Certainly is among the best historical movies ever made!

There is good and there is bad a bout this film. The good part is that the characters command attention. They are people that you feel close to...so, great acting by most actors. The overall story is simple and interesting enough. I t has mixed types of concerns that the heroes are involved in. But is movie is over 2 hours long and I wish it had been much much shorter.

Movie Review: "Braveheart" (1995)Completely-carried into existence by Hollywood star and director Mel Gibson in a 170-Minute-Cut of witnessing the faith of historic leading man "William Wallace" of 13th century Scotland in an major struggle for independence with fellow Scottish countrymen; a kind of civil-tribe-war, which will rage for a 32-year-stretch into the early 14th century initiated by England's King Edward I (1239-1307) due to an eagerly heart-beating homosexual child-beating performance by actor Patrick McGoohan (1928-2009), who inflames an ascending cold-war-mongering private rampage tours into the North of a Great Britain-inhabited island into confrontations with rebel leader Wallace, given face to admirable far-out on-screen action-beats sharing also-producing actor Mel Gibson, who makes sure in this high-end-dramatized Hollywood production of a major-league 72-Million-Dollar realized by Gibson's own production company "Icon Entertainment", which co-produces with "The Ladd Company" alongside principal Alan Ladd Jr., who had been remaining in close ties to Hollywood Major Studios 20th Century Fox, ensuring international distribution to the far-east of Japan in October 1995, and Paramount Pictures, where the executives had been responsible for an exceptional slow-burn marketing company going out in the picture's first U.S. domestic limited release in May 1995 to ignite into a critical acclaim througout, when sold-out auditorium art-house attendance in Europe in award-season 1995/1996 push the decisive notions towards a justified "Best Picture" academy-award-win at the 68th Oscars over close-on-by but in retrospective no-chance-to-win nevertheless technically-accomplished picture "Apollo 13" starring Tom Hanks directed by Ron Howard due to overtaken "Braveheart" in emotional complexion as a moviegoers' fulfillment by giving into two true-to-the-word inconceivable love themes between French Princess Isabelle, portrayed by wild-man-affairing Sophie Morceau and the all-too-lovely as romantic doomed to fail secret-woodland-marriage between Wallace and Murron, portrayed in vision-recalling memory by actress Catherine McCormack; the secret feminine driving force of a single man in all his blood-splashing ultra-violent actions committed on the green-grass battlefields, when "Braveheart" ends with continuous visionary, shadow-jumping Scottish men for a bettering future.© 2018 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

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.