ridiculous rating

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Braveheart is more than a "sandals and swords" movie. Based on the Scottish independence movement it invokes passion and zeal, and not just from the Scots. Mel Gibson has crafted an incredible film full of moving images and fervor based on revenge. Of course, most of the film is very loosely based on actual events and some are downright made-up but that does not deter from the film at hand. The acting is top-notch and led from the front by Gibson himself. Cinematography is lush with the Irish and Scottish landscapes photographed in stunning glory and the battle scenes are raw and unflinching which add a certain realism to the proceedings. When the film was released it created a sensation in 1995, winning multiple academy awards and even being accused of Anglophobia by the media. Take all the opinions aside and this is filmmaking at its finest.

If you think, this is a great movie and historically correct, you really should look up what critics write about this movie. It didn't end up for no reason at 2nd place in a rating of 'The Times' of most historically wrong movies ever made.And this is quiet sad since the story has a lot of potential. If you make a historic movie about such an important topic and mix up facts with sorry not sorry made up bullsh#t, I cannot take the movie seriously anymore at all.

The best movie I have ever seen. It is my favorite movie.

I watched "Braveheart" on cable last night and I wondered why I bothered.The movie was slow, plodding, and bloated. The pacing was such that one could stop watching for a few minutes while one went and made supper, return, and not really miss anything.The only character who was the least bit interesting was Edward Longshanks, played by Patrick McGoohan. Then again, Mr. McGoohan has often played such people (e. g., Number 6 in his TV series "The Prisoner"). I could well imagine Edward being tough, brooking no debate or challenge to his rule.Everyone else was largely colourless and the portrayal of William Wallace didn't particularly convince me that he was the leader of a rebellion. The romantic angle between Wallace and Princess Isabelle was laughable at best. I mean, really--a royal consorting with a serf?Other reviewers have pointed out historical inaccuracies in the movie. That's nothing new--for example, take a look at Errol Flynn's portrayal of George Custer in "They Died With Their Boots On".So why did this movie win the Best Picture Oscar and not "Apollo 13"? I admit that I'm biased because not only am I a space buff but I was in high school when the events for which that mission is remembered occurred. The latter, however, had action and suspense and, on the whole, was tightly-paced. Even the historical inaccuracies are relatively minor. "Braveheart", on the other hand, was ponderously dull and, for me, a complete waste of time.Maybe there were political reasons for it. It certainly couldn't have been on the artistic merits of the movie.It's the second time I saw the movie. The first time was nearly 20 years ago. I didn't like it then and I didn't like it now.