Braveheart: Mel Gibson Interview | ScreenSlam 

Maria Toigonbaeva u are correct sir one of the greatest movies fucking ever

The Wind That Shakes the Barley is also very good....

@@scarlettjane5240 stfu

@@scarlettjane5240 in the name of the father another must watch

Amen brother

I think he may have been referring to actor director Orson Welles .

Ok cheers for that! :). I saw Welles' "Chimes at Midnight" over the weekend. The jump cutting style used for depicting the Battle of Shrewsbury is similar to Mr Gibson's editing style used for the battle scenes in Braveheart.

+Adam Glasgow That made me chuckle, thanks!!

Historically completely inaccurate.

@@purefoldnz3070 so what? It's a Hollywood production not a History Channel documentary

@@voluntasspes6606 they could try to be a little bit accurate at least lol

@@purefoldnz3070 woulda coulda shoulda ;)

@@voluntasspes6606 historical movie should be historical? That's a shoulda lol

Except Mel Gibson Did Not really direct The Patriot though

He actually said ffffffffffffuck vegans!!!!!!!!

I was too drunk to remember posting this but I stand by it none the less

nicolas pierri one of the best all time. People seem to forget all of his work directing,

ScreenSlam Braveheart is his masterpiece fo sho homie.

Favorite directors are George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Mel Gibson, Ron Howard and James Cameron. 🎥🎞🎬🍿❤️

@@Revolver1981 It was historically inaccurate

@@robertisham5279 No it wasn't. The main story is accurate of William Wallace fighting for Scottish independence. So explain how it's inaccurate?

fr

So right

I have heard Mel is a great guy no bs. Whatever he said one night when he was drunk does not reflect who he is. Heard he is kind and courteous.

AGREED

Bill Syvertsen langoliers

Nowhere and everywhere.

You're insane. It's a great movie and the basic plot is accurate. The point of the movie is to show that William Wallace, who was a real leader in the Wars for Scottish Independence, helped lead Scotland to getting that independence. The battles at Stirling, Falkirk and Bannockburn were real battles. Everything else is just thrown in for a cinematic effect. No one cares that kilts weren't worn until the 16th century or that there was no bridge in the battle at Stirling Bridge. The movie is historical fiction. It's a fictional tale based on actual historical events. It doesn't claim to be a documentary on the History Channel.

@@johnp82 You call me insane and then post that load of shite?

@@scottw.3258 you actually read my comment and call it a load of shite? Then yes, you are indeed insane. Tell me one thing I said that's incorrect.

@@johnp82 1. It's not a great 'movie'. 2. WE care that Kilts weren't worn until the 16th century and that woad hadn't been worn for centuries. 3. WE care that there was no bridge at Stirling. It was an integral part of the Battle. 4. It wasn't marketed as 'historic fiction'. There was also zero mention of Andrew de Moray in the film. He was the the General of the Scottish army at Stirling Brig, not Wallace. He was the experienced warrior, not Wallace. One thing the film did get pretty smack on, is that Wallace was little more than a scrapper. He was a pluke on Longshanks arse and nothing more. He's held in worship because of how he died, make no mistake about it. He was a minor part of the Scottish uprising in reality. For every thing the film got right, it got half a dozen things wrong. It's an insult to Scotland.

@@scottw.3258 1. It's absolutely a great movie, objectively speaking. It's won awards, has a massive cult following, and has brought people to tears. It has great acting and cinematography. 2. "We" care that kilts weren't worn? Who's "we"? Scottish people or snobby historians? 3. Filming the battle at Stirling on an actual bridge didn't work logistically for some reason. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Stirling was a real battle that Scotland won. 4. It wasn't marketed as "historical fiction" but that's what it's widely regarded as. And it wasn't marketed as a documentary either. If it was a History Channel documentary, you'd have an argument. Moray was one of the generals at Stirling. Wallace was the other. You're saying Wallace wasn't an experienced warrior yet he led an army against the English and beat them? I guess he was just that good then. And if he was merely some peasant scrapper, why was he made a knight and Guardian of Scotland? Why are there statues of him erected by Scottish people in Scotland? Again, the gist of the film is to show how Scotland led an uprising against England and a ruthless king, and eventually gaining their independence, while portraying heroic acts by Scotsman and also showing how gruesome battles were. The movie does those things. The screenplay takes liberties to make the story more interesting. I don't see how that's an insult to Scotland. Having characters wear kilts and paint their face blue only makes the story more interesting by painting a more colorful picture and making them more "Scottish". If it completely rewrote history and showed Scotland losing the battles at Stirling and Bannockburn and NOT getting their independence while NOT depicting Scotsmen as brave warrirors, then I could see your point. Although I could see Scottish people and particularly descendants of Robert The Bruce getting mad for portraying him as a traitor. But still.

I think Mr Gibson may be referring to the late actor director Orson Welles .

William Wallace.