The Bruce (1996) User Reviews

A Somewhat Confused Reckoning of Bannockburn and the Bruce

[waterloo3_99 · 6/10 · 9 January 2006]

This is not an easy film to follow in the beginning. Granted the period it portrays is also quite confused. The film jumps into events and characters quickly without really allowing one to develop who they are. This is not aided by a poor sound quality which makes it hard to follow dialog and plot at times. I think editing might have hurt this film as well.

The best actor by far is Brian Blessed who steals all the other roles as Edward I (Hammer of the Scots) Again we see a pretty heavy-handed portrayal of this great English King a la Braveheart! Also, as mentioned by the previous reviewer the English are wee bit too evil, and the Scots a wee bit too good! The Bruce for one thing is shown as rather saintly in the film. This he certainly was not! His murder of Comyen the Red in the church abby was certainly one of the more foul acts of the time. The Bruce was no saint, but again he had to be pretty ruthless given the times he lived in.

This was a Cromwell Productions film, and since they did a pretty good historical documentary of the Bruce and Bannockburn in a previous work it is surprising that they white-wash the history so much in this drama here. The battle scene at Bannockburn while good, is not as impressive as billed. For one thing the intervention of the Highland Gillies seems over-done. The battle was largely won by the Scottish Schiltrons long before the surging horde of Highlanders from the bluff above! Also the legendary dual between the Bruce and De Bohan the day before the main battle is completely omitted! This would have made for a splendid movie fight scene and did much to build the Bruce's legend as a great fighter! Instead he kills the English knight during the general melee of the battle. Not as convincing! Those seeking a film above the level of Braveheart wont really find that here. In fact Braveheart while complete fantasy, makes for a more coherent film. The Bruce is a modest work at best. Perhaps it is not surprising that it has all but gone out of print.

Someone should make a good movie about the War of Independence

[jeannetomlin · 4/10 · 17 August 2009]

The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.

That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.

Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!

Bargain basement Braveheart

[rjun67 · 5/10 · 25 August 2015]

To be fair this film was never intended for the big screen, it was made at a time when everyone was buying DVD players and needed to stock up on cheap discs to buff up their collections! Yes it is a bad film, dubious acting, grainy film, and poor battle scenes, but give the film a break, it does have a couple of household names in it, and the history (although slanted and very pro Bruce) is at least far more favourable than its block busting, older sibling 'Braveheart'(which this film is obviously a low budget cash-in of!). Bruce is played competently by Sandy Welch, who portrays the Scottish icon in a sympathetic light, and Pavel Douglas is fantastically over the top as the nasty Red Comyn! Brian Blessed gives a crazy but fulfilling turn as King Edward, and Ollie Reed does good as the bishop! People who are complaining about this film are just negatively comparing it with 'Braveheart', and this is not really fair, the film delivers an account of Robert The Bruce's life, and does so on a very low budget! It is perhaps, too over ambitious, but fitting an epic struggle lasting 25 years into a 110 minute film is reason enough for applause! It would work well as a school film to give kids a history lesson they can expand on later, but its target audience is the couch potato (GUILTY AS CHARGED!), and we don't need $79 million spent on a film, just so long as it tells a good story! Even Wolf from Gladiators gives an OK performance, and if that isn't enough, Robin Hood makes a guest appearance at the end of the film! If its a rainy Wednesday afternoon and the wife is out,and 'Loose Women' is on TV, you will probably be a lot happier giving up an hour and a half on this film than watching the previously mentioned programme!!

Appalling historically and cinematically

[paulbw-97697 · 1/10 · 30 July 2015]

I invested hard cash in this production and may therefore seem biased in my opinion; so if I say this is the worst film you'll ever see, the worst scripted, cast (except for Oliver Reed), edited and most of all DIRECTED, you'll probably get my message! I am a Scot as well as a first class honours graduate in Film Production and a History teacher, so maybe I know what I'm talking about. How I would love to meet the Producer/Director Bob Carruthers, of this appalling rubbish, the man who took my thousands of pounds, and managed to turn the greatest story in Scottish History into the most embarrassing production you could ever imagine, so that I could tell him to move over and let someone who knows how to make a real film take over - and even give me my money back!

'The Bruce' made me want to scoop my own eyes out...

[warriorbadger · 1/10 · 15 August 2012]

What was the most irritating thing about this film?

