10 Reasons why The Phantom Menace Rocks!

Fine! Forget Jar Jar! Just pay attention to the rest of the film, fuck-face.

With the recent 3D re-release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, there’s been yet another resurgence of hateful and spiteful material towards this movie. Quite frankly, this just pisses me off. If people don’t like Phantom Menace fine, but the joke isn’t funny anymore and I frankly am getting tired of all the unnecessary hate. It’s not like the original trilogy didn’t have ridiculous and dumb stuff in them.

The first movie was made in the bleeding 70s, I’m surprised it’s stood the test of time that well. Does that mean that Vader and Obi-Wan’s lightsaber fight no longer looks awkward as hell? Of course it doesn’t. Does the pre-2004 edition Emperor in Empire Strikes Back look like shit? Of course he does. Were the Ewoks too adorable for their own good? Of course they were.

I know what you’re saying about Episode I. Jar jar, right? Well forget Jar Jar and focus on everything that was awesome about the movie. Because there was some genuinely awesome, new and fresh ideas in Episode I that it became my second favourite film in the series (after Return of the Jedi).

1. Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn

Liam Neeson is the original badass, but he’s also just an incredibly talented actor who instantly classes up any movie he’s in. Episode I is no exception. We all wanted to know what kind of a master Obi-Wan trained under and I honestly can’t think of anyone cooler than Neeson. Not only is he charismatic as all hell, but he’s also physically fit which proved instrumental for another point on this list. His banter with the younG Obi-Wan, played by the equally awesome Ewan McGregor, is some of the warmest and well thought of dialogue in any of the Star Wars movies.

How come do people criticizing Episode I so readily forget about him. He’s the first full-fledged and legit Jedi, besides Obi-Wan, ever committed to the screen. And he’s cool as fuck.

2. Watto

So people hate Jar Jar, but did everyone forget about Watto? The greedy, blue flying junk salesman from Tatooine who talks with a funny accent and who takes no shit from anyone. And also, did I mention, he’s immune to Jedi mind tricks. Watto is one of my favourite characters from the film. Not only does he unwittingly introduce Qui-Gon to Anakin, but he’s just a slimy money grabbing bastard and yet somehow very relatable at the same time.

I think it’s a shame that Watto didn’t appear more in Episode II, but he’s still an extremely memorable part of Episode I.

3. C-3PO Unshelled

Probably one of the coolest moments from this movie watching it the first time was learning the origins of C-3PO and seeing him without his shells. The film also has the momentous first meeting between him and his cute and heroic counterpart R2-D2.

These guys are the staple of every Star Wars movie, so how come no-one ever lists seeing 3PO for the first time as one of their top-5 Star Wars moments? Sure it doesn’t quite compare to R2-D2 saving the heroes at the end of Empire, but it surely beats heck out of that stupid factory scene in Episode II.

This took some creativity and mind you that’s not a CG 3PO unlike in Episode II. That’s the real deal, a puppet.

4. Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker

Often ridiculed, I think it’s about time someone gave Jake Lloyd genuine credit for playing the child-version of one of the most darkest and tragic characters in film. I don’t honestly know what people were expecting? Did they think Anakin should have been an angst-ridden teenager? Didn’t we get more than our fair share of that in Episode II? And compared to Hayden Christensen, Lloyd can act like nobody’s business, he comes off as genuine.

Also, his goodbye scene with his mother, played by the superb Pernilla August, is one of the most moving moments in all of the Star Wars films. Sure, Lloyd says a lot of cheesy lines throughout the movie, but he also does a retroactive reprise of Harrison Ford’s famous “Woo-hoo!” towards the end of the film. Why is any of this a bad thing? Like A New Hope wasn’t cheesy and juvenile?

Oh, I see. Ani, right? Grow the fuck up, what else are they going to call him.

5. “There’s always a bigger fish.”

I think one of the best lines from all of the movies. No matter how much you hate Jar Jar, you can’t deny that the Bongo underwater chase is one of the best action-scenes from the Star Wars movies. You have a genuine feeling of claustrophobia as the heroes are trapped in the depths of Naboo’s ocean and chased by every manner of sea-creature imaginable.

The finale of this scene is just priceless. Just as it looks like the heroes are about to get eaten up a huge, fanged monster, a bigger sea-lizard chomps him up. This is one of the coolest last-second turns from the hole series. For me, this is right up there with the worm from Empire Strikes Back.

By the way, I should really get that Top-10 Monsters from Star Wars list done one of these days…

6. Darth Sidious

One thing I know people moan on and on about is the film’s wimpy villain, Trade Federation Viceroy Nute Gunray. He and his cohorts are scared shitless by the Jedi for much of the film and go about muttering in a vaguely Asian sounding accent.

What is the big problem then? Nute Gunray is not the fucking villain of the picture, Darth Sidious is. Gunray is just a lackey, a pawn, someone Sidious, or Palpatine if you will, is manipulating for his own evil ends. And by the way, Sidious still kicks ass.

He is as frightening and creepy here as he was in Return of the Jedi. Younger yes and not quite as burned, but his key line from the movie still makes me shiver: “Wipe them out. All of them.”

7. Yoda is Still a Puppet

One thing, I know I was disappointed with in Episode II was the fact that Yoda was entirely rendered in CG. For the infamous lightsaber battle with Dooku, okay, I could accept that, but was it really necessary to get all those CG close-ups of him in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith? I think not.

This is where I think Episode I still trumps the other prequels hands down. Yoda is still a puppet and he is just as expressive as he ever was in Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Yes, someone could call me out for being a hypocrite since Yoda is partially made in CG in the film. For about five seconds, at the very end, IN A WIDESHOT. That was acceptable CG usage, we got to see his feet when he walked and that was enough.

Also, another iconic line which makes my Top-10 Star Wars quotes list any day: “Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate… leads to suffering… I sense much fear in you.”

8. Darth “Fucking” Maul

Does coolness not count for anything anymore? Darth Maul, the baddest motherfucker in the Star Wars series since Vader himself. The guy has horns on his head and a two-bladed lightsaber. How much more awesome can you get? Forget Dooku, forget Grievous, hell forget Boba Fett – Darth Maul is the very definition of awesome and he achieves this by speaking less than two full sentences in the hole frickin’ movie.

Some people have complained, perhaps rightly so, that Maul never made return appearances in the other prequels. However, I think it would have been asking too much to turn the prequels into a continuous saga of Obi-Wan seeking revenge for the death of his master. Besides, Maul with a robot hip? Get real.

