Review: Braveheart (1995)

So, out of a rather straightforward desire to see what the fuss was about, I watched Braveheart because it was on Instant Watch, and really, I was bored.

So, let's see if it was deserving of Best Picture.

Well, the good news is that Mel Gibson is a good director. He has a great eye for scale and scope, and his orchestration of the battle sequences are superbly done. He also extracts very strong performances from his cast, and keeps the pace at a good steady speed for it's 3 hour running time.

However, it's rather obvious that Gibson is more comfortable behind the camera then in front of it in this film, since the sequences without William Wallace (namely, the sequences with Robert the Bruce) are generally more emotive and better directed then the sequences with Wallace, and I think that stems from the fact that Gibson was keenly aware that he was far too old to play Wallace (who is maybe 30 by the end of the film, while Gibson was almost 40). However, the studio refused to back the film unless Gibson played the lead, so it means that one can sense that Gibson isn't quite as comfortable as he is in films like Mad Max, the Lethal Weapon films, or even Ransom, Ron Howard's thriller from the same year. On top of that, the screenplay, which was written by Randall Wallace, needs work. It's not a horrible screenplay, since it's far more focused then the disorganized mess of Gladiator, or the mind-numbing bore of Kingdom of Heaven, two similar epics that owe a debt to Braveheart, but it's clear that the screenplay better suits Robert the Bruce, and others, then Wallace himself. The best sequences with Wallace are when he's shown from the point of view of others, and we get to see the mythological Wallace. If anything, this film would have worked a lot better had it focused on Robert the Bruce (played wonderfully by Angus Macfadyen), and kept Wallace as this near mythological figure who is spoken of, yet never seen. Interestingly, the title of 'Braveheart' is actually a historical nickname for Robert the Bruce. Now, I don't know if Randall Wallace and Gibson intended this, and that studio meddling caused the focus to shift, but it's an interesting idea to entertain.

Moving on from that, however, the cinematography by John Toll, which won an Oscar, is quite exquisite, creating a beautifully naturalistic look at the Scottish highlands. Other highlights are Patrick McGoohan's performance as a villainized Edward Longshanks, and James Horner's absolutely beauitful score, which combines Scottish folk elements with Irish bagpipes, to create a hyper romanticized, yet effective, musical backdrop.

The historical flubs, of which there are MANY, can best be excused if you view this film as the mythologized recounting of events. Gibson has admitted to be focused firstly on drama, and Randall Wallace admitted to basing most of his screenplay on legend, since hard historical data on Wallace is almost impossible to find now. So to an extent, I can excuse it, with the caviet that you view it as a mythologized account, and not an attempt to create a true-to-life recounting of the events.

So in the end, while Braveheart is far from a bad film, it isn't quite the opus it could have been. An emotional disconnect from Wallace means that we don't really FEEL his character as we have other Gibson characters, and this means that we spend most of the running time hoping to get back to the far more interesting Robert the Bruce.

As a Best Picture winner, I can say that, of the nominees (Apollo 13, Babe, Sense and Sensiblity, and Il Postino), I would have personally chosen Babe. Braveheart is far from the worst best picture winners, but isn't exactly a GREAT film either. But it is enjoyable, it is well directed and well acted, so it's worth a watch if you haven't seen it, and if you love it with a passion (like so many people do), then more power to you.

3 stars.