Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

yeral yeral (ismetyeral) Braveheart, the 1995 production of Randall Wallece's scriptwriting, the director's chair, and Mel Gibson's lead; he successfully reflected on the epic story of William Wallace, who did not loyal to King I. Edward, stand on the front line of the Scottish freedom struggle, and he won five Oscars that year, including Best Picture. The film, which included a lot of fiction, even though it came from a historical reality, made us feel the last of the scottish people and the wisdom of William Wallace's wrath, hopes and freedom in our pursuit of freedom and invited us to their world and dragged us along with them to search for freedom It is a film that even preserves its influence in 1995. Mel Gibson is a great example of masterpieces in his companionship. Mel Gibson, who plays both acting and directing roles, has managed to get out of the job very well. Braveheart has been watched for many years in our country with great interest, and has become a focus for the filmmakers. We can call a historical event, a successful expression of your personality, a fuller scenario, a successful production and a master player, as the reason why Braveheart is seen so much around the world.The film is based on the Scottish people's struggle for independence. Mel Gibson has brought William Wallace to character and this character has become a very popular character all over the world. In fact, the life of the film has increased further. Catherine McCurmock in the role of Murron, though rarely seen in the film, has actually been featured in the spectator with pure and clean beauty. This 177-minute film, with the director's editing, has a feature that does not squeeze the viewer at a distance, compared to many other films. I can say Filmin has a lot of improvements. Filmin Cinematographer John Toll, James Horner, who we know from Tinanic in music, Art Directors were carefully selected and did a great job. It is a wonderfully satisfying artwork, both in terms of visuals and music. The film also features Oscars. She has also won prizes in the Bafta, Golden Globes and other award ceremonies.The winning Oscars are:So Good Director (68th Academy Awards 1996) En Good Cinematography / Cinematography (68th Academy Awards 1996) A Good Film (68th Academy Awards-1996) En Good Make-up (68th Academy Awards 1996) En Good Effect (Sound Effect) (68th Academy Awards 1996)Some of Filmin's unforgettable lines are: ... I know you can fight. But it is our intelligence that makes us male. You are free, be brave enough to follow him. You can take the boy, but we will never be free. Everyone dies, but not every person really lives.Braveheat (Braveheart) has become a film of freedom and hope. Do not be late anymore if you've been watching this film that's been defying years.

jonathanharnden Nothing will ever come close to this. Absolute best film ever.

okiecowboy What's not to love? Mel Gibson at his best. If you are a student of history, watch just for the joy of watching..

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.