Maul is awesome and he serves exactly the right purpose for The Phantom Menace, he is an evil adversary for the heroes to conquer and that’s exactly what they do. You don’t hear me complaining about Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin) not being in any of the Star Wars sequels (though I did let out a small “yay” when I recognised him in Episode III).

9. The Pod-Race

Again, did everyone fall asleep when they went to Tatooine? Or is there some other reason why people choose to forget about one of the coolest action-scenes in all of the Star Wars films. Anakin doesn’t just blow up the enemy satellite base at the end of the film, he goes up against a bunch of aliens far older than himself in a sport that is supposedly dangerous to humans.

The pod-race was one of my favourite moments in the whole movie. Sure, it doesn’t advance the story that much and we all knew that Anakin was going to win, but they played it up really well and kept the tension going. It reminds me of the speeder-bike scene in Return of the Jedi to some extent and that’s just a-okay in my book.

10. Best Lightsaber Fight Ever!

This tops them all. Nothing compares to this. Not Luke vs. Vader, not Yoda vs. Dooku, neither Anakin vs. Obi-Wan. There’s a reason I don’t like the other prequel movies as much as Episode I and that’s because there was something real in it. C-3PO and Yoda are one  example, the other is the legendary and epic lightsaber fight between Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Fucking Maul.

The reason I never enjoyed the Anakin vs. Obi-Wan fight was that it was way over the top. The surroundings seemed too fake and the fact that they were hopping around like fucking rabbits didn’t help one bit. Here, there might have been a bit of wire-work but for 90% of the scene, everything the actors are doing is for real. That’s what sells the intensity of it and that’s why I love it.

Not to mention: Duel of Fates! ’nuff said.

A Review of “The Green Mile”

Stephen King’s works have been adapted into numerous films, but I think most will agree that the best of them all isn’t even a horror a movie. The Green Mile is a touching period tale of a death-row warden who encounters a sentenced man, John Coffey, with a bizarre ability to heal any illness.

The depression era setting feels genuine and the locales are extremely memorable. For a movie that limits its milieus to a very few key locations, the movie does an excellent job at keeping you invested in everything that goes on. Despite the movie having a bleak and serious story it also has great human warmth and best of all, a very down-to-earth sense of humour.

A big part of this is also because of the excellent cast. Tom Hanks is great as he usually is, but it’s his supporting group this time around that makes the film so great. David Morse’s warm but gruff persona completes the firm but human character of Hanks. Doug Hutchison does a brilliant job as the sadistic and cruel Percy Wetmore who brings a level darkness to the film on a more down-to-earth level – in contrast to Sam Rockwell and his performance of the deranged Wild Bill Wharton.

But of course, the real star of the picture is Michael Clarke Duncan as the gentle giant, John Coffey. Duncan does an excellent job selling the child-like innocence of the character without devolving into a cartoonish or over-the-top performance. It’s still, in my view, Duncan’s finest performance and it’s amazing that an actor of his stature (both figuratively and literally) can be so sympathetic. Michael Jeter is also extremely likeable in his role as the Cajun mouse-training Del.

The supporting cast is also filled with grade-A actors and no-one in the film thankfully gives a lackluster or mediocre performance.

With a believable setting, solid performances and brilliant dialogue, the movie manages to keep the audience invested through its three-hour running time. There are good ways and there are bad ways to make long movies and The Green Mile thankfully doesn’t commit any of the crimes other three-hour films tend to be guilty of. It is simply a perfectly paced, perfectly acted and perfectly written film.

Grade: 5 out of 5

A Review of “John Carpenter’s The Thing”

John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of the The Thing from Another World can be viewed as a bleak, nihilistic, bloody mess or a timeless cult classic of the horror, science fiction and thriller genres. My viewpoint in this review is that it’s ludicrous to think that any of these things would somehow exclude each other. The Thing plays all sides of the gorefest and atmospheric spectrums of film, but unlike others it actually manages to find a balance with them all – much like Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz.

The first striking thing about the movie are its visuals. Not its gore and creature effects, but the cold icy milieu which creates an excellent feeling of isolation. You really believe that the film’s group of characters are in the middle of nowhere with no way to escape the alien monster that hunts them. The movie’s locales look genuine and gritty.

The second extremely impressive thing about the movie is its actor performances. Of course, Kurt Russel is the first one to stand out, but I’d like to think that this is the first monster movie I’ve seen where there are no expendable characters. Everyone comes off genuine and not as posers and you honestly feel for them as they become killed one by one. Wilford Brimley is another show-stealer, but everyone from the hard and rugged Keith David and Richard Masur, to the sympathetic T.K. Carter and Donald Muffet, to the more slimy David Clennon stand out well.

Ennio Morricone’s score this time is very low-key and I do have to confess, not as memorable as his grandiose and melodic scores from his Spaghetti-Western days. However, the score is appropriate for the movie and its low-key atmosphere.

What the film also does extremely well is a feeling of suspense and paranoia. It’s this element that makes it possible for the characters and the audience to not entirely trust any of the characters. The Thing is one of those movies where you might start to connect the dots much later and in that it’s a movie that actually improves on multiple viewings. The blood-test scene of course is the culmination of the paranoid atmosphere built up thus far, but the previously mentioned excellent character performances are what give it the strength it needs as a culminating scene of the film.

Then of course there’s the monster and gore effects. Yes, they are gruesome, they are almost upsettingly gross and almost ridiculously over the top. But if modern audiences can stomach seeing a pair of garden scissors being stuffed down Anna Reid’s throat, Anthony Hopkins making Ray Liotta eat his own brain or Ben Daniels rising from a body bag to bash his own head in, in order to prevent his own resurrection – I think modern audiences should have the stomach for the nightmarish and unbelievable monster effects in this movie.

The Thing is a strong movie even by today’s standards, in spite rather than because of its gory monster effects. It’s a horror film with not only gore, but dialogue, a story and an atmosphere, something which is more than I can say for most movies of almost any genre today.

Grade: 4,5 out f 5

My Top-5 Batman Actors

Everyone likes Batman. Whether you’re young or old, he’s one of those comic-book heroes who transcends generations of coolness. He’s been performed by a large number of actors and I felt I should share who are my favourite Batmen, so to speak.

Christian Bear and a Bale

However, I couldn’t make this post without bringing up the obvious topic: Christian Bale’s rather grizzly interpretation of the Dark Knight in the most recent movie adaptions. Don’t get me wrong, I think Mr. Bale is an amazing actor who’s been in some seriously cool movies, and he’s also the first actor to perform the role of Batman in three consecutive theatrical films.

