William Wallace is a Scottish rebel who leads an uprising against the cruel English ruler Edward the Longshanks, who wishes to inherit the crown of Scotland for himself. When he was a young boy, William Wallace's father and brother, along with many others, lost their lives trying to free Scotland. Once he loses another of his loved ones, William Wallace begins his long quest to make Scotland free once and for all, along with the assistance of Robert the Bruce.Written by
The only Best Picture Oscar nominee of the year to be also nominated for Original Screenplay. See more »
English in the 13th century was drastically different from modern English. The characters in the movie, however, speak modern English, which naturally includes a huge amount of vocabulary not used in Wallace's time. This is clearly an artistic decision, not a mistake. Think of it as a "translation" of what they were "really" saying. See more »
I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes. The king of Scotland had died without a son, and the king of England, a cruel pagan known as Edward the Longshanks, claimed the throne of Scotland for himself. Scotland's nobles fought him, and fought each other, over the crown. So Longshanks invited them to talks of truce - no weapons, one page only. Among the farmers of that shire was Malcolm ...
[...] See more »
On USA prints, the Paramount Pictures logo has a gray tint, while on international prints, the 20th Century Fox logo fanfare is muted. See more »
For the very first UK release on VHS for rental the version of the film had a sequence showing Wallace leaving Scotland for Europe. He went to visit the Pope in Rome. Along the way he had a misadventure in France and had to leave in a hurry. When he got to Rome and was taken to see the Pope, the Pope merely passed him over without discussion, indicating that the Pope favoured king Edwards claims. This section does not appear on later video or dvd releases on the general market. See more »
Someone really missed out on a good story here. The William Wallace story is exceptional so why do Hollywood have to "improve" it and turn it into a second-rate, overlong mess of a film? How can you have the Battle of Stirling Bridge _without_ the bridge? Producers have claimed that the bridge "got in the way". Funny, the English army discovered that too. And why demean the hero by having him up against such a pantomime villain - sure Edward was a twisted b*****d, but the filmmakers might as well have given him a sidekick called Igor and have him cackle at choice moments throughout the film, he was that unsubtle. Most importantly, however, it seems a real shame that it should be this film that should have captured the hearts of the Scottish nation, they deserve so much better. Would you believe there is now a hideous statue of Mel Gibson at the foot of the Wallace Memorial in Stirling? Would you believe people are leaving flowers beneath it? This film is a travesty of both a good story and history itself. Scotland deserves so much better.
15 of 24 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this