Change Your Image
osiyo1954
Reviews
Braveheart (1995)
Who can resist a man in kilts?
Mel in a kilt,long-haired, dirty and painted blue--what more could a woman want? No, seriously, this is a great movie, even through many re watchings. I loved the soundtrack, I loved the sets and scenery, I loved the action choreography, I loved the costumes and makeup--you could almost smell the sweaty men! It never fails to make me cry, either.
I also loved the story, and I have to, regrettably, emphasize the term story. There has been so much acclaim for this movie, and it is so universally loved, that it borders on sacrilege to question anything about it. It is undoubtedly one of the most watchable film epics ever made. Mel Gibson really knows how to take a storyline and morph it into a totally absorbing and memorable film experience. I left the theater crying over the loves won and lost, yet exalted by the sheer heroism and hope the character engendered, even in death. It made me want to yell with Mel,"Albanach go bragh!" (Scotland forever!) Having gushed over everything from the look, the sound, the feel,and the virtual smell of the movie,I still have to question just a couple of things. I realize that the screenplay takes a lot of liberties with the historical facts, and to be honest, the historical facts are mostly shrouded in mystery.
Yet, I can't help but wonder why the facts had to be distorted SO much in the name of success at the box office. If in the story, Wallace needed a love interest after his wife died, why did they choose the real historical figure of Princess Isabella of France, yet place her in England and involved with Wallace at the time she was only about 9 years old, still in France, and not even yet married to the Prince of Wales, Edward II?
The romantic plot device of her illicit pregnancy with Wallace's child, and her subsequent revelation of it to King Edward I on his death bed is complete historical nonsense! Good Ol' Longshanks lived on after Wallace's execution for several more years--and I think genealogists would be quite surprised to know that the child who was to become Edward III was sired by a Scottish rebel who had been executed years before Princess (later Queen) Isabella was probably even fertile!!! Oh well! Despite these flaws in historical accuracy, it is still an extremely satisfying movie experience. And besides, I realize I am probably in the minority in even caring about the historical facts.
The obvious fact is that Gibson has taken an obscure Scottish hero, and a period in history, and brought them to life for many who probably never would have heard of William Wallace otherwise. If he has sparked interest and further study on the topic through his film,wonderful. If not, he has without doubt entertained us and touched us with this version of Wallace's story.
Wyatt Earp (1994)
Will the real Wyatt Earp please stand up?
This is an excellent movie with fine direction by Lawrence Kasdan and fine acting ,good score, and great visuals. I am somewhat of a history buff, so I usually look for some degree of accuracy in movies about historical figures. This film did not disappoint me in that regard.
For those who would compare Tombstone to this film, I say they are two completely different stories, as is obvious from their titles! Tombstone is the story of the shootout in Tombstone, with most of the action and plot development centering around those few seconds in history. It is an enjoyable and entirely watchable movie, but is more about how good Kurt Russell,Val Kilmer, and Sam Elliot look in those long black coats and black pants.It is a Hollywood version, portraying Wyatt Earp as what we would like our heroes to be.
Kevin Costner's Wyatt Earp on the other hand is a movie about exactly what it purports to be--the life and character of the man. It tells his whole story until 17 years after the events at the OK Corral. And I have to say it is a very good characterization. I really liked that besides being MUCH more historically correct than Tombstone, Costner's Earp was a flawed hero--if even a hero at all. The incidents in Earp's early life that were less than heroic, and in fact downright illegal were related without varnish. It was made clear to me in this film that Earp was a shady character and a rough customer in many ways--not a larger-than-life good guy.
The film even portrayed the fact (well-documented in history) that his sister-in-law and others in the family thought Wyatt could be an arrogant, cold bastard sometimes! The genesis of the love affair between Josie Marcus and Wyatt Earp was told in a much more realistic and much less romantic light. They cheated--she on John Behan, he on the woman he had considered his wife. Even the possibility that the historical portrait of Earp's common-law wife Mattie as a pathetic dope-fiend arose after the fact, to let Earp and his lover off the hook, and to foster the good guy myth, is touched on in this version.
I did not watch this movie in the theater, and might have found the length a little hard to bear in that setting, but on DVD, I had no problem remaining riveted to the story as it unfolded. It is an epic version of the important events in Earp's life that shaped the man, and should not be confused or compared with other movies (no matter how great!) that center on 15 seconds in history.
Tombstone vs. Wyatt Earp---why not watch them both? Just don't simplistically expect the same things from them, as clearly stated by the titles, they are two different stories.
Elizabeth (1998)
visually wonderful, historically--not so much!!
I have to say first that while I loved this movie for Cate Blanchett's great acting,for the visuals and even the soundtrack, I can't help but wonder how filmmakers can so blatantly reinvent history! I saw this movie in the theater,and had to literally bite my tongue all through it not to shout out loud at the totally fictive events, strangely telescoped time line, and juggling of names and characters.It's not like Elizabeth I is some obscure figure in English or world history. You would think SOMEONE involved in the production of this movie might have bothered to look something (anything!!)up!
I can only conclude that the makers of this film had NO intention of portraying Elizabeth's personality, intelligence, forcefulness, and political acumen accurately, let alone the events of her life and reign.The portrayal of her as faltering and weak in the beginning is hard to swallow, as she was politically subtle and well versed in the arts of intrigue from the cradle.
Although so many so-called historical films are not accurate, or portray history through a particular bias, this one must be called total fiction. It's much quicker to name the parts that ARE correct. Let's see, there was this Queen of England named Elizabeth--and..well, that's pretty much it!
They did sprinkle a lot of her famous quotes throughout, though at completely the wrong times and in the wrong situations. Alas!
And did anyone realize that the filmmakers had the wrong Duc D'Anjou? The Duc who liked to cross-dress was the older brother of the Duc who was proposed as her suitor. He had previously held that title, but was King of France at the time of his younger brother's (and present Duc D'Anjou's) suit for Elizabeth.Close, but no cigar.
I found especially ridiculous the implication at the end of the story that she was through with Robert Dudley, after his (fictional)betrayal of her. Any biography of Elizabeth is replete with references to the huge part he played in her life, both politically and personally.
I needn't go on-- I can't go on! The inaccuracies are legion, and have been mentioned in other reviews. If you don't give a tinker's damn about even approaching anything like historical accuracy, this is the movie for you. Otherwise see Elizabeth R or better yet--read a book about her.