Ok, this was a very good movie. Rated fourth among the five 1996 nominees, for those of you still keeping notes.
I loved battle scenes that were so much more compelling than those in its contemporary: FIRST KNIGHT, for instance. I really enjoyed the opening sequences that were panned by others. They were lush, in the land, and harsh, in the life lived on it. There was vibrance in the quickly-established relationships. All of this added, as it was supposed to, to the later development of the movie.
It is a rousing movie that left me going "wow," when I left, because I had expected much less.
Being nominated though, drew my more critical eye towards it.
At many spots in the film, I couldn't help being reminded that this was a "Mel-Gibson-Movie," or M-G-M :). The best example of this being the mass-flash that incites the suddenly prim English generals to battle.
In a Mel-Gibson-Movie, this is not only excusable, but expected. Therefore, when I saw this movie the first time, I laughed with everyone else. But when this show vaulted onto the same quality-platform as SENSE & SENSIBILITY and IL POSTINO--and, yes, BABE--those scenes suddenly became frivolous interruptions that broke the suspension of my disbelief.
Now this is important. In an M-G-M, we allow for that spell to be broken because it is part of that sub-genre. In the same way, we accept perfectly Matthew Broderick's addressing the camera in FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF, or an Eddie Murphy aside in [name of Eddie Murphy film here].
In an Oscar-nominated Drama, accepted this is not.
I can't think Mel Gibson intended for his movie to do what it did. This must have been an Oscar-campaign incited, as well as engineered, by the studio. Well-executed, but wrongfully so.
Therefore, as an M-G-M, this rates as one of the very best. As a serious contender for the coveted Golden Guy: not.