Although in Batman Begins he did a fantastic job in making me truly care about the character Bruce Wayne, once he put on the dodgy looking mask and started growling like a fucking bear with a sore throat, I just couldn’t take him seriously. So, Mr. Bale, I love your work and hope you get to play Batman as many times as you wish, but if you could cut back on your very Ursunian performance, the rest of mankind would be very thankful.

Anyway, on to the list…

5. Michael Keaton

Keaton played Batman in the two Tim Burton directed efforts and I think he did so quite well. However, like a lot of people, I feel Keaton was never used in his full potential in either one of these movies. Betelgeuse had been Keaton’s biggest movie at that point and so many of us might have preferred to have seen Keaton in the role of the Joker, rather than as Batman.

However, at least in his confrontation scene with the Joker at Vicki Vale’s apartment, we got a slight glimpse of the Keaton we all love and enjoy. However, in Batman Returns, he was entirely upstaged by the villains.

Keaton did manage the serious delivery of Batman and he fit the suit quite well in my view, I just see him as an actor capable of a much larger emotional scale than he was permitted to show in either of his Batman movies that I tend not to think of him as Bruce Wayne as much as Keaton in Batman. But in any case, a decent enough effort to make my list and at least in the first movie he was able to show his acting ability somewhat.

4. George Clooney

Yes, yes, I know! Batman & Robin sucked, but in my view that is certainly not the fault of the actors, all whom I felt were appropriately cast. It was simply the much more sillier nature of the film that made it inferior to the previous three Batman movies. Clooney may not be proud of having clad the hood of the Dark Knight but I give him major credit for it.

Clooney was of course delivering cheesy one-liners all through the film, as was everyone else, but I also felt Clooney’s latent charisma did contribute to the film. He has a much more fatherly appearance than any other Batman actor and this is why I always enjoyed him in the role even if the film itself wasn’t all it could have been.

So, Clooney was a really good Batman but like a lot of the actors, I felt he smiled a little too much through much of the movie which perhaps took away some of the character’s edginess, still, I respect Clooney for having donned the role and giving it his best shot.

3. Adam West

I grew up with the 1960s Batman TV show, but it was only later that I started to appreciate Adam West’s dramatic delivery. A lot of people seem to hate the 60s Batman show simply because it was so much campier than any other adaption of the character, which just tells me that these people don’t really understand what Batman is about. Batman is not simply a dark and serious comic book about a bat-clad vigilante – it’s also entertainment and I find Adam West extremely entertaining in the role of Batman.

On top of having such an epic voice and style of delivery, West is also quite handsome, probably the best looking of any of the actors who have ever played Batman. I’d be willing to argue that the Batman TV show had not been nearly as successful without Adam West’s manly presence. The same is really true for all the actors.

The whole over-the-top nature of the show is what still draws me to it, but without Adam West, it just wouldn’t be Batman.

2. Kevin Conroy

Kevin Conroy has played the role of the Dark Knight more times than anyone and more importantly, he did it in easily my favourite version of Batman, the Animated Series. Conroy’s serious and dark voice is both warm and hard at the same time. The minute you hear him you believe that he is Batman.

Conroy voiced Batman all through The Animated Series, The New Adventures of Batman & Robin, their many spin-offs, Superman: The Animated Series, Justice League and of course Justice League: Unlimited. Conroy is also the only actor to have sung in the role, and was still cool as a cucumber doing it –  which makes me respect him even more.

However, Conroy has only played the role with his voice so I think it would be unfair to make him number-1 simply because of that and instead I will give the number one spot to the most physically best performer of the bunch.

1. Val Kilmer

Batman Forever is my favourite Batman movie due to numerous reasons. For one, it was the first Batman movie after the Burton ones to insert a little bit of comical levity into the Batman franchise, it was visually the most impressive and it had hands down the best cast. Tommy Lee Jones was awesome (if a little crazy) in the role of Two-Face, Chris O’Donnell was perfect in the role of Robin, the sexy Nicole Kidman was excellent as Dr. Chase Meridian and of course Jim Carrey’s performance as the Riddler was a loving, over-the-top reinterpretation of Frank Gorshin’s iconic performance.

However, what really sold the movie for me was Val Kilmer’s serious and top-notch performance as Batman and Bruce Wayne. Kilmer’s boyish charm made Bruce Wayne much more relatable in this movie than any other, its second only in this area to Batman Begins. However, once he’s in the Batman suit – you really believe that he is Batman and that he will kick ass.

It’s going to take a lot to trump Kilmer in my view and it saddens me that he never got to play the role for a second time.

Quick Movie Reviews: Universal Horror Classics

Today I decided to take a look at three classic Universal horror movies. Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff and Lon Chaney Jr. are all names associated with the classics: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster and the Werewolf. I will now compare which of these horror classics truly still work as effective movie experiences and which ones may fall a tad short.

Dracula

+ Bela Lugosi’s classic performance

+ Grandiose set designs

+ Edward Van Sloan’s performance as Dr. Van Helsing.

+ Dwight Fry’s iconic performance of Renfield

- The complete lack of music during the movie

- Unmemorable lead actor performances

- Anticlimactic finale

3,5 out of 5 – Dracula is a movie that was made by a well-known silent film director and unfortunately it shows in the film’s utter lack of a soundscape. The film has some iconic performances and looks fantastic, but its less than stellar leading cast coupled by the film’s void like pantomime atmosphere takes the most effective bite out of this classic.

Frankenstein

+ Excellent set-design

+ Brilliant and engaging actor performances.

+ Boris Karloff as the monster, both sympathetic and disturbing at the same time

+ Colin Clive’s strong performance as Dr. Henry Frankenstein

+ / - The plot barely resembles the Mary Shelley novel, but is dramatically superior

~ There is very little music in the movie, but the film’s rich audio design ensures that the movie doesn’t suffer from the same void-like state as Dracula.

- Lead actress Mae Clarke’s hammy premonition scene.

5 out of 5 – Frankenstein is still the best mad scientist movie of all time. It laid down the clichés of this type of film, but also worked as a well written and acted character drama which is supported by mostly excellent actor performances. It is still a timeless classic.

The Wolf Man

+ Lon Chaney Jr.’s memorable and likeable portrayal of Larry Talbot

+ Claude Rains’ performance as Larry Talbot’s father

+ Maria Ouspenskaya’s performance as Maleva

+ Excellent atmospheric milieu

+ Well written dialogue

+ Bela Lugosi’s cameo as Bela the Gypsy

+ Psychedelic sequence signifying Larry’s transformation

+ / – No initial transformation sequence, but a decent one at the film’s end

+ / - Lon Chaney Jr. does a decent werewolf performance, the bear-trap scene just looks silly

- Over-emphasis of the werewolf lore

- Hammy performance from Fay Helm

4 out of 5 – Despite some silliness and shortness of full moon scenes, the first Wolf Man is an extremely competent movie and still very moving and enjoyable.

