Braveheart
Braveheart
R | 24 May 1995 (USA)
Braveheart Trailers

Enraged at the slaughter of Murron, his new bride and childhood love, Scottish warrior William Wallace slays a platoon of the local English lord's soldiers. This leads the village to revolt and, eventually, the entire country to rise up against English rule.

Reviews
Executscan Expected more
SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."
Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.
Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
paulica198 The best movie I have ever seen. It is my favorite movie.
jonathanharnden Nothing will ever come close to this. Absolute best film ever.
artemkulikovbooks And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM! Conclusion: Dying in a fight for Freedom, you die as a free man.
quarterwavevertical 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.