A Mel Gibson movie involving the English is never 100% factually correct. Come to think of it, none of his movies in English aren't to be take as 100% fact.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
sato (Old Spike)
yeah but "not 100%" doesn't tell us much, could be 95, 50, or 5% accurate.
+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
I was surprised that the story behind Wallace's secret marriage and all that was a real story, although historians are skeptical about whether it was true or not. But, basically, the first third of the film is true to the actual mythology, the second half seems to combine elements of the Battles of Stirling and Falkirk and rearranges them a bit for dramatic impact, and then the last third of the film is completely fiction except for the part where they torture and kill him.
Comments
(Long Spike)
A Mel Gibson movie involving the English is never 100% factually correct. Come to think of it, none of his movies in English aren't to be take as 100% fact.
(Old Spike)
yeah but "not 100%" doesn't tell us much, could be 95, 50, or 5% accurate.
(Old Spike)
I was surprised that the story behind Wallace's secret marriage and all that was a real story, although historians are skeptical about whether it was true or not. But, basically, the first third of the film is true to the actual mythology, the second half seems to combine elements of the Battles of Stirling and Falkirk and rearranges them a bit for dramatic impact, and then the last third of the film is completely fiction except for the part where they torture and kill him.
(Long Spike)