Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Braveheart, 23 Jul 2006
Although not historically correct, this book never claimed to be. It may also be a book version of the film script, but if you came to this book from seeing the film, that is what you'd want. I think the other reviewers are being a little too harsh, this may be pulp fiction, but if you are prepared for that, it is a good enough read. It conveys the epic battles of the film and relationships in the film quite well and isn't too bad for a film tie-in novel. There is definitely scope for a decent faction book on William Wallace, but this is an OK read for fans of the film.
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Hollywood prevails, 27 Sep 2000
By A Customer
While admitting I enjoyed the film, despite all its faults (Ayrshire men like Wallace & his cronies in kilts? ) I had hoped the book would have been a bit more factual.Unfortunately it is just the script in book form. As for accuracy, where is Cressingham (or the bridge)at Stirling Bridge, or Bek? Randall wallace has made no attempt at accuracy. Wallace never took York, might well have been educated, but never met Isabella. And beyond all that, this book is badly written with little characterisation. Randall wallace should stick to scripting tv movies... If you want a reasonably accurate factional story of the man, try Nigel Tranter's "The Wallace". Gibson should have read that one before doing the movie..
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Epic story wasted through the author's desire to fantasise., 31 Mar 2000
As someone who is half English and half Scots I feel that, whilst the real story of William Wallace is truly inspiring, this book is a complete travesty with a total disregard for historical facts. This robs the book of any credibility, and thus totally fails to do justice to the real Wallace. There are so many examples of "dramatic licence" in the book (and thus also in the film scripted by the same author), which sorely detract from the real message handed down by William Wallace over the centuries. As I am limited to a thousand words, I can only give some of the most glaring examples: 1:William Wallace died in August 1305 in London. Edward "Longshanks" died in July 1307 in Cumbria, about 350 miles away. How could Edward therefore hear the London mob cheeering Wallace's death throes whilst on his own death bed? Perhaps the mob attending Wallace's death managed to keep cheering very, very loudly for the best part of two years? 2: Similarly, when Wallace died Edward Carnarvon's wife Isabella, with whom the author imagines he had a "meaningful" relationship, was all of twelve years old. Somehow I doubt if the two ever met (I'm being ironic here), let alone had a sexual relationship or negotiated terms of truce in York. 3: It is a matter of historical record that Wallace's army never even approached York, let alone took it after a siege. 4: The author seems to imagine that the driving force of Edward Longshanks' policy in Scotland was to provide his nobles with a bit of legalised "rumpy-pumpy" with innocent Scottish newly-weds. Again there is absolutely no historical record of any so-called "prima nocti" policy being used by any monarch in the British Isles for at least 250 years before the time of Wallace and Longshanks.In summary, I would say that there is still room for a really good "faction" book and film on the life of William Wallace. Unfortunately the author's book is in my opinion truly appalling, being a sort of "Barbara Cartland meets Sven Hassell" epic in a totally bowdlerised version of history. In fairness, I should say the film is better than the book, but this is purely because of the acting rather than the screenplay, which is closely tied to the book.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
