Jerusalem isn't situated where it's supposed to be :/

[Overlord.ru]

Look these screens,I though it was in desert :s

[delra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Climate

[caralampio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Climate

Interesting info... most biblical movies present the area as desert. So, those Xmas cards showing Bethlehem in snow are not that unrealistic! (Except for the date maybe).

[Overlord.ru]

Strange,watched Kingdom of Heaven movie,seemed like a complete desert...

[strife1013]

Strange,watched Kingdom of Heaven movie,seemed like a complete desert...

Oh yes Hollywood is so true to life

[delra]

Yeah, I know. And there was no bridge in Stirling. :-)

[Phosphoricus]

Is that the movie where a French guy teaches Arabs about digging wells? As if people in the Middle East hadn't figured out how to get water in a challenging environment? Or am I thinking of the wrong movie?

[Cleitanious]

"I saw it in a movie." is never a sound argument.

[muffinhead]

"I saw it in a movie." is never a sound argument.

deffinately gotta agree with u on that one, but people still think it a legitimate arguement.

nice with the Stirling bridge catch, too. One of the dumbest things hollywood could have done was not put a bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge

[Caesar Clivus]

nice with the Stirling bridge catch, too. One of the dumbest things hollywood could have done was not put a bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge

Agreed. Stirling Bridge was a great strategic victory for William Wallace, Andrew Mornay and all of Scotland. A shame then that Braveheart chose to use Stirling to introduce Wallace's schiltroms (well a version of them) and not Falkirk when he actually did so.

lol someone wrote this in a history essay i remember
teacher looked quite angry

A couple of years ago I was tutoring first year archaeology students. The number of times my students thought Wikipedia was a legitimate source of information

[lordextra0]

"I saw it in a movie." is never a sound argument.

lol someone wrote this in a history essay i remember
teacher looked quite angry

[Naked Emperor]

"I saw it in a movie." is never a sound argument.

Like my friend once said in an arguement "of course it's true, I read it in a book I wrote"

[nostradamouse]

Breaveheart did not have the budget to build a replica/use the bridge of Stirling. So yea... they did what they could

[muffinhead]

Breaveheart did not have the budget to build a replica/use the bridge of Stirling. So yea... they did what they could

really? wow, i thought Braveheart was a great movie, from a movie-watchers perspective, definately not historical. never would have guessed such a good movie with Mel Gibson could have that low a budget. Or am i underestimating the cost the bridge would be?

[nostradamouse]

really? wow, i thought Braveheart was a great movie, from a movie-watchers perspective, definately not historical. never would have guessed such a good movie with Mel Gibson could have that low a budget. Or am i underestimating the cost the bridge would be?

Underestimating the cost of the real size replica of an historical monument and the fact they were denied filming on it.

Also : time factor.

The excuse:
Gibson simply stated that the the field battle scenes were more compelling than it would have been on a bridge. Sounds like a sorry excuse for the lack of the bridge.

[Bobsters34]

Underestimating the cost of the real size replica of an historical monument and the fact they were denied filming on it.

Also : time factor.

The excuse:
Gibson simply stated that the the field battle scenes were more compelling than it would have been on a bridge. Sounds like a sorry excuse for the lack of the bridge.

It was a good movie regardless

[Caesar Clivus]

Gibson simply stated that the the field battle scenes were more compelling than it would have been on a bridge. Sounds like a sorry excuse for the lack of the bridge.

I'm sure that was the main reason. I dunno about more compelling though. You could set up the scene with the Scots arrayed on the hills north of the bridge and you watch the endless streams of English soldiers crossing the bridge, obviously outnumbering the Scots. You think that the Scots are going to get creamed. Then you see Wallace give a signal and the scots hidden under the bridge (that the audience didn't know about) collapse the bridge, the Scots charge and defeat the now halved English army.

Then at Falkirk you could have Wallace introducing the schiltroms, roundly defeating the English heavy cavalry...until the longbowmen are brought up and tear the immobile schiltroms to shