Braveheart (4K UHD + Blu-ray + Digital)

In order to maintain the appearence of objectivity, I was going to rate this movie 4 stars. But I just couldn't. It really deserves 5, and it's going to get every one of them. This movie features some of the most stunning cinematography I've ever seen (scenes of particular brilliance include the deer-hunting scene and the slo-mo shots right before Gibson's first rebellion), impeccable acting (I don't know why the British have been hiding their actors from the American film industry - every one of the British/Scottish actors in the film was amazing, and Patrick McGoohan (sp) gave an incredible performance as Longshanks, not to mention newcomer Sophie Marceau), a magical musical score, and on and on and on and on. Physical elements alone qualify this work for the title of Best Picture.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.

Thanks! Is a great movie.

it plays

An Oscar winner, BRAVEHEART, on DVD, is a winner. I’m enjoying the additional disc with interviews. So interesting. The author and his purpose are a delight. The history with views in Scotland and in London, where Wallace was executed, are interesting.

Yes, yes, we all know the troubles Mr. Gibson has been going through lately. The DUI. The ant-semetic remarks. His consequent arrest and public contritions. We sometimes get caught up in our favorite actors/actresses' off-screen antics and forget about the talents that attracted us to them in the first place. If this is the case with your Gibson attraction, all one needs to do is view "Braveheart" again. It reaffirms why Mel Gibson ranks up there with Scorsese, Spike, Speilberg and Eastwood as great American directors. I don't agree with what he said, but I do like the majority of his films, especially this one. Now for my review:Braveheart is the story of Scotsman William Wallace who lead a revolt against English oppression in the Middle Ages. At first Wallace, like most of his countrymen, is more or less content with England occupying Scotland. That is until the English king (Patrick McGoohan)instates a law that declares that on their wedding day, Scottish brides must sleep with English soldiers before they lay with their husbands. I just want to take a moment here to point out the similarities between the Scottish/English conflict (which still rages today) and the Black/White conflict (that still rages today) in America. NEWS FLASH: We're ALL human. We all put on our trousers one leg at a time. Chill. Anyhoo, Wallace and his bride are secretly married at night to avoid this sanction the king has imposed, however one of the soldiers takes a liking to Wallace's bride and tries to attack her. She fights back, wounding the guard and has her throat slit for her rebellion. God save the Queen and England indeed! Wallace exacts a bloody revenge on the soldiers and takes over their outpost. Word quickly travels back to England that a peasant upstart has started a revolt. The film is filled with grand action scenes (some of the most realistic war scenes ever), political plot twists and turns, and yes even Romance. Gibson and writer Randall Wallace knew what they were doing when they decided that the catalyst for Wallace's revolt would be the death of his beloved. If it could make the future Queen of England (Sophie Marceau) swoon, why not the world-wide female audience? The film also has great scenes between the King and his homosexual, inept son, which makes me point out the father/son relationships throught the entire story: Young Wallace and his "Da"; the King of Scotland (Angus McFadyen) and his "Pa"; all of which ends with the elder kings dying and their sons overtaking the thrones.There are just so many good things about this film that I don't know where to begin, so I'll just hit on a few points: Why didn't Patrick McGoohan receive an Oscar nomination at least?! It can be argued that McGoohan's performance is what actors dub "One Note", meaning the actor never really changes their emotional content. But what a note to hit...repeatedly! McGoohan's King of England is a cunning, cold, manipulative, evil boor. If his performance is patterned after the REAL King of England during this period (Edward Longshanks), its no wonder they dominated through the centuries. They say that "the eyes are the windows to the souls", well one look in the king's eyes and you realize that he has no soul. Only when he is on his deathbed, unable to speak, and is told by Marceau that she is carrying Wallace's baby, do his eyes register anything akin to human emotion. Definitely one of the greatest film villains of all time. Another point: As I've stated before, the battle scenes are as accurate as one can get, predating Speilberg's "Saving Private Ryan" by three years. Notice how even after the fighting has ceased, you can still see soldiers crawling around on the blood and limb covered ground, clinging to life. This, coupled with the bleak mud and rain soaked surroundings of Olde England makes you feel as if you're in this long ago world. And lastly: Wallace's cry for "Freedom!" as he is beheaded makes for a fine martyr-moment in film lore. One can easily see the link between Moses, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King to William Wallace. People can only take so much oppression, overt and covert, before they fight back for the simple, God-given right to LIVE. Its clear to me why this film won best picture of '95 and why Mel won best director. If you haven't seen this film, please do so; and if you have, it deserves repeated viewing: For Freedom!!!

