, who in the film has much more opportunities and resources, but he is weak in spirit and deprived of inner freedom, because as a result, he constantly does what other, more strong-willed and charismatic characters tell him.
But when we realize that the narrator and voiceover was just Robert Bruce, the focus of the film suddenly shifts. From a story about the struggle of patriotic Scots for their independence, the film turns into a story about cultivating inner freedom. But it should be noted that some people do not imagine a life without freedom, while others do not represent freedom without life, figuratively speaking. And, going back to the “fundamental changes” in Bruce’s personality, it is not known whether his inner impulse will last long.
Of the pluses: The idea of chanting freedom through creating a conflict between fairly unambiguous and understandable characters reaches not the mind, but the heart, lifts and inspires, makes you experience catharsis. Therefore, in general, the chosen form of narration and disclosure of characters in the context of a common goal can be considered successful.
The main acting work here, of course, Mel Gibson, who already shadows everyone with his inner charisma and makes you believe that the crowd could go after this man. And accurate and, to deny, quite pompous, dialogues and speeches, complete the specified effect.
It should also be noted battle scenes created with a high degree of authenticity and skill. They are at the same time striking the scale of the shown, and do not turn into Brownian movement of a bunch of people running back and forth and do not understand what they are doing. In the atmosphere of the heat of battle, you can clearly see who, where, whom, what and why, which positively affects the perception of the picture. And since a significant percentage of timekeeping is allocated for these very battles, this is a very important plus.
Of the minuses: weak historical authenticity, although it cannot be a disadvantage in itself for a feature film, but in this picture there is too strong a division into black and white, which reduces it to the role of a fairy tale with the names of real historical characters. On the other hand, this form of presentation corresponds to its time, as it brings the film closer to the style of medieval heroic epics, such as the French Song of Roland, for example. And no one knows how he would have turned out if he had tried to accurately and scrupulously reproduce historical events and motivation, so that this defect almost turned into a virtue.
And if the previous minus is very doubtful, then the next one, in my opinion, is quite real. Female characters. There are two in the movie. The first is the hero's wife. Absolutely schematic, introduced solely for the sake of plotting. And, for example, when Wallace, admiring the Princess of Wales, tells her something like "You look like my wife." There is even a certain cognitive dissonance in you, because during the disclosure of the image of the wife, we were not shown any special “internal strength”, so we can only take William Wallace at his word.
The second character is the Princess of Wales performed by Sophie Marceau. And everything seems to be fine with her, she is shown to be intelligent, resolute, diplomatic, able to adapt, if necessary to adhere to her assigned role in the “family”, if necessary – to leave it. But all this is negated by the fact of her romantic love. All her further actions are primarily explained by her and nothing else. Not that she understood Wallace's motivation, or that she embraced Wallace's ideas, or that she sought justice, or whatever. A woman who doesn’t like her husband has hormones. If there was one scene where she verbally motivated her actions with something other than sexual desire... but she wouldn’t. Even to a direct question about her motivation, she starts a heartfelt romantic conversation in response. In principle, it can be a true and even a good character for the 13th century. But it seems that she has become a strong and positive heroine to meet the needs of a female audience, at least as the authors imagined.
Summary: an impressive and spectacular heroic epic about freedom on a near-historical theme.
8 out of 10
Quotes:
We will all die, the only question is how and for what.
Stories are written by those who hang heroes.
You admire this William Wallace, uncompromising people are easy to admire, a dog has courage, too. The ability to compromise - this is what makes a person noble.
You think the people exist to secure your position, and I believe your position exists to give the people freedom.
To begin with, the theme of this film was very close to me initially. I have always been attracted to strong historical figures who fought for the great against a much stronger opponent. And the 14th century in Scotland is particularly telling. There is a national hero who gave an impetus to the liberation of his native country, and a true king who led his kingdom to prosperity. So as soon as I found out about this movie, I rushed to watch it and didn’t regret it a bit. But everything in order.
Immediately I want to note that this film is artistic, not documentary, so you should not study history on it. However, this is the only claim that does not affect the assessment. It's just that some things really surprised me (like the lack of a bridge at Sterling).
Now for the good.
- Mel Gibson perfectly fell into the image of fighting for the freedom of his people and avenging the insults inflicted on him earlier. He will stop at nothing until he reaches his goal, and even death will not stop him. The image of a hero who can not but empathize and whose idea can not be penetrated.
- The atmosphere. While watching, I often wanted to join the brave mountaineers and together defeat the arrogant Englishmen. Absolute immersion deserves applause!
- Scale and intensity of the fight. Yes, perhaps they lack epicity, as in some "300 Spartans", but the real medieval battles were, except that the dirt was much more.
