Film: Braveheart

[wizekrak]

I always thought that Long Shanks was the foil for Wallace. Whereas the Prince was more of a victim of circumstance trapped in a position he wasn't ready to handle. Long Shanks fights for the anti-Wallace ideals whereas the prince fights for nothing. I thought it was merely an illustration of the fragility of England's grip over Scotland.

I first saw this when I was 14, I had no idea it was based on historical fact until it was finished.

 

[Benefit]

What stood out, and remains firmly embedded in my mind, was the unabashed use of negative stereotypes as simplistic plot mechanisms to promote disgust in the audience.

The historical inaccuracies didn't bother me too much, but I agree with this statement and forgot to mention it in my first post. The limp-wristed motif, and the implications behind it, were distasteful.

However, the tossing of Edward II's male companion out the window was hysterical so it all kind of evened out in my head.

 

[tambourine-man]

Hahahaha! :D

See, with that simple refreshing of my memory, I have come to appreciate your point of view. Of course, the Hollywood style would have been complete if the King had quipped: "There's only room for one queen in this castle..."

Missed a trick there.

 

[cravNbeets]

^^thats just funny

i like you english

 

[cravNbeets]

The story is wonderful, it's got a deep love story that isn't sappy at all, something that is hard to pull off in my opinion.

thats the funniest thing i've read all day btw

 

[psychetool]

This movie rocked. Period.

 

[mariacallas]

"There's only room for one queen in this castle..."[/i]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[smotpoker]

it wasn't very sappy. and I understand now why you gave it one star tamborine, you are english, and the english are assholes in that movie. that's the only explanation i need!