My Top-10 Horror Movies

While I don’t really consider myself a horror buff, I have to admit that in recent years I’ve become fascinated by the horror movie genre. I’ve also seen enough horror films that I feel comfortable about doing a top-10 list of them. Here we go…

10. Friday the 13th Part 1 & 2

Slasher films don’t hold a particular appeal for me, but if one was to pick a must-see example from this genre, I think both of the first two movies in the Friday the 13th series are the ones to go with.

The first movie is really worth seeing just because it’s so different from the sequels, but the second is a disturbing and yet, in a bizarre way, entertaining horror piece with improved acting and a far more hard-hitting approach. Friday Part 1 is a quaint little picture but one that still manages to creep you out sufficiently. Part 2 is the iconic slasher prototype for the rest of the franchise where Jason Voorhees is still incredibly frightening, even without his iconic hockey mask.

I really feel that it was from the third movie onward that the franchise became reduced to utter nonsense so you really don’t need to bother with the rest.

9. Cujo

Now you might be thinking to yourself: How can a movie about a rabid Saint Bernard be scary? But Cujo is indeed a very powerful movie. It doesn’t rely on any supernatural aspects, unlike most works of Stephen King, but instead on a very simple concept to deliver a relatable human story.

Cujo isn’t just a horror movie, it’s a well written drama with the added horror element making it stronger. It still plays well with its subtly creepy and panic-inducing atmosphere, but is not a massive gore-fest by any definition. (Neither are any of the other movies on this list, so you’ll want to look elsewhere for that.)

Those finding themselves paranoid about dogs after watching this film though should turn to Beethoven for its calming effect.

8. The Exorcist

Well of course I had to include the most famous horror movie of all time. I’ve had a bit of an on-off relationship with the Exorcist and for the longest time I actually hated the movie immensely, despite the fact that I did love the main theme, composed by Mike Oldfield.

In the end though, I finally came around when I realised that the movie, despite using some pretty explicit supernatural elements, relies heavily on subtle suggestion to make the atmosphere truly desolate and hopeless. The character performances in particular are excellent and you really feel the terror creeping in the further you watch it.
I’ve not seen either one of the sequels, but I feel I need to comment on the prequel Exorcist: The Beginning by Renny Harlin. I feel it’s a movie that gets a lot more hate than it deserves. Certainly it’s not a masterpiece on the level of the original, but in my view a passable horror flick for the current generation.

7. Hannibal

The Hannibal films have always been very interesting to me and I maybe need to explain a bit why I put this one specifically on here. Now, my favourite Hannibal Lecter film is in fact the 1984 pre-Anthony Hopkins piece Manhunter, based on The Red Dragon. Of the Hopkins canon of films, The Silence of the Lambs is definitely my favourite and in my personal opinion the best written film. However, both Manhunter and Silence feel like thrillers where as Hannibal is straight up horror.

Hannibal is the only movie to tip the gross-out meter on this list, but between a man who looks like a zombie seeking vengeance on Lecter, a French cop getting hanged and gutted and Anthony Hopkins eating the brains of Ray Liotta, the film just leaves powerful images in your head which is why it works so well.

Story-wise, I think most of the other Lecter films are better, but Hannibalis by far the most scary.

6. Silent Hill

Based on the famous horror game series by Konami, this extremely under-rated horror piece is like diving into a bad dream. The film may take more than a few liberties with the plotline and characters from the game series, but it delivers a truly disturbing and creepy story.

The monsters and horrors of the town of Silent
Hill look as effective and creepy here as they did in the video-game. The haunting visuals as well as the music, brought directly from the game, enhance the movie’s atmosphere. The story and powerful actor performances are what keeps the whole thing together till the end.

It pains me not to include the movie in the Top-5, but I decided to keep only one video-game film for each half of the list.

5. The Shining

Another Stephen King film from the legendary director Stanley Kubrick, this one is also widely recognised as a classic. The film isn’t about the supernatural per se, but the insinuations and the delving into the disturbed mind of Jack Nicholson makes this a very effective piece. It builds up the horror in a very quaint and simple way and comes out strong.

Like all of Kubrick’s films, The Shining is strong on the visuals – perhaps more than on the story, but it definitely delivers in the main areas that a horror movie should. At the same time, it avoids the clichés and doesn’t go for overt shock-value which is why I’ve always admired it, even though I’m definitely not Kubrick’s biggest fan.

It is simply put a must-see.

4. Halloween

As I mentioned before, I am not a particular fan of the slasher genre, but John Carpenter’s Halloween stands out in the genre as a grade-A example of a well-made slasher film, which doesn’t reduce itself into a gory mess. Instead it relies on genuine suspense and atmosphere.

Here Michael Meyers is not just a faceless killer and a slapstick movie monster. He’s genuinely frightening and disturbing.

The whole movie can be taken as a fairly realistic look at a serial killer stalking his victims, but it leaves enough vagueness that there is still an element of mystery left in it. I also love the soundtrack and I think the theme melody is one of the greatest pieces of movie music ever composed (by Carpenter himself, no less).

3. Resident Evil

As far as the Zombie genre is concerned, I haven’t unfortunately seen that many films. Out of the few I have, my absolute favourite is probably Shaun of the Dead, but since it’s principally a comedy, I think Paul W.S. Anderson’s Resident Evil, loosely based on the game of the same name by Capcom, is the most suitable candidate and certainly a great, serious and suspenseful zombie flick.

The chilling atmosphere is enhanced greatly by Marilyn Manson and Marco Beltrami’s score, and the zombies themselves look gross and scary. To top it off, the film creates a bizarre atmosphere where the characters have no names and everyone is at a loss at what to do about the hordes of undead walking the corridors of the underground research facility.

With a solid and straight-faced cast, the intensity of this claustrophobic zombie thriller works extremely well. Even if it’s not necessarily the most original film of its kind, it’s certainly a well crafted celebration of the genre.

2. Frankenstein

Out of the Universal horror classics, I honestly think that Frankenstein still holds up the best. Though barely resembling the Mary Shelley novel it’s based on, the movie comes out superior due to its well crafted stage-design, memorable and grandiose (though thankfully not over-the-top) performances and the iconic Boris Karloff in the Jack Pierce make-up which became the look of the monster for all eternity.

Excellent build-up and atmosphere, coupled with a well-written story about science gone awry is in my view the finest mad scientist film still to this day. Who can forget the graveyard scene, the monster’s creation, the little girl or the confrontation at the windmill? This movie is the very definition of iconic.