- The characters surrounding the main character are colorful every single one. Here is the domineering and cruel King Edward, for whom nothing is sacred, and the weak-willed heiress, and the doubtful Robert Bruce, trying to find himself and choose the right path, and the insanely bright friends of William, with whom it is a sin not to fight for his freedom (especially the Irishman gives pleasure). Even episodic heroes are remembered, such as Bruce's father, who is like Edward in his worldview, or Scottish nobles. This is exactly what a good historical film needs.
A love story that successfully complements the main narrative, which cannot but please.
- Patriotism. That’s what they probably love this film, so it’s for a competently put idea of the struggle for freedom and their country, forcing them to penetrate the heroes and respect them, unlike some American (or our “Crimea” or “Viking”) films, where it pulls to spit. And after shouting "Freedom-a-a-a-a-a!!", something echoed inside of me.
Instead of an epilogue:
A very good film about the struggle for freedom and independence without imposing any moral standards. And even though the plot is not true, I like to believe that it happened. A low bow to Mel Gibson and the whole brethren for such a great movie, which in my rating overtook Spartacus and Spartans in 1962.
The high ratings of films like Gladiator, and the one in question, make it clear that films that celebrate the good names of the legendary fighters for freedom and good (many of you will now add Equality and Fraternity) are not out of fashion, and are not only liked by boys who are raging with youthful maximalism and a keen desire for justice. For some, such films are just special-effect attractions, in which you can look at the violence and blood (although viewers of this category will much more like the new “300 Spartans”), viewers of a more noble character evaluate the films of the peplum genre, in particular, on the topic of “people’s avengers” , as high art dedicated to great heroes, where there is a reason to worry about the outcome of the latter’s case, and for the characters of the weaker physically and spiritually, who are protected by the main character. And, if in “Gladiator” Ridley Scott, the action, which was headed by a noble warrior who had not to protect, but kill all opponents in the arena to get to the sworn enemy who broke his life; unfolded in the Roman Empire, then in the film Mel Gibson, who starred in his own film in the lead role, we go for three hours to the cold “northern countries” to look at the unique story that took place in the XIII century, which is a large-scale uprising raised by a representative of a nation that was under the heel of England. It may have been a blood revenge for the death of the love of his life, but Gibson’s character had an appetite for food, as the humiliation and oppression of his people had been going on before his eyes for many years, and the murder of the bride’s murderers became a cause for revenge for the suffering of the entire nation.
So, in 1280, in a Scottish village, the corpses of hanged people are discovered, one of whom was the father of the protagonist William. The boy is picked up by his uncle. After 20 years, the grown-up boy returns to his native village. The King of England dreams of conquering the entire British peninsula and decrees the "right of the first night": the English have the right to rape married girls of Scotland. William Wallace meets a girl whom he has known since childhood, and in order to avoid abuse of her, they are married secretly, but nothing can be hidden from the British soldiers. The girl resists and escapes, but she is caught up and killed, for which William takes revenge on the whole squad, killing everyone. But his revenge for the murdered bride is just beginning. Wallace calls the whole village to revolt, and other villages join him. The war for the freedom of the Scottish people begins. And even if the treacherous English king begs for peace, it will not save him, because William remembers what the king did to his family many years ago, promising them peace.
The plot line, filled with both battal scenes, and sentimental episodes and other elements of peaceful life in poor Scottish settlements and the luxurious palace of the English king; is close to similar events from the films about Spartacus - endowed with remarkable power the main character, the mockery of the nobles over slaves (here simply over the citizens of a subordinate country), raised uprising and its details. As for the visual series, this film is not one of those where computer graphics rule, with the help of which, all medieval scenery is recreated without “dust” labor and landscapes are depicted deliberately sparkling with every small detail: full-scale shootings predominate here, battle scenes are expensive, but they are not replete with the drawing of every blow and the effects of slow-mo (although in 1995 the graphics have already reached impressive abilities) - the film is not cheap, but they tried to conquer not by the bloody and excessively shaking in every super-project. Blood and sand, which proved that TV series are not always filmed where cheaper and as simple (since I have compared the events of Braveheart with the life line of such a historical person as Spartacus) – Mel Gibson’s picture about the defender of a weak northern people first of all strikes with the power of the most blatant story, in which the viewer will enjoy the fall of every affected Englishman not because of love of action, but out of thirst for revenge and empathy with the main character, and, if you do not know what has become interesting in the end, then you will just want to see your country. Not equality and fraternity. Just freedom.
Sir William Wallace (Sir William Wallace; 1270, Paisley – 23 August 1305, London) was a Scottish knight, one of the commanders in the War of Independence from England. Guardian of Scotland (regent) 1297-1298 He is revered in Scotland as a patriot and a national hero.
