In an age where people will believe just about anything, a giant question mark looms over this film - can you accept that it is a fabricated story and just watch it for it merits? Or is it a lesson best learned by not watching it at all? This is up to the viewer. It is sad that Gibson has such clear talent but chooses to use it to portray history unfaithfully. No one would believe such a thing by just watching this movie. In fact, her son by Edward II wrought vengeance upon her and her lover when he, Edward III, came to power. And, yes, his wife was unfaithful but never with a Scot. Yes, Edward I's son was definitely not straight but this has little to do with his reign - many monarchs have not been - and are not - straight. But the killer here still is the film's utter lack of fidelity to real facts, particularly when it comes to people Gibson holds in contempt.
What sticks out still is the on-point direction and dynamic cinematography - the stag hunting scene is an instant classic - and the battle scenes are almost poetic in their brutality (going where only \"Game of Thrones\" does now).
Of course, it tells the tale of William Wallace a near-legendary 14th-century Scotsman who avenges the murder of his wife on the English and, ultimately, seeks freedom for all of Scotland.
0 kommentar(er)
