First off, the actors did what they could, and Brian Blessed steals the scene as well as the decidedly lackluster script allows him to. It is kind of sad that these people were not allowed to do more with their acting potential, but even greatness can carry these dialogues only so far.
As someone who majored in medieval Scottish history, I would say the perspective adopted by the movie is a perspective a sensationally biased contemporary could have taken, with the result not being unlike what the 19th century made out of already biased sources. So it is not - unlike "Braveheart", which to me is really bottom of the barrel - entirely out of character as to how sources of the time could whitewash events, and the result is certainly consistent with literary tradition. There are no projections of mentalities too unlike the period onto the events.
Do not expect it to be a documentary, however; next to nothing is right. Robert the Bruce did not speak Scots and kilts were not a thing until centuries later; Edward Ist did not die before his wife Eleanor of Castile, Bishop Wisharton did not die in battle, two de Bohuns were amalgamated into one person, John Comyn was not a traitor, John Balliol was somehow omitted entirely... Long list. The movie does get certain props from me for not depicting Edward II as that much of a brash half-wit as other depictions are too comfortable in doing. But other than that - other commentators have already addressed the issue of making the English a little more evil and the Scots a little more saintly than strictly neccessary.
The armour is reasonably period-accurate, though the low-quality chain mail lookalike (which varyingly looks like steel wool, flattened tinsel, or shopping nets painted dull metal) is nothing short of annoying.
The female characters. Ugh. They only ever seem to screech in terror or dismay and always have this weird 1970s hairdo. I'm not sure what the director was thinking.
The soundtrack. That, I have to say, is mostly dismal. It is way too idyllic during battle scenes, almost enough to be involuntarily comical.
All in all - I don't know. I feel neither like recommending for or against watching the movie. Anybody looking for some decent hacky-slash-kill-death won't be too happy, as the choreography of the battle scenes hasn't aged too well by comparison. Anyone looking for a possible interpretation of historical events (without the invariable mentality anachronisms modern directors are so mind-numbingly fond of) probably should watch it. Everybody else - honestly, flip a coin or something.
As someone who majored in medieval Scottish history, I would say the perspective adopted by the movie is a perspective a sensationally biased contemporary could have taken, with the result not being unlike what the 19th century made out of already biased sources. So it is not - unlike "Braveheart", which to me is really bottom of the barrel - entirely out of character as to how sources of the time could whitewash events, and the result is certainly consistent with literary tradition. There are no projections of mentalities too unlike the period onto the events.
Do not expect it to be a documentary, however; next to nothing is right. Robert the Bruce did not speak Scots and kilts were not a thing until centuries later; Edward Ist did not die before his wife Eleanor of Castile, Bishop Wisharton did not die in battle, two de Bohuns were amalgamated into one person, John Comyn was not a traitor, John Balliol was somehow omitted entirely... Long list. The movie does get certain props from me for not depicting Edward II as that much of a brash half-wit as other depictions are too comfortable in doing. But other than that - other commentators have already addressed the issue of making the English a little more evil and the Scots a little more saintly than strictly neccessary.
The armour is reasonably period-accurate, though the low-quality chain mail lookalike (which varyingly looks like steel wool, flattened tinsel, or shopping nets painted dull metal) is nothing short of annoying.
The female characters. Ugh. They only ever seem to screech in terror or dismay and always have this weird 1970s hairdo. I'm not sure what the director was thinking.
The soundtrack. That, I have to say, is mostly dismal. It is way too idyllic during battle scenes, almost enough to be involuntarily comical.
All in all - I don't know. I feel neither like recommending for or against watching the movie. Anybody looking for some decent hacky-slash-kill-death won't be too happy, as the choreography of the battle scenes hasn't aged too well by comparison. Anyone looking for a possible interpretation of historical events (without the invariable mentality anachronisms modern directors are so mind-numbingly fond of) probably should watch it. Everybody else - honestly, flip a coin or something.