The appalling acting? The revelation that medieval knights apparently fought with an assortment of *very* wobbly rubber axes and other assorted joke shop armaments (honestly, a Pythonesque cow flip would not have been misplaced). The fact that one of the most important battles in 14th century Europe looked more like a disorganised pub fight, with no discernible cues to the viewer as to who was English or Scottish? The incomprehensibly boring narrative? The most ham-fisted, cheesiest, cliché ridden 'tottie-scone' dialogue, ever?

Perhaps all of the above.

To me, however, there was a general eclipse of all that. It was the following.

The quest for Scottish Independence was decades in the making. It saw some of the most deftifying, heroic, savage, heartbreaking and bloodthirsty history that's ever been. We're talking about a time that, when the Scottish defensive wall at Berwick developed a weak spot, children and woman were sent to fill the place to keep the invader out. Every man, woman and child was at war.

In 1996 Scotland deserved a 'proper' movie. Yes, Braveheart was a movie that *deserved* to be made, in it's identification and selling of Scottish history - I applauded it's success - but in doing so I also openly acknowledged the fact that it was a bad film. A very bad film.

Consequently, 'The Bruce' served only to mutilate and befoul not only history itself, but the chance of one day exploring that history in a better capacity than Braveheart ever did - through film - by simply telling the story (trust me, a Screenwriter's dream - as it is, left well alone) on the back of a good budget and high-profile pitch.

The Director of the Bruce should be trialled for Cultural crimes and then, publicly, carted naked through the old streets of Edinburgh, before slowly being drawn against 'The Maiden'.

Shooting adverts for spam products might have been a challenge for him. Instead, he created the single worst movie on the planet (in every conceivable sense) with material that would have gifted a talented directorial new-start with a plethora of creative devices and opportunity.

In short, I wanted to scoop my own eyes out and replace them with cartoon bomb-jacks. And, in short, he ruined it for real directors of the future.

Horrible Movie

[Camaruthil · 2/10 · 5 February 2010]

This movie is the last straw in a list of films I have seen this week that have pushed me over the edge and forced me to join IMDb and spread some warning to the public. It was absolutely horrible. The film was drawn out and painfully boring. The sound, effects, and even picture quality seemed like they came from Willow (1988) or maybe even Conan the Barbarian (1982). The battle of Bannockburn was absolutely absurd. This "largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in the British Isles" made me snicker. There wasn't even a coherent formation at all, just a few guys with spears and horses running right through them. The scenes of Douglas, especially in the last battle, were simply horrible, as was most of the acting in the film.

what really happened at the end

[adc-710-110351 · 5/10 · 12 June 2013]

