Timewaster's Guide Archive

I got Battlefield 1942 for Christmas (my wife recieving direction from Fellfrosh) and my carn sarned video card won't run the cotton-pickin' thing.  I'm going to have to start saving my pennies.

Okay, so don't roll your eyes.  We all know that Braveheart is as historically accurate as George Washington crossing the Mississippi on Easter morning.

Anyway, I just got a tabletop game for review called "The Hammer of the Scots" and it has a long article indicating exactly how extremely incorrect the movie really was.  We all know it's wrong, but here are the details:

1:  Wallace's immeadiate family was NOT murdered when he was a child.  His brother Malcolm survived the war and his other brother John was executed in 1307 (after Wallace's death in 1305).  His father was killed by the english, but not until a few years before the war.

2:  Wallace did not spend his childhood abroad.

3:  There is NO evidence that the English lords practiced Prima Noctre.

4:  Wallace's invasion of England was more of an extended raid than an invasion.  He never got anywhere near York.

5:  Edward I did not throw his son's lover out of a window.  He was executed by English nobles in 1312, five years after Edward II had the throne.

6:  (My Favorite)  Wallace did not have an affair with Edward II's wife, because she was only 1 year old in 1297.  She didn't marry Edward until 1308, three years after Wallace died.

7:  John 'the Red' Comyn was not bribed by Edward to abandon Wallace on the battlefield at Falkirk.  Most likely he felt insulted for having such a small role in the battle and left before the fighting started.

8:  Wallace did not attempt revenge on Comyn fo Falkirk.  In fact, with Wallace on the run, the Comyns actually took leadership of the rebellion and Wallace is known to have assisited them in diplomatic missions to France.

9:  Robert the Bruce did not fight on Edward's side at Falkirk.  He was more than 50 miles away, in command of his own army against the English.  Likewise, he had nothing to do with Wallace's capture in 1305.  In fact, he appeared to be in league with Wallace and was eventually charged with treason.

So, what exactly is the movie based on?

A couple of comments that have nothing to do with the movie:

Kid Kilowatt:  I don't think that Anna and the King could be described by anyone thinking clearly as a 'romantic comedy.'

Editor:  I agree with you on the hypocrisy of Hollywoodians and small towns.  When I was living in New Mexico, there were several ranches that were owned by celebrities (Julia Roberts, Susan Sarandon, Goldie Hawn - sounds like a chick flick), but none of them would be caught dead going into town.  There is even a home owned by a director (who's name escapes me) that could only be accessed by helicopter.  That's really getting back to nature.

Okay, so the other day The Abyss was on AMC.  I had never seen it before, and I knew absolutely nothing about it, except I remember seeing commercials for it when I was a kid and knew there was some kind of alien/sentient-sea-creature type thing that looked like a snake made of water.

So anyway, I was extremely surprised to find out that the aliens have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the plot until like the last ten minutes.  It seemed like they wrote a neat Cold War paranoia action movie, and then tossed in the aliens as an afterthought to give it a moral.

In general, I thought it was a very cool movie, but the alien stuff at the end (which, once again, influenced the plot in no way whatsoever up to that point) seemed out of place and almost laughable.  I may be wrong, but wasnt this a very critically acclaimed movie?  I suppose I could look it up.

What are your opinions?