Even though I do think this is Mel Gibson's best movie (I haven't seen "Apocalypto"), I found it to be full of awkward dialogue, dodgy performances (what to say about Mel Gibson's fake accent?) and badly edited scenes, forming a whole disjointed affair that I'm not entirely sure of how to describe. However, when it's good, it's really quite good. It just needed to be shorter, and by a whole lot.
The first time i watched it as a teen it really made an impression. But a second watching shows that simply cilts replaced the tights. The fierce battle looks great, but the reasoning stinks a bit of bullshit. Was the situation of the people more a result of kolonialism or feudalism? If you look up history, you can read that the battle was rather not opposed to oppressors, but part of taking part in politics.
Inspirational in the sense that it teaches you that a literal piece of crap can make a good movie and if poop can do that then I can do anything! Good thing i watched this when i was younger and significantly more aggressive because if i was old enough to grow my distaste for this rude man then it wouldve just felt like a compilation of violent scenes made by a violent man
A rousing, masculine epic with as much savagery as melodrama. It's the heroism of the Scots against the pitiful cowardice of the Britons and their loyalists. Mel Gibson leads the pack with a good performance, but its his direction that really shines here. The wonderful cinematography, beautiful sets, and sweeping score pay homage to the cinematic spectacles of a bygone era. A little corny at times, but gleefully.