While many consider its sequel The Bride of Frankenstein to be a superior movie, I personally favour the more serious and dark original, whereas Bride has more of a camp and comedic value in my eyes.

1. Event Horizon

Paul W.S. Anderson’s space horror movie is one of the most under-rated films in its genre. By paying homage to several great horror films of the past, it manages to tell its own intricate and disturbing tale of a ship that went to Hell and back.

Event Horizon walks a fine line between subtle and disgusting but never goes too far the deep end. It manages to maintain its suspense and never once starts to feel overdone. It does get a little gruesome, but I feel in acceptable increments.

Over-all the movie manages to create a great atmosphere as well as make you care about the characters, most of whom meet a very unfortunate fate. The film is also audio-visually magnificent and leaves everything vague enough for the audience to imagine what is actually happening.

It’s my personal favourite horror film and one I enjoy watching endlessly.

Green Hornet – Review

I finally got around to watching the Green Hornet movie adaptation. Based on the cult 60s TV show, which is perhaps better remembered for its early featuring of the legendary Bruce Lee than anything else, the movie stays true to its roots at least in form if not necessarily in style. The original Green Hornet was at its core a serious vigilante action series which was tinted by the slightly cheesy and campy style of its period (but not to the same extent as its far campier contemporary, the Adam West Batman). The movie’s approach is a little different, with a heavier lean on comedy yet still keeping with the action element inherent in the series and still featuring criminals who are very, very bad.

On the cast, I am happy to note that there was not a single actor who was under-utilised, which tends to be a recurring problem with the most star-studded action films of recent years. Although, I am not Seth Rogen’s biggest fan, you instantly sympathise with his character and are still able to laugh at his idiocy and smart-assedness. He is the Jack Black of the Tenacious D formed by Rogen and Jay Chou.

Chou’s role as the ingenious, suave and constantly bitter Kato doesn’t allow him to shine as much. However, he’s clearly intended to be the film’s true action-star, dominating every single action scene in the film. His role is both prominent and a little downplayed as the film-makers obviously wanted to stay respectful of the memory of Bruce Lee, while at the same time they had to sell the idea that far more gifted, intelligent and badass Kato could somehow possibly sympathise and feel comradeship towards the drunken, excitable and somewhat dim-witted Britt Reid.

Christoph Waltz is as charming and captivating as he always is in his villainous roles. His very presence seems to indicate the presence of pure evil, whether he is Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds or Cardinal Richelieu from The Three Musketeers. However, in the role of Chudkofsky he also gets to show his playful and even slightly sympathetic side as the powerful crime lord with a hint of a midlife crisis. His introductory scene with cocky James Franco just perfectly illustrates all sides of his character.

Cameron Diaz also plays her role well and in a considerably different way from the average dime-a-dozen potential love interest characters. Even though she isn’t at the forefront of the film’s events, she still adds to the heart of the film with her sheer presence.

As mentioned before, the film takes a considerably more comedic route with its style than the original TV series. In fact at times the movie will start to feel like a mere shadow of the original, suave and well-dressed show where everyone wore a fedora and the dialogue was hard-hitting and straight-faced. At the same time I can’t really berate the film for turning the whole concept of the show on its ear since I don’t honestly think that a straight adaptation of the TV series would really work for a 21st century audience. A serious Green Hornet movie would have been buried under the mountain of serious superhero-vigilante films, the most notable of all being the Batman films. So the almost parody-like approach to the concept of the original TV show really works in the movie’s advantage. It’s a fun movie where you can leave your brain at the door.

At the same time that is also the movie’s weakness. The comedy is intentionally low-brow and sometimes Seth Rogen’s material is just too painfully corny even for my taste. Also, the action and comedy really dominates over the story, which is basically there just to give context to what’s happening. There are no big “ah-ha” moments and the human storyline is unfortunately lacking even though the film makes daring attempts at shoe-horning it into the action-piece.

At the same time, the movie is very entertaining and definitely worth checking out if you are a fan of the TV series or if you just want to have a good time. It’s not a masterpiece, but a well-intentioned and a loving parody of the source material it’s based on.

Score: 3½ out of 5

James Bond Gun Barrel Sequences

Everyone knows the James Bond gun barrel sequence. It’s a trade mark of the film series and a Bond film just wouldn’t be a Bond film without one. Here are some of the Gun Barrel sequences and comparisons.

You can view images in full size by clicking them…

Connery Period

It might come as a bit of a shocker for some that the first James Bond gun barrel sequence didn’t have Sean Connery at all. It was in fact a stunt-man by the name of Bob Simmons. You will also notice that Bond used to wear a hat back in the day which is quite stylish in its own right.

Connery didn’t get to shoot the gun barrel sequence for himself until Thunderball and this was done mainly since the film had a different aspect ratio than the first three films.

Simmons’ iconic gun barrel sequence had him do a little hop which always seemed really funny to me for some reason. Otherwise, his shooting position is fairly respectable. Connery’s own shooting stance isn’t anything special but you’ll notice that Bond had a tendency to bend one knee while shooting in many of the early gun barrel sequences.

George Lazenby

On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is an oddity of a film, not only since it starred an actor who only donned the part once, but also because it intercuts with Connery’s stint as Bond. I really wouldn’t have minded if Lazenby had played Bond more than just once because his quirky delivery had its strengths.

His gun barrel scene is also a bit of a quirk in its own right.

For one thing, Lazenby is the only other Bond to wear a hat in his gun barrel sequences. This tradition ended once Roger Moore assumed the role. Secondly, Lazenby’s gun barrel sequence has a funny treadmill effect. When the gun-barrel first appears over him, he is seen walking in place before he starts moving and he keeps on walking even once he reaches the middle of the frame. Probably the most notable aspect of Lazenby’s gun barrel sequence is his shooting position which is down from one knee. It’s a little hammy but kinda cool at the same time.

The last oddity is that the blood which comes down at the end actually wipes him off the screen, leaving the centre of the gun barrel empty.

Roger Moore

It might not even be that surprising that Moore had to redo his gun barrel sequence at some point, given he’s played the role more times than anyone else. Just like with the Connery Bonds, the gun barrel sequence had to be shot twice because of the changing aspect ratios between the earlier and later Moore Bond films.

What both Moore and Daniel Craig have in common is that they’re the only Englishmen to have ever played Bond and that they are the only two actors who ever got to do the gun barrel sequence more than once. Most people are bound to have seen the Moore gun barrels before so there’s really nothing special I can add to the description. I notice that the early version of the gun barrel doesn’t have quite a pristine background but on the other hand, the later version looks too obviously like it was shot in a studio, so I guess I prefer the first version myself.

