What's cooler.

[MetObij]

As well as Mel Gibson being a douche, Braveheart has a set of other flaws. When you learn the history, this film is almost unbearable to watch from a historical standpoint:
- Wallace, did not rally everyone to his cause. A lot of his soldiers where forced to fight the English. In fact, if they refused Wallace had them hung.
- The English never changed the law in Scotland that every recently married woman belongs to the Crown. That is complete fiction that the film created. While that stuff DID exist in these days, the English never imposed it on the Scots.
- Wallace may have been married but we don't know to who, and we know she was never executed by anyone if she did exist.
- Needless to say, Wallace never had his fake wife raped by a fake english soldier.
- Wallace didn't cut the Sheriffs throat when he rebelled, he cut him to pieces and burned the English alive. Which I'm sure more scots would enjoy.
- The battle of Stirling bridge, doesn't have a bridge,
- Wallace sacks York in the film, yet in reality Wallace never even got close to York. His invasion of England was in fact, mostly burning down villages for Supplies too feed his army.
- The traitorous lords that Wallace kills in there sleep? Never existed. Wallace combined his forces with a fellow rebel leaders army before the battle of Stirling bridge.
- Needless to say, Wallace never dated the French Princess Isabella, in fact, she was 8-9 when Wallace was rebelling.
- Edward never attempted to negotiate with Wallace.
- In the film Robert the Bruce has a pushy father who has lepracy. No he did not, his father was perfectly well, and Robert the Bruce was independently making his own decisions.
- We all know that the battle of Stirling Bridge was not won by them tricking and flanking the English, the battle of Stirling bridge was won because the English charged across a damaged bridge and it collapsed, drowning half of them, and leaving the rest stranded on the other side.
- Following the battle of Falkirk, Wallace did not remain in Scotland to conduct guerrilla warfare. He instead left Scotland for France and Rome, to argue for there cause, and gain supplies and reinforcements (they did not receive them).
That being said, the film is great, and I overall prefer it to Gladiator - probably because I've watched Gladiator way too many times.

Oh, don't forget that William Wallace wasn't born in poverty like the film suggests, because he was actually born into a lower royal family.

 

[Riko son of Pdor son of Kmer]

(OFF TOPIC MOMENT)
I see you're are talking about some weird film moments, so why don't I tell some about THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW?
1) A glaciation cannot happen in 10 days
2) When a building freezes it should fall
3) The windows would break and fall inside
4) When the protagonists touch the boat they didn't take cold burn
5) The Tsunami that made New York sink came from West
6) The maximum height of New York's floods is of 5 meters
7) Breathing doesn't emit water vapor
8) The penicillin in the boat isn't frozen
9) They went on the boat for searching the penicillin while in the library there is a first aid kit near the vending machines
10) The tsunami of New York is 4 floors high but, when it freezes, we see the low semaphores and the streetlights emerging from the ice and the buildings we see are always overwhelmed by 4 floors of ice.
11) When the protagonists light the fireplace the ice stopper on the chimney should block the smoke and kill the characters inside for suffocation
12) In the tornadoes scene, the helicopter flies around normally when there are tons of tornadoes around it (IMPOSSIBLE, and I mean the flying heli)
13) Meat can't freeze as fast as the marine scene.
14) Air when it goes down heats up, this makes the scene before this message impossible.

 

[MetObij]

You know, I'm just going to throw this youtube channel here; https://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins

 

[Pythonawe]

As well as Mel Gibson being a douche, Braveheart has a set of other flaws. When you learn the history, this film is almost unbearable to watch from a historical standpoint:
- Wallace, did not rally everyone to his cause. A lot of his soldiers where forced to fight the English. In fact, if they refused Wallace had them hung.
- The English never changed the law in Scotland that every recently married woman belongs to the Crown. That is complete fiction that the film created. While that stuff DID exist in these days, the English never imposed it on the Scots.
- Wallace may have been married but we don't know to who, and we know she was never executed by anyone if she did exist.
- Needless to say, Wallace never had his fake wife raped by a fake english soldier.
- Wallace didn't cut the Sheriffs throat when he rebelled, he cut him to pieces and burned the English alive. Which I'm sure more scots would enjoy.
- The battle of Stirling bridge, doesn't have a bridge,
- Wallace sacks York in the film, yet in reality Wallace never even got close to York. His invasion of England was in fact, mostly burning down villages for Supplies too feed his army.
- The traitorous lords that Wallace kills in there sleep? Never existed. Wallace combined his forces with a fellow rebel leaders army before the battle of Stirling bridge.
- Needless to say, Wallace never dated the French Princess Isabella, in fact, she was 8-9 when Wallace was rebelling.
- Edward never attempted to negotiate with Wallace.
- In the film Robert the Bruce has a pushy father who has lepracy. No he did not, his father was perfectly well, and Robert the Bruce was independently making his own decisions.
- We all know that the battle of Stirling Bridge was not won by them tricking and flanking the English, the battle of Stirling bridge was won because the English charged across a damaged bridge and it collapsed, drowning half of them, and leaving the rest stranded on the other side.
- Following the battle of Falkirk, Wallace did not remain in Scotland to conduct guerrilla warfare. He instead left Scotland for France and Rome, to argue for there cause, and gain supplies and reinforcements (they did not receive them).
That being said, the film is great, and I overall prefer it to Gladiator - probably because I've watched Gladiator way too many times.

I am could write a the flaws in gladiator but I have a life :/