Robert Bruce died in 1329. According to Jean Froissart, when Bruce was dying he asked that Sir James Douglas, as his friend and lieutenant, should carry his heart to the Holy Land and present it at the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem as a mark of penance. John Barbour, alternatively, has Bruce ask that his heart should simply be carried in battle against "God's foes" as a token of his unfulfilled ambition to go on crusade. Given that Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands since 1187, this second is perhaps more likely. When Bruce was dead, his heart was cut from his body and placed in a silver and enamelled casket which Sir James placed around his neck. Early in 1330, Douglas set sail from Berwick upon Tweed, accompanied by seven other knights with twenty six squires and gentlemen. The party stopped first at Sluys in Flanders. There it may be that Douglas received confirmation that Alfonso XI of Castile was preparing a campaign against the Muslims of the kingdom of Granada. In anticipation, he had with him a letter of introduction to King Alfonso from Edward III of England, his cousin. Accordingly, the Scots sailed on to Seville, where, according to John Barbour, Sir James and his solemn relic were received by Alfonso with great honour. Douglas and his company joined Alfonso's army, which then was setting out for the frontier of Granada to besiege the castle of Teba. Uthman, the Berber general in command of the Moorish forces, marched to relieve the border stronghold. At some point during the siege, Douglas was killed. Sources and commentators differ as to how. According to Jean Froissart and the Gran Cronica de Alfonso XI, Douglas was killed as a result of making a premature attack on the enemy. The Gran Cronica suggests this might have been during fighting for access to water. Citing John Barbour, some modern commentators believe he died in the decisive Battle of Teba. [16][17] Barbour describes a grand battle in Spain but the setting is vague and the outcome ambiguous. According to the Gran Cronica de Alfonso XI, Uthman, unable to bring the Christians to battle, devised a stratagem in an attempt to force them to abandon the siege. A body of cavalry was sent to make a diversionary attack across the Guadalteba river, luring Alfonso out to fight while Uthman circled round to attack the Christian camp and destroy the besieging army's supplies. Alfonso, however, having received intelligence of Uthman's preparations, kept most of his army back in camp while he sent a contingent to meet the demonstration on the river. It is as part of this force that some commentators assume Douglas and his company joined the battle.[18] When Uthman arrived at the enemy camp he found Alonso's men armed and ready. He abandoned his attack and rode to support the diversionary force on the river where, unable to withstand the Castilian assault, his men were already starting to fall back. Uthman arrived too late to prevent a general rout and the entire Granadan force was driven back in confusion to their camp in the Turon valley, 10 miles to the south. It is in this phase of the battle that some modern commentators have placed Douglas' death, either caught in flank when Uthman's force reached the river or in the ensuing pursuit to the Granadan camp. According to John Barbour's description of Douglas' last battle, when the enemy broke, Sir James and his companions followed hard behind. Having outstripped most of his men in the pursuit, Douglas suddenly found himself far out in front with only a few of his followers around him. As he rode back to rejoin the main body, he saw Sir William St. Clair of Rosslyn surrounded by a body of Moors who, seizing their opportunity, had quickly rallied and counterattacked. With the few knights who were with him, Douglas turned aside to attempt a rescue but, outnumbered twenty to one, the group was overrun. It has become a popular legend that Douglas then took from his neck the silver casket which contained the heart of Bruce and threw it before him among the enemy, saying, "Now pass thou onward as thou wert wont, and Douglas will follow thee or die."[19] This anecdote has its origin in a 16th century addition to Barbour's poem which, however, describes Douglas making the gesture at the beginning of his final battle. It was Sir Walter Scott in Tales of a Grandfather who created the image of Douglas throwing Bruce's heart as his dying act.[20] The Castilian cronica makes no reference to such a catastrophe. It does, however, state that in a fierce skirmish some days prior to the climactic battle, an unnamed 'foreign count' (arguably a reference to Douglas), had died as a result of his own rash behaviour. This is one of only two battle casualties mentioned individually in the Castilian narrative of the campaign. Barbour relates that Sir James and all the men caught with him were killed, including Sir William St. Clair of Rosslyn and Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig. Barbour states that, after this battle, Douglas' body and the casket with Bruce's heart were recovered. His bones, the flesh boiled off them, were taken back to Scotland by Sir William Keith of Galston in Ayrshire (who had missed the battle because of a broken arm), and deposited at St Bride's chapel. The tradition that Sir Simon Locard was a member of the company and also survived, is not found in any of the sources. The heart of Bruce was taken by Moray, the regent, and solemnly interred under the high altar of Melrose Abbey. (see wikipedia for the full article with notes) the heart of the Bruce was added to the Douglas arms sometime following the death of Sir James.

Stuart Poole Steals the Show...

[markrpoole · 29 October 2002]

Reed, Blessed, Welch and van Wijk all turn in quality performances in this under-rated account of Scotland's greatest warrior (are you watching William Wallace?) but one cast member stands head and shoulders above his colleagues. In the final set, Stuart Poole, clad in garb to make Robin Hood jealous, congratulates the Bruce on his vanquishing of the foe. The dignity, grace and emotion evident in Poole's performance is a joy to behold. It's a shame he isn't credited on imdb...

Not exactly a waste of time... but not exactly time well spent, either.

[bombad_general · 5/10 · 28 November 2019]

First off, the actors did what they could, and Brian Blessed steals the scene as well as the decidedly lackluster script allows him to. It is kind of sad that these people were not allowed to do more with their acting potential, but even greatness can carry these dialogues only so far.

As someone who majored in medieval Scottish history, I would say the perspective adopted by the movie is a perspective a sensationally biased contemporary could have taken, with the result not being unlike what the 19th century made out of already biased sources. So it is not - unlike "Braveheart", which to me is really bottom of the barrel - entirely out of character as to how sources of the time could whitewash events, and the result is certainly consistent with literary tradition. There are no projections of mentalities too unlike the period onto the events.