"Fight and you may die." Run and live. For a while. And after many years, dying in your bed, you will be ready to give all those years for the opportunity to return. To come back here and tell our enemies that they can take our lives, but they will never take away our freedom.
It’s great to see this movie for the first time, 22 years after it was released. Because it really captured my imagination and looked timeless and relevant. It turns out I didn't know anything about him.
Surprisingly, the film is not only based on real historical events, but historically correctly shows the sequence of events. This is compared, for example, with Gladiator, which seems to have real characters - Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, but everything else is a chimera of fantasy, composed of real names, possible and not real events.
As for the truly erroneous historical blunders, I have a different view. It is not a problem that the skirts of the Scots appeared much later. The modern audience associates Scotland with this attribute, it has a rather interesting reason for its appearance, and its use in the film, motivates to learn more about it. One of the battles was supposed to take place on the bridge, but in reality we see a field. Yes, this is a serious distortion of events, but I think it is justified. The battle on the bridge, probably, could not be shown so epic, and at the same time everyday. In fact, this moment just gets to the bone, it seems that the huge mass level leveling the role of individual participants, but at the same time, there was a place to slightly reveal the individual characters, fluctuations, motives of “little people”. This, in my opinion, expresses epicity, which is quite rare in films about such major historical events. For example, in the Russian “Mongol”, specific fates and specific events are completely lost behind the era, as a result, the spirit of the era does not penetrate at all.
The favorite woman of the main character is selected very well. She has such an unpretentious appearance and emotional appeal, along with her simple, ordinary and young body. You look, and you understand that here would live and live, and it would be a good mother, grandmother, just a person, and an armed consumer comes and takes her life first figuratively, then literally.
The most controversial point is Wallace himself, Mel Gibson. No, he plays well, charismatic, sometimes reminds Stalonne. But his appearance contrasts sharply with other male characters and portraits of the real Wallace. What causes this choice? Don't know. Was it difficult to grow a beard?
But it was after watching this movie that I really understood what freedom is. How hard it is to be free. And not everyone can be free and not always.
9 out of 10
P.S. “Everyone dies, but not everyone really lives.”
They can take our lives, but they cannot take our freedom. ?
A great movie about freedom and its price. It's a pity that I watched it just now - a very decent movie.
I will immediately say that I was not familiar with the actual history of this period at the time of viewing, so I did not have any historical nagging. But inaccuracies do not make the film worse, down.
On the contrary, the story of William Wallace in this version is more encouraging. After all, in this film he is a simple man, not a nobleman, who nevertheless was not afraid of fighting those who tried to deprive him of the main thing - freedom.
The film perfectly shows the nature of rebellion.
Wallace was going to live peacefully with his beloved. He was not interested in loud words and pompous speeches, and the freedom of Scotland - much less. When they came to him to ask for help, he sent petitioners, culturally speaking, to Greenland.
And only when he experienced the excesses of the English, only having lost the meaning of his life - his love, only then did he raise this revolt.
This does not diminish his qualities. It just makes him human.
None of us will go to war until we get a stone at the top. No big words will be able to rip people off their nests and shove them into the hell of the mess.
But everyone has a kind of Ring of Power. Something this man cherishes more than life could be a lover, children, friends, a castle on a hill, bags of gold in the basement. If it is ' something' to take away, the person will go to beat the faces of the offenders. Even if before that he was quiet and peaceful, and the flies would not hurt.
Special praise is given to the production and costumes. They are beautiful, as are the actors. And the landscapes of Scotland. And music. And everything in this movie.
In general, my score is 10'Wow, how cool' out of 10
Braveheart is the best historical film adaptation!
- Why?
- It's easy, English!
The pain of the Scottish people, the terrible tyranny of the English king, the murder of loved ones, all as it really was.
An ordinary guy William Wallace lives in a Scottish village, since childhood he saw how the British eradicated his people. His father loved his homeland. Once he and his son (William's older brother) and a small group of Scots fought the English for independence from England, but unfortunately they died. After the death of his father and brother, William is taken by his uncle. After a while, William comes to Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, where he meets his old friend Hamish (Brandon Gleesson), many old acquaintances.
The violence against the Scottish people has not stopped, but William is not going to fight for the freedom of Scotland like his father, he wants to live peacefully without getting involved in any fights or wars. In Edinburgh, William falls in love with a girl he lived with in the same village. They become engaged, but soon the innocent is killed by the commander of the English camp, which is located in Edinburgh. William and the Scottish people destroyed the camp, after which the war for Scottish independence began.
In my opinion, the main idea of the film is honor and faith to the end. This is what Mel Gibson wanted to bring to the audience.