Moore ditched the hat that Simmons, Connery and Lazenby wore before him. I also have to note how Moore wobbles slightly when he fires the gun and he’s also the only Bond-actor to hold the gun with both hands. However, it’s already public knowledge that Moore was actually very gun-shy which probably explains these elements, plus holding the gun with both hands is actually a fairly sensible thing to do.

Timothy Dalton

Timothy Dalton only got to play Bond twice which I think is a crime and a shame considering how good of an actor he is. Here’s a little tidbit, Dalton was actually offered the role already when Connery first retired, but refused because he considered himself too young for the part. Dalton had his second chance when the producers of Remington Steel prevented Pierce Brosnan from taking the role.

The Dalton gun barrel scene is quite nice, I like his swanky stance and the fact that he went back to firing the gun with one hand. This could very well be my third-to-fourth favorite version of the gun barrel sequences, but unfortunately Dalton’s follow-up made itself hard to match…

Pierce Brosnan

Of course, since Brosnan was the Bond while I grew up, I tend to associate him most with the role. At the same time I happen to think that his version of the gun barrel sequence is the smoothest, cleanest and most intense. As a minor technical detail, this was the first time the gun barrel effect wasn’t just a still image but made with CGI which looks really nice.

Plus, I just love Brosnan’s entrance. He walks quickly, turns sharply and fires with one arm. It’s fast, sleek, it’s awesome. Brosnan’s stance is just full of confidence and that quick turn looks intense, like he’s really shooting at somebody.

Unfortunately they did add some rather cheesy things to it in later Brosnan films, like a CGI bullet that flies through the barrel. Other than that though, it’s really cool.

Daniel Craig

Danny Craig has only been in two Bond films and he already has two gun barrel sequences. We all knew it had to be reshot after Casino Royale, since it wasn’t really possible for them to reuse it.

The Casino Royale version is, however, really cool. It’s the first time that the context of the gun barrel sequence is explained and it just goes well with the more gruff look and attitude of Craig’s Bond. Admittedly it looks kinda cheap with the bathroom tiles in the background but its original and they kept it nice and stylish with the black and white footage.

However, it was inevitable that Craig had to re-shoot the gun barrel sequence in the classic style at some point and thankfully he did so for Quantum of Solace. Craig’s traditionally shot gun barrel sequence is very nice and reminds me of the Brosnan version in a good way. He’s also got the similar swank as Dalton. I think the CGI blood in both of these gun barrel scenes comes down a little too fast but there are no other gripes with these…

Except that in QoS the gun barrel scene only came before the credits. That was just not cool. In my view the gun barrel scene belongs at the beginning of the film. I hope they remember this for Craig’s upcoming Bond appearance.

My Top-10 Bond Films

I’ve gotten reaqquanted with the James Bond films recently and decided I should out my favorite Bond films to the world. I don’t have a favorite Bond actor personally, I like them all for different reasons and also because they are all different. Of course certain characteristics and established traditions get repeated, but as long as a Bond actor is true to his own style I don’t mind. Anyway, here are my Top-10 films of the famous MI6 agent with a licence to kill…

10. From Russia with Love

The first three Sean Connery Bonds really established the most solid run of Bond movies in my opinion. From Russia with Love is also one of the most truest adaptions of Bond novel to screen and some even consider it Connery’s best film. I won’t go that far but I definitely enjoyed the decisively different feel this Bond movie gave me. It has fantastic locations and some of the best dialogue I’ve seen in a Bond movie, a lot of that stemming from the fact of how closely it sticks to its origins. What’s even more interesting is that it’s not even all that action-oriented but still keeps you interested, a mark of a quality spy film.

Conversely though, I’d also say that you can tell too clearly that this Bond is based on a novel. The pace is quite slow and there are times when the movie may feel a tad stretched out. However, this isn’t really my main criticism but rather, ironically, that the ending seems a tad sudden and rushed.

Still, I consider it a must-see, especially for anyone who loves Sean Connery and James Bond.

9. The Living Daylights

If you ask me, Timothy Dalton is one of three Bond actors who has never been in a bad Bond film. Living Daylights admittedly is not a timeless master-piece in the vein of his later Licence to Kill, but it’s certainly one of my favorite Bond films. The movie is such an obvious product of the 1980s, from the cheeky comedy to the cheesy action-scenes right down to the theme song composed by Norwegian pop group A-Ha.

At times this movie is so cheesy, it’s almost unbearable, but it actually has a good structure and even a mildly interesting storyline, though admittedly the give the cat away a little too early and kill some of the suspense early on. Still, the movie is really entertaining, it has one of the few Smersh Spiornom references in the whole movie, a serial-killer with his own low-key theme music, John-Rhys Davies and Bond riding a cello case across the Polish border.

It also has a secret service agent getting killed by a door, which was perhaps the dumbest moment from this or any Bond film…

8. Dr. No

When I saw Dr. No for the first time, I was surprised at how competent it was for being the very first film in the Bond series. The film is genuinely suspenseful and action-packed, yet still manages to establish the Bond tropes and clichés effectively. Sean Connery does it all in style and really sets the tone for all other Bonds to follow.

Some of my favorite things in this movie includes its location, Bond figuring out Dr. No’s plots ahead of time using sheer smarts rather than elaborate gadgetry, excellent character moments, a memorable villain and one of the best Bond girl names of all time: Honey Rider.

It’s also painfully obvious that the film is a product of its day, but I’d say the Space Race setting is actually fairly compelling material in its own right. Dr. No still has room for improvement but is extremely competent for an early Bond film which is why I have to rank it this high.

7. Die Another Day

Pierce Brosnan was the Bond actor I grew up with and whom I tend to think of when I think of Bond. In my view, the brilliantly dry, witty yet sincere Irish actor didn’t get to star in nearly enough films. Dia Another Day was his fourth film and also his swan song for the role, but thankfully United Artists pulled all the stops on Brosnan’s final endeavour.

It has the longest and unquestionably the best opening sequence in a Bond film, a title sequence that actually advances the plot rather than stopping the movie dead in its tracks, Brosnan in a cool hobo beard, exotic locations, Halle Berry as the Bond girl, a surprisingly competent cameo by Madonna and epic action-sequences.

The plot is undoubtedly a little weak, though has some nice elements to it, but the novelty factor, the nods to past Bonds (due to the film being an anniversary flick as well) and the entertainment value are so high on this one that it’s easily my second favorite Brosnan Bond film. However, it was sadly the first one without the late Desmond Llewellyn as Q which always makes me really sad.

