Blu-ray | Steelbook Packaging
|Additional Multi-Format options||Edition||Discs||
|New from||Used from|
|Watch Instantly with||Rent||Buy|
Customers who bought this item also bought
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Braveheart (BD) (Steelbook)
Braveheart, Mel Gibson's richly detailed, Academy Award®-winning saga of fierce combat, tender love and the will to risk it all for freedom, is now a digitally remastered, two-disc Special Collector's Edition DVD bur sting with dynamic new special features. In an emotionally charged perf ormance, Gibson is William Wallace, a bold Scotsman who uses the steel o f his sword and the fire of his inte llect to rally his countrymen to li beration from the English occupation of Scotland. Winner of five Oscars ® -- Best Picture of 1995 , Best Director (Gibson), Best Cinematography, Best Makeup and Best Sound Effects Editing -- "Braveheart" is "the most sumptuous and involving historical epic since 'Lawrence of Arabia'" (R od Lurie, Los Angeles Magazine).]]>
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Many now make hay of the incredible violence here. It is violent, gory, insane, bloody, etc., etc.. When I saw the film, I thought it was necessary to tell the story and very well done. I think many here don't like the violence of this film because of Gibson's questionable behaviours since making this film. His extreme religious beliefs turn off many people. His personal behaviour (his rabid anti-Semitism, his sexist comments on women, his alcoholism) is horrible. Yet, this is still a good film, I think. I haven't watched it in years, but I enjoyed it very much when it was made. It is a bit difficult to look at Gibson the same way as I did when this film was made because of his questionable behaviours, but he's still an excellent filmmaker. All four films he's directed (including The Passion of the Christ, which I recently viewed again and liked it very much the 2nd time around) are very memorable.
The film itself is a rather cardboard cutout film, ignoring the complexity of Scottish independence, reducing the story to a simplistic plotline of William Wallace's true love is killed, he gets pissed, helps Scotland become free. The portrayal of Edward Longshanks (by Patrick McGoohan, of TV's The Prisoner) is good, but Gibson indulges his silly homophobia in the portrayal of Longshanks's son, who would become Edward II, a gay king. Edward II is portrayed as an effeminate wimp, but in reality, the real Edward II was much more dynamic. See Derek Jarman's Edward II film for a much more realistic portrayal of this complex historical figure.
Overall, the film is still entertaining and rousing. The battle scenes are especially well done, and if you can ignore the dubious history of both the film and Mel's "issues", you can still enjoy it.
Yet, a number of people chastise Gibson and the movie for a number of reasons, primarily its departure from historical accuracy. I do believe these people have missed the point, for I do not believe it is fair to criticise a movie for failing to realize a goal for which it never really strived. I wonder: do these same people criticize Homer's "The Odyssey"? Do historical hardbodies cast aspersions at T.H. White's "Once and Future King" for taking historical liberties with "King" Arthur? (For that manner, any of the hundreds of contributions to the Arthurian legend). What about Robin Hood? Beowulf? Romance of the Three Kingdoms? Why is it copacetic for a book to create a myth around a cultural hero, but when it comes to film we must be expected to be as straightlaced about historical fact as an army bootcamp is about bedmaking and floor cleaning?
I have read a lot of reviews below and a number of criticisers of the film's historical authenticity spit out the word "epic" as if it is a word that the American film industry has abused and transmogrified into a catchphrase for luring in gullible American movie-goers. But I argue that Braveheart, and the historical inaccuracies which it adopts (and it adopts many, which are nicely pointed out elsewhere), fit the same formula for "Epic Fiction" that we use to classify great (and I mean, universally accepted as great) epic works of fiction such as the Iliad, the Odyssey, etc. These works are not about who did what where and when and in what fashion. They are about the myth, the hero, and the way that they have influenced the ideals of the culture (italicize that). Was there really a Grendel, a Cyclops shepherd, a Wizard named Merlin, or Chinese war heroes who could single-handedly take on a small army? No. And yet, these works of fiction (and the mythological heroes that they have created) have had as much if not more of an impact on their respective cultures than any real life historical event. The impact of the epic is therefore not to be underestimated. Does the fact that Gibson portrayed the battle of Sterling Bridge without a Bridge really make that much of a differnce? The end outcome was the same, at least from an idealogical point of view. He rallied his men to victory with brilliant tactics against insurmountable odds. The presence or absence of a bridge, naked men, or twenty foot spears does not change that. The myth survives.
Finally, regarding historical accuracy, there is the fact that although the movie does take a lot of liberties in order to portray a THEME - I am intelligent enough to suspend my disbelief during the movie. Furthermore, after the movie is over, (and this is a credit to the movie-maker) I was intrigued enough to go do some research on the subject from an objective historical source to find out what really happened. If a work of art (which is not, I remind you, required to be objective - artistic objectivity is almost an oxymoron and film should not be treated differently in this regard than any other form of art) instills in me a desire to learn more about a subject while at the same time portraying well the epic themes it sets out to portray, then in my book it was a successful venture and worthy of all the accolades it receives....Again, this is an epic, and just as a Greek epic might portray the Trojans as ruthless savages and their own members as heroic visionaries, I think it is acceptable for a Scottish epic to do the same to the British. And calling Gibson a homophobic is just ridiculous. Whether or not Edward II was really gay is not important. If he was, then BY THE STANDARDS OF THE DAY, he was an outcast, and would have been perceived, especially by his father, as weak, without potential, and unfit to rule. If he wasn't gay, but was just disinterested in ruling a kingdom (and history is filled to the brim with examples of less than sterling royal progeny), he would have again been seen (especially by his father) as weak, without potential and unfit to rule (because fathers - especially kings - have expectations of their sons), and questions about his sexuality would have naturally begun to arise among the nobility and commonfolk. What we as viewers of a historical or epic piece of artwork must do is refrain from judging said work by our standards. Today, homosexuality is (for the most part) accepted by society. Back then, it wasn't, and the mere rumor was enough to get you rejected from society (and vice-versa). Therefore, in light of the times in which the movie is set, the portrayal of the weak fop of a prince, EdwardII, as homosexual is both acceptable and indicative of the society that the movie was trying to portray. It wouldn't, for example, have made much sense to portray Edward I as gay. Not because a gay man couldn't be a successful King or military leader, but because a gay man would never have achieved respect as a monarch - THEN - by the people or his enemy.
In closing, this is an excellent film that deserves its status as a best picture, despite (and perhaps because of) its historical inaccuracies. I encourage anyone with any interest in medieval history to view it, because it might just entice you to look into more historically accurate documents that, while not as entertaining as the movie iteself, will give you a more wholistic picture of what really happened.