During British rule in Scotland, there was a funeral for a little boy’s father. A little girl comes over and silently hands him a flower before the boy is taken away from the village to be raised by his uncle. As and adult, he returns to find her because he has been madly in love with her all this time and simply must marry her. Unfortunately, she is murdered shortly after their wedding and this marks the beginning of a rebellion which, ultimately, sets the Scots free of British rule. Doesn’t sound very coherent, does it? Well, my friends, let’s talk about “Braveheart.”

Mel Gibson not only direct the 1995 film, “Braveheart” but he was also one of the producers and took the role of the main character, William Wallace. “As director, star and producer of “Braveheart” he turns the unpromising story of a 13th century kilted wonder into one of the most spectacular entertainments in years,” raves Caryn James of the New York times. I don’t think we watched the same film. Gibson’s acting is lackluster and his skills as director fell short of making me believe any of the emotions the scenes were supposed to convey.

The writer of the film, Randall Wallace, didn’t do a very good job with the history behind the Scottish rebellion either. He made the British seem either stupid, wimpy, or completely vile with no room for negotiation. It would be hard for the British to have amassed all the power they called their own if this was truly what their citizens were like. “It would be a perversion of truth to call his way with history cavalier. He has no way with history at all,” agrees Scot historian, Allan Massie, in an interview with David Gritten from the LA Times.

The only part I truly liked was the scenery, the filming took place in Scotland and Ireland. If you haven’t watched it, and decide you want to judge for yourself, you should know that it’s three hours long before you reach your freedom.