6. The Man with the Golden Gun

Okay, so Roger Moore may not be my favorite Bond actor, I still respect him as an actor and a person – and I still enjoy his extremely dry and cheesy sense of humour as Bond. There is no question of course which is my favorite Bond film. How could anyone pass up a chance to see Bond and Christopher Lee fighting it out?

This is also probably one of the funniest Bond films, but it still has some genuine tension evident in Moore’s early Bonds which I like. Herve Villechaize as Nick-Nack is one of my favorite Bond henchmen and Clifton James reprising his role from Live and Let Die really contributes to the entertainment factor on this one.

Plus, even though I used to hate it, I now can’t get enough of the iconic theme song by Lula. “He has a powerful weapon, he charges a million a shot, an assassin that’s second to none, The Man with the Golden Gun!” Nuff said.

5. Goldfinger

I guess it’s no surprise that Goldfinger is my favorite Sean Connery Bond film. It’s the first Bond film with Connery I saw and it left a permanent impression. It has too many iconic moments to count but generally speaking its the most well put-together of his early Bond films.

It has a villain with one of the most iconic villainous lines from any Bond film (“…no Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.”), one of the best Bond henchmen (Oddjob) and the absolute best Bond girl name of all time: Pussy Galore.

Auric Goldfinger is also noteworthy in that he was a deviant from the general SPECTRE story angle that dominated the Bond films. The film’s plot, pace and action-scenes are all top-notch and its a thoroughly enjoyable experience. This is the golden standard to which all Bond films should strive for.

4. Casino Royale

Out of the two Bond films that Daniel Craig has been in, I still have to rank his debut in Casino Royale as his finest. Here is where we literally meet a new, fresh Bond and a completely different type of film from Bonds past. Sure, the film may be dark and not nearly as tongue-in-cheek, that doesn’t mean the movie hasn’t got any humour or levity, quite the opposite.

Apart from Craig’s gruffer Bond, Mads Mikkelsen is excellent as LaChifre. One of the best villainous role performances of the past decade. The film also brings back the more spy-film like atmosphere and keeps the suspense up really well.

The film also deserves credit for finally adapting the first Bond novel and doing it properly. At the same time, I do miss some of the series traditions like Q and Moneypenny, but all in due time. Craig’s third Bond is coming out next year and I’m certainly looking forward to it.

3. GoldenEye

It’s sad that Pierce Brosnan could never top the awesomeness of his Bond debut, but at least he gave a timeless classic to the franchise. GoldenEye walks a delicious line of a film set in the post-Cold War era, but still using that atmosphere in a great way. Brosnan combines the boyishness of Connery with the dry sarcasm of Moore and comes out super strong because of that.

The film has everything I love: Russians, destructive satellites, bullet trains, double-crossing agents, secret lairs and an epic showdown atop a giant satellite dish, with Pierce Brosnan and Sean Bean beating the crap out of each other.

There generally are very few faults in this movie. Some of the comedy is a little too cheesy perhaps and the plot doesn’t quite match the seriousness of some of the other films on the list, but this film has a solid pace, iconic scenes and a great cast. What more can you honestly ask for?

2. Licence to Kill

Licence to Kill is a movie that never got the respect it deserved. It’s first truly dark and gritty Bond film. For once, James Bond is not on a mission from MI6, he is out for simple and unapologetic revenge. Despite this, the film still has a suspenseful atmosphere and a down-to-earth feel which is what’s always appealed to me.

With Robert Davi as the villain, it gives this Bond a more serious feel with a villain that has gravitas and therefore doesn’t need massive doomsday devices to make his point. David Hedison returns as Felix Leiter, the first actor to have ever reprised the role, and Desmond Llewellyn is just priceless in the film.

I can’t honestly fault the movie for much. It’s got a great plot, a great setting, a great cast and one of my favorite theme songs from any Bond film. It was instantly one of my favorite Bond films and one of my favorite movies of all time.

It just flat-out rocks!

1. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service

Nothing says under-rated quite like George Lazenby and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Lazenby may have only starred as Bond once, but to his credit never did so in a bad film. In fact, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service became my favorite Bond film instantly.

Now yes, Lazenby wasn’t perhaps the most iconic Bond actor, but the poor guy was following Sean Connery and never had a chance to try again – so what do you expect. I’d say he does a decent job and it helps that the plot of this Bond film is one of the best written in the whole franchise. It has the sort of spy-film atmosphere and feel that the Connery films were beginning to lose with films like Thunderball.

Besides the setting and the storyline, we mustn’t forget that this is the immortal film where Bond got married and had his wife shot by the villains only minutes later. It’s the single most tragic moments in a Bond film and simultaneously one of the best finales, as Louis Armstrong’s We’ve Got All the Time in the World plays over the credits.

If you’ve missed this film, you seriously need to give it a watch. Bar none, the Best Bond Film of All Time.

BraveHeart – The 10 historical inaccuracies you need to know before watching the movie

The 1995 movie, BraveHeart, is a cinematic master-piece. A multiple Oscar winner, an awe-inspiring cinematic portrayal of Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace and his greatest accomplishments. It’s also an extremely historically inaccurate film, but that doesn’t devalue it as a cinematic achievement. Star and director Mel Gibson himself notes that the film is a “historical fantasy” and shouldn’t be taken as the accurate portrayal of Wallace’s life.

Here is a list of the most important historical inaccuracies that people should be aware of before watching the movie. This is intended to enhance one’s enjoyment of the film and not berate it and its makers.

Error #1: William Wallace’s origins

Although Gibson can be excused on a lot of inaccuracies relating to Wallace’s early life on the basis that his pre-military life and career is not well documented, many historians may take offense to how Wee William is depicted in the film. The movie gives off the image of William being born to poverty and living the simple life of a farmer before being taken under the care of his uncle Argyle, when his father dies fighting the English.

In actuality, most historians believe Wallace was born to the Scottish aristocracy and was already a knight by the time of the Battle of Stirling (and wasn’t knighted afterwards like the movie suggests). But again, no actual historical texts say one way or another, so Gibson could be just as right as the historians as far as we know.

As an added side-note: Wallace’s wife was called Marian, not Murron. Gibson changed the name because he wanted to avoid the audience confusing her with Maid Marian from Robin Hood.

Error #2: Wardrobe incongruities

There are two major wardrobe related errors in the film. Probably the most discussed and well-known is the portrayal of Scots wearing kilts in the 13th century. In actuality, kilts did not become a popular form of men’s wear until well into the 17th century, which means that the film’s portrayal can be considered grossly inaccurate. However, there might be a legitimate cinematic reason for it which I’ll get to in a bit.