Forgot about the scene where a bunch of the guys literally pull up their kilts and actually flip their dcks around.......yep......I remembered this movie being a lot classier. Funny how that works. Now i feel strange like my whole life was a lie bc if a movie came out today doing that i wouldn't condone it no matter how good it was.I remember this movie as one of the true love stories captured on film. And about the simple freedom and good things life is worth fighting for. Now it seems like savages having revenge on evil overlords and no one is actually very redeemable at all lol....... great product though love the steel book.....

Great movie, packaged well

No problems with the 4k disc. Love the movie

Esta película es un clásico. La actuación de Mel Gibson, genial. Cuenta un período de la historia de Escocia, solo OJO, el personaje William Wallace existió realmente, pero el héroe escocés en realidad es Robert Bruce. La peli se tomó sus "licencias". Como peli es genial. La actuación, la banda sonora que es de primera, las emociones que te hará vivir. Como verdadera historia de Escocia le falta y tiene muchas historias adjudicadas a este solo personaje. como si para hacer la peli más emocionante, unió dos períodos, dos héroes, pero puesto todo a un solo personaje. La realidad es que William Wallace y Robert Bruce son parte de la historia

Well pleased with my Blu-Ray DVD purchase Thank you

La 4k est de grande qualité pour un film qui a plus de 20 ans. L'image fait très cinéma.La VF en 5.1 est aussi de grande qualité. Les surround fonctionnent à plein régime.A acheter sans réserve.

Braveheart ist der beste Film aller Zeiten, ein absolut kunstvolles Kunstwerk, das vor dem Hintergrund politischer Scharfsinnigkeit und soziohierarchischer Analyse jede Emotion der menschlichen Existenz darstellt, von Leiden über Mut bis hin zur Liebe.Mel Gibson hat sich nicht nur als brillanter Regisseur erwiesen, sondern vor allem einem historischen Helden Leben eingehaucht, dessen hervorragende Tapferkeit, lebhafter Charakter und großartiger Geist niemals der Geschichte angehören werden.Mel Gibson spielt die legendäre Rolle des William Wallace in einer so glaubwürdigen Darbietung, die mit der von Russel Crowe in Gladiator mithalten kann. Die Akzente mögen mit seinem Tonfall hin und her springen, wenn er spricht, aber seine Stimme ist fest und stark für die Rolle, ebenso wie der Rest der Besetzung, die alle ausgezeichnet waren. Patrick McGoohan porträtierte Longshanks sehr bösartig und als hasserfüllten Bösewicht. Sophie Marceau ist die umwerfend attraktive, aber naive Frau, die zwischen ihrem Land und dem, woran sie wirklich glaubt, hin- und hergerissen ist.Das Beste am ganzen Film sind jedoch die beiden epischen Schlachtszenen, die weder abgehackt sind, noch die wackelige Kamera haben wie so viele andere Filme heutzutage, wodurch all das Blutige und Brutale vermieden wird, das eine Schlacht wirklich beinhaltet. Dieser Film reibt einem das sicher unter die Nase und musste zeigen, woran diese Männer glaubten, wofür sie kämpften ... für die Freiheit!Und nicht zuletzt hat der Film, trotz all der Kunst, die er wertschätzt, eine großartige Geschichte, die kraftvoll ist und für sich allein steht.

Parfait !