"Braveheart" has not stood up well to the test of time, and not because it is a bad film, instead quite the opposite. It is simply because of the crazy little muddle known as Mel Gibson. The film itself is still a rousing, if historically inaccurate tale of William Wallace and his quest to see a Free Scotland. The only problem is that since "Braveheart" airs every weekend on TBS you may not see the point in owning the DVD or even renting it, but to sit back and watch "Braveheart" without commercial interruption is ideal. The Special Collector's Edition is beautiful. The extras are weak, and a whole lotta Gibson.

Here's a little secret about me. If I am trolling through the networks and channels of cable, and "Braveheart" happens to be on, I have to stop and see what part of the movie it is. If it is one of the gorgeous battle scenes, I will pause a bit, at least until the scene is over. That said, the battle scenes in "Braveheart" are kickass. I love really well-done fight scenes, and a lot of the Hollywood-financed films tend to get it wrong, thinking that editing can make up for poor choreography and realism. I tried watching the "Making of" Doc to see who was behind it, but I am not sure if they mentioned it or I just wasn't paying attention to anything other than Mel's mullet. "Braveheart" gets the fighting right on. I wish I could write that about the story itself, but as the script does offer enough fightin' the Ainglish, general rabblerousing, throwing an illicit gay lover out of a window, and Sophie Marceau doing anything, I have tended to overlook the cheesy love scenes in a bog that has a great and powerful light coming from behind the actors, the training montage that ends with a blue-eyed Gibson as Wallace looking off into the Scottish countryside after jogging up a mountain, the damn sword in the ground motif, Gibson's age,or the endless death scene. Whew, that was a long sentence. Hmm. Would I be so critical if this were 1995? Yeah, I bitched about the same stuff when the movie came out, but I liked it anyway. Although, I do remember mentioning to someone at that time that the death of William Wallace was very Christ-like as he was stretched out on a cross. And then there was "The Passion of the Christ", which I did not see nor plan to, as yeah, I know that story already and I heard it was literally a couple hours of torture, and guess what? I felt like I had already seen "Passion" at the end of "Braveheart". And the writer, Randall Wallace, confirms my suspicion, as he explains in the featurette, "A Writer's Journey", that he was totally going with a Christ motif. So maybe Gibson is not to blame for overtly Biblical themes, but he is definitely drawn to a certain material. Still, "Braveheart" is a perfect example of an herioc epic, and I can give a shout out to Gibson for directing this film so well. The Commentary does attest to his saavy in storytelling, and surprisingly, he can keep quiet for a tender scene. He also is very generous with crediting his crew with making "Braveheart" what it was. I had seen Gibson's directorial debut, "The Man Without a Face", and I thought it was well-done, little hokey, but the direction was strong. I also have to give Mel kudos for bringing Wallace to life so well. Sure, Wallace seems to really just be Mel with a Scottish brogue, but it works. Transfer the same guy to "The Patriot", and it became old. A strong supporting cast really makes this film: including Brian Cox as the uncle that takes the orphaned William under his wing (yeah, I know

Yes, yes, yes, all superb. Turn the volume up on your big screen, turn out the lights, and enjoy.

Not much here unfortunately. The commentary is informative, and it seems really more like watching the film with Gibson in the room. He seems to be in a thoughtful mood, and like I said before, he is a rather gracious guy when giving props to everyone in the film and behind the film. It's also kind of fun to hear what was real and what was faked. "A Writer's Journey" is short enough, and if you are really interested, it can shed some light on how the script came to be. "Alba gu Brath! The Making of Braveheart" is the best of the bunch, but I warn you, Mel is rocking a sweet mullet that is hard to take your eyes off. It is interesting, but most of the material seems to be from inside the editing room. "The Tales of William Wallace" is an odd quasi-doc about the real Wallace or rather the controversy surrounding the real Wallace, but the "experts" are Gibson and the production staff, and there are a lot of clips from the movie in it. "The Archival interviews with the Cast of Braveheart" is alright, I guess, but it is really just the cast explaining their characters and what they do in the film. Ooh, and a photo montage, and the theatrical trailers. Pure filler.

"Braveheart" is still a strong, well-made populist film that strikes a chord in all of us, and that is part of its charm. Sure, it's a Best Picture and it was well-deserved that year beating out "Apollo 13", "Sense and Sensibility", "Babe", and "Il Postino". You tell me, out of those five films, which would you rather watch now? Sidenote: I just rewatched "Babe", and though I love that film, "Braveheart" was the right choice in 1995.