Do not expect it to be a documentary, however; next to nothing is right. Robert the Bruce did not speak Scots and kilts were not a thing until centuries later; Edward Ist did not die before his wife Eleanor of Castile, Bishop Wisharton did not die in battle, two de Bohuns were amalgamated into one person, John Comyn was not a traitor, John Balliol was somehow omitted entirely... Long list. The movie does get certain props from me for not depicting Edward II as that much of a brash half-wit as other depictions are too comfortable in doing. But other than that - other commentators have already addressed the issue of making the English a little more evil and the Scots a little more saintly than strictly neccessary.

The armour is reasonably period-accurate, though the low-quality chain mail lookalike (which varyingly looks like steel wool, flattened tinsel, or shopping nets painted dull metal) is nothing short of annoying.

The female characters. Ugh. They only ever seem to screech in terror or dismay and always have this weird 1970s hairdo. I'm not sure what the director was thinking.

The soundtrack. That, I have to say, is mostly dismal. It is way too idyllic during battle scenes, almost enough to be involuntarily comical.

All in all - I don't know. I feel neither like recommending for or against watching the movie. Anybody looking for some decent hacky-slash-kill-death won't be too happy, as the choreography of the battle scenes hasn't aged too well by comparison. Anyone looking for a possible interpretation of historical events (without the invariable mentality anachronisms modern directors are so mind-numbingly fond of) probably should watch it. Everybody else - honestly, flip a coin or something.

Not 100% accurate, but a good slice of Scottish history.

[Rhymer-2 · 7/10 · 11 January 1999]

The English are a little too evil, the Scots are a bit too

heroic. The dialogue is overly dramatic at times, and the

transitions between scenes could be smoother.

Still, "The Bruce" has the feel of authentic, if unpolished,

history ... even if it does play loosely with some important

facts.

Sandy Welch is no Gibson or Branagh, but he makes a stalwart

Bruce. And Brian Blessed chews the scenery in delightful

villainy as Edward I.

While lacking the budget needed to make the final battle truly

impressive, they still marshalled an impressive crowd for the

English and Scottish armies. It is, according to filmmakers, the

"largest filmed reconstruction of medieval battle ever staged in

the British Isles."

Allowing for a few failings and shortcomings, the film still

does a convincing portrayal.

Now's The Time...And Now's The Hour...

[wilsonstuart-32346 · 5/10 · 19 October 2019]

I got this film (and an exclusive baseball cap - hence the snazzy tagline above) back in 1996 when I turned 20. Given that Braveheart dominated Scottish cinema - even overshadowing the superior Rob Roy with Liam Neeson and Jessica Lang - a crowd funded production with distinct my mixed values was always going to struggle, no matter how well intentioned.

So I have a little soft spot for an amatuerish, threadbare movie that made a deeply flawed, if honest, attempt to accurately address the historical record during a crucial period of Scotland's history - no easy feat given the fragmented, contradictory, mythical or non - existent accounts of these times. A straightforward telling was never going to be possible.

Although it was a bit of fun watching 1990s pop culture icon Michael Van Wijk aka the villianeous Wolf from ITV's Gladiators, and Scottish folk singer Ronnie Brown (the surviving Corrie), a special nod must be given to Oliver Reed - head and shoulders the best thing about The Bruce. With his quiet, dignified and restrained performance was Reed showing us what he was capable of as an actor - preparation for an first class swansong with a Gladiator of a different kind?

" The Spider's web has looped six times and Sterling Castle awaits for a seventh time "

[thinker1691 · 8/10 · 16 May 2014]

From the annals of Scotish history comes this story and film which tells the legend of Robert " The Bruce (Sandy Welch)." The Scots, having endured years of brutal English rule, once again take up arms against the insufferable tyranny and do so under a new crown king of Scotland. England is ruled by Edward I, the brutal king of England in this film played by Brian Blessed, who plays it to the hilt. Other notables in the film are Oliver Reed and Michael Van Wijk. The movie itself is lased with an assortment of English and Scotish notability, but because the director Bob Carruthers decided to keep all characters in 'scrag' weaponry, motley costumes, shaggy long hair, five day old beards and despicable dress even after war time battles, everyone in the film are terrible looking to the audience members. As such, one can hardly distinguish between friend and for alike. The battle scene are authentic looking, but if you have a 'stop-frame' recorder, you may notice that several combatants fighting each other are not very convincing. In many respects, this movie should follow historically on the footsteps of the Mel Gibson film ' Braveneart. ' As such, the audience does it's best to follow The Bruce with patience and understand. So enjoy it if you can, but don't expect too much. I'll recommend it because the late Oliver reed is in it. ****