The shooting is very serious, the battles are shot brilliantly!
As for the style, there is nothing to complain about. The film showed the Scottish green hills - Scottish nature! Pipes, kilts! It's done wonderfully.
This is my favorite movie and I think it’s a good movie!
10 out of 10
- Not yet, but I was hoping you could help me with that.
This is Mel Gibson’s second directorial work in full measure, and he always keeps the brand of quality. The movie came out really good. It’s one of the few times I agree with the Academy’s opinion that all of the Oscar statuettes (including the best film) are deserved. I will try to figure out why.
I liked the film, but with one small mark, it’s an incredibly long time for this project. I had to look at two approaches in order not to lose the thread of the narrative. Everything else is very good, but I will not speculate on this. Yes, and enough has been said before me, so I will note only the pros and cons.
Pros
- This is a fascinating story.
- Good director and cameraman work
- Excellent decorations and costumes
- Of course, acting.
Cons
- Large timekeeping
- Mel Gibson's narcissism. The whole movie is built around him.
I liked the movie, but I found a lot more in it. Events, dialogues. But the epic ending pulls everything out. Watch everyone.
Not exactly a lover of historical films, but for his time, he watched a sufficient number of paintings of this genre. Such films have a lot of advantages. That is, scale, epic sword fights, bloody wars, wooden buildings in which people of different peoples live, creating a common settlement. That's all there is in "Braveheart."
This story is about the legendary William Wallace, who became a national hero of Scotland and dedicated his life to the fight against the English conquerors during the time of King Edward Longfoot. This fight was his personal revenge for the death of his father, who was killed by the British. After the murder of his fiancée, he began a crusade in the name of Liberty.
Features. The blue paint that paints the faces of Wallace and his associates looks very impressive, although it was not used at the time. These antics before the fight and the display of their fifth points, in protest to the British, turned out to be a very funny episode. Driving enemies into a trap, then burning them, looks unusual, peculiar. Majestic, Irish music, pleasantly pleasing to the ear.
Mel Gibson did a great job both in his role and in directing this film. He made a significant contribution to his own film, for which he was awarded as “best director”. Gibson is skilled at making films, bringing in his own elements. His films have a special appeal and fascinating atmosphere, and deservedly receive their awards at various film festivals.
"Braveheart" is an excellent, historical film about the Middle Ages, and in general, one of the best paintings of this genre. The film is multifaceted, which contains deep meaning, personal beliefs, and the faith of the protagonist, which he follows until the very end.
I knew William Wallace from the game Age of Empires.The conquerors. It was there that I learned about him and that he was a Scottish independence fighter. I was interested in seeing the movie Braveheart. And I'm just disappointed.
This movie is terribly boring. And the point is not in the three-hour timekeeping (remember "Lord of the Rings") but that there is nothing interesting in the film at all. The narrative is very slow, William Wallace rarely speaks words. I especially "liked" this scene: how in sloe-something Wallace rides up to the English, shows his hands, then pulls out his swords and how this scene, it lasted for a long time, it is without words, without action and I look at it and I am bored. And so about the whole movie, it's boring and not impressive, even though the three-hour chronometers, the budget I think was big. It had to be a really cool, action-packed historical action movie with an atmosphere, so I could feel the Scotland of those times.
But no, there is no impressive historical atmosphere here, as in "300 Spartans", William Wallace does not produce any charisma and will to live, like Maximus from "Gladiator" or the same, King Leonids. Wallace is more like a beam here, I may have revisited Hollywood historical films, but it seemed to me that if the main character is a liberator, then he should be a charismatic orator or just give off energy, but this is not here. Even the scene of the trial of Wallace is made very fresh and not interesting, remember the film by Luc Besson "Joan of Arc" and how the trial of Jeanne was made there, with such a strong psychological scene. But "Braveheart" can not boast of this, here and it is not.
And battles. Compared to Braveheart, our Viking can claim to be the benchmark of epic battles and visuals. Because in Braveheart, the battles are made very wretched and also not interesting, they are seriously so theatrical, staged, here the heroes slowly move their weapons, you can clearly see how they wave, so I looked and thought: "What kind of theater?" Why in our "Taras Bulbe" battles are set a hundred times better, more powerful and epic. I'm serious, in Taras Bulba, I watched the battle scenes, I was squirming into the chair with sensations, but here there are no feelings, everything is so printed. And this scene, like the Scots naked ass show the English, it only causes laughter. Why was I watching this scene and I felt like I was watching The Monty Python Show?
Conclusion: "Braveheart" is a boring, uninteresting, tiresome, boring film. If you want to see a really cool about the people's liberator, check out Robin Hood 2010 or Troy 2005 or again 300 Spartans.
1 out of 10