Another inaccuracy is the fact that the English soldiers are shown wearing uniforms while such was not in fact the custom in Wallace’s age. Martial dress code didn’t become a norm in England until the 17th century. In the age of Wallace, soldiers would wear pretty much anything they could get their hands on (as most were so poor they didn’t have two coins to rub together). Aristocratic knights did wear suits of armour head-to-toe, but the only insignia they would wear was frequently their family coat of arms which ensured that if they were captured alive, they would still have a chance of returning home once their family paid their ransom.

What can be seen both on the Scottish and English side of this wardrobe malfunction is a “uniformalization” of both sides. This is done for the audience’s convenience so that during the big battle scenes we can tell who’s who, without having to listen to who’s dying with a PR and who with a Highlands accent.

Error #3: Primae Noctis may have not really existed

The first night or Primae Noctis is apparently considered by most historians as a bit of a historical urban myth. There’s plenty of writings that allude to it, but very little scholarly evidence that it was ever actually used by any rulers anywhere. Certainly, during Wallace’s time, Primae Noctis was never used by Edward Longshanks (that actually was his nickname) to piss off the Scots.

However, BraveHeart is neither the first nor the last movie to have adapted Primae Noctis as a story-device and we can definitely see why it’s used in the film. It certainly sounds like the sort of debauch stuff that the high and mighty of the 13th century might have done but the ugly fact may be that it’s actually mere fiction.

Error #4: The Scots didn’t paint their faces for battle

At least they no longer did by the time of Wallace. What Gibson was obviously alluding to is the Scottish Picts’ tradition of painting their faces blue to scare off those pansies, the Romans, from their lands. Of course, Emperor Adrian would have nothing of it and built a wall to keep those evil buggers from sacking the rest of Britain while the sandal-folk still ruled the scene.

The blue face-paint is so iconic, though, you couldn’t imagine BraveHeart without it. These days of course the tradition is to paint the flag of Scotland (a white X across with blue sides) for sporting events.

Error#5: The Battle of Stirling… Bridge?

Probably the most glaring error in the entire film is the absence of the proverbial “Bridge” at the Battle of Stirling. This is an error, that Gibson admits, was done to make the battle more cinematically appealing.

In the actual Battle of Stirling, the English had to cross a bridge in order to attack the Scottish on the other side. The Stirling Bridge was badly built and very small, only allowing three cavalrymen to cross at a time. Wallace’s troops achieved victory by waiting for the English to cross and killing them immediately as they made it to the other side. The Scots achieved a brutal victory against a far larger force and the battle was a turning point in the Scottish War for independence.

In the movie, the Scots build large pikes to counter the heavy cavalry while their own cavalry rides behind the English and takes out their archers. The film’s premise of the heavy cavalry as unstoppable juggernauts on the battlefield is grounded in actual historical fact, so while the battle may not accurate even in the loosest definition, it is at least historically plausible.

Error #6:  Isabelle of France never met William Wallace

Isabelle of France was Prince Edward’s fiance, but at the time of William Wallace’s military escapades, she was a mere four years old and therefore couldn’t have physically met or been in contact with Wallace (even though Wallace had travelled to France during the war to ask for assistance against the English).

This obviously means that everything she does in the film, help Wallace by informing him of the English Army’s movements, the affair and giving him pain-numbing medicine before his execution did not happen.

A more glaring incongruity might be that French was widely spoken in the English court even around the time of Wallace, which means that Isabelle and her handmaiden’s secret conversations in French, wouldn’t really have been very secret at all.

Poor Phillip never even saw it coming.

Error #7: Phillip was never defenestrated

Prince Edward’s gay lover in the film, Phillip, is most likely intended to be Edward II’s actual military advisor Sir Phillip de Mowbray. In this case, Phillip was never thrown out of any castle windows but in fact lived well beyond Edward I’s death.

The film’s depiction of Prince Edward II as a bisexual may not be entirely inaccurate, though it bares noting that he did have as many as five children. Edward was however, an ineffectual King which is why he was deposed at the end of his reign. It’s also unclear if Edward actually was in a homosexual relationship with Phillip de Mowbray, but the point is, as feared and crazy as his father may have been, he never threw the fag out the window.

Error #8: The Battle of Falkirk

Now, obviously the battle of Falkirk didn’t go down quite the way it’s depicted in the film. Edward I was actually present and he was known for using Irish and Welsh conscripts, but at no point did the Scots and Irish stop in the middle of the battle to shake hands and make nice.

The most overlooked aspect of the Falkirk battle is that while it was the first massive military blow for Wallace and the Scots (as depicted in the film) the actual reason for the Scot’s defeat is never mentioned in the film. Edward wasn’t quite as cold-blooded as in the film, telling the archers to fire blindly into the mêlée of Scots and English. But it was the Welsh archers, armed with the latest and most high-tech weaponry, the long bow, that won the battle for the English. They were able to fire from distances far greater than the Scottish archers, some of whom actually used slingshots rather than bows.

Error #9: Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace

Robert the 17th Bruce was one of the many people during the Scottish War of Independence who was trying to claim the throne of Scotland for himself. While during the early days of Wallace’s military campaign, he did publicly disown him, he secretly and later publicly supported him and his war effort. So, his supposed portrayal at the Battle of Falkirk is just some more cinematic fancy rather than actual historical fact.

However, otherwise Robert the Bruce is very accurately depicted within the film. Wallace did support Robert the Bruce for the throne and Bruce’s father (Robert the 16th Bruce) did suffer from leprosy, which is why he couldn’t make a claim for the throne (but he did not engineer Wallace’s capture as depicted in the film).

The most notable fact of all is that the name “Brave Heart” actually refers to Robert the Bruce and not William Wallace. After his death, Robert’s heart was literally carried into battle, giving birth to the nickname.

Error #10: Hanged, drawn and quartered

Wallace’s execution in the film, while not entirely inaccurate, is considerably tamed from what was actually done to him. Like many other famous traitors he was Hanged, Drawn and Quartered: a five stage punishment where a person was hanged, cut open to expose his intestines, castrated, chopped into pieces and finally beheaded. Before the execution Wallace was stripped naked and pulled around town by horse-carriage by a rope around his ankles and after the execution dipped in tar.

The film makes note of how Wallace’s body parts and head were put up for public display and sent to “the four corners of England”. This is historically accurate.

What we see in the film is a toned down version of the Hanged, Drawn and Quartered punishment. Wallace is shown hanged and stretched, and though not explicitly shown, it’s indicated that his intestines are taken out. The slicing and castration bits are left out and instead Wallace is beheaded after he screams “Freedom!” one last time. In actuality, Wallace’s last words are unknown.