The Long and Short of It: 'Braveheart'

Illustration by Jenn Marie Harmeson In "The Long and Short of It" series, Sam Watermeier writes concise reviews of long epics he's been putting off watching for years. These are the movies that came in bulky two-tape boxes back when VHS was all the rage. This bi-weekly series isn't about watching Sam torture himself; it's about watching him experience long-beloved films for the first time.

Mel Gibson is working through an obsession. All of his directorial efforts focus on a man caught in the midst of mayhem and standing up to the powers that be. "The Passion of the Christ" follows Jesus as he faces death at the hands of the Roman Empire. "Apocalypto" revolves around a Mesoamerican tribesman as he outruns Mayan raiders. His most recent film, "Hacksaw Ridge," centers on an American soldier who refuses to embrace the Army's use of violence. Even Gibson's debut, "The Man Without a Face," sheds light on a defiant guy surrounded by enemies. But his sophomore film, "Braveheart," still stands tall as his magnum opus.

The Oscar-winning epic stars Gibson as William Wallace, a 13th-century warrior who led the bloody rebellion against the English ruler, Edward the Longshanks, in the First War of Scottish Independence. The action starts much like it does in "Apocalypto," with a small village attacked by larger outside forces. All hell breaks loose when Wallace's wife (Catherine McCormack) assaults an English soldier who tries to rape her. This leads Wallace on a grisly quest to exact revenge upon the oppressive powers of England.

"Braveheart" presents Wallace in a mesmerizing, mythical light. Of course, the iconic image of his face bathed in blue war paint is now ingrained in our collective consciousness. He emerges as an unforgettable, larger-than-life figure. As Roger Ebert wrote in his review, "Gibson is not filming history here but myth. William Wallace may have been a real person, but 'Braveheart' owes more to Prince Valiant, Rob Roy and Mad Max."

The setting is equally otherworldly. Swirling clouds of mist hover over the rolling hills like the ghosts of Scotland's past. And the fields radiate with green. Although it has a surreal quality, the film's world also seems lived-in and tactile. You can practically feel the mud oozing beneath your feet as the warriors march into battle.

This film is a war drama of the highest order, putting you on the frontlines and making you feel the sting of every sword strike. It's vividly violent and elaborately choreographed — a far cry from the frenzied action dramas in abundance today. "Braveheart" is at once brutal and beautiful, gritty and graceful. It's a masterful work of art. Now, in the age of CGI, it holds up remarkably well as an action extravaganza made with practical, down-and-dirty effects.

As with "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of the Christ," you come away from this film thinking more about the visceral experience than the performances. But Gibson's portrayal of Wallace is undeniably stirring. He reveals the vulnerability beneath Wallace's bravado, carrying sorrow in his eyes as he storms into battle. Like the heroes of Gibson's other directorial efforts, Wallace is a man striving to rise from the ashes of the crumbling world around him. He's the definitive Gibson character — a classic hero with contemporary grit.

In the end, "Braveheart" is a two-taper well worth watching. This isn't merely a sumptuous Hollywood spectacle. It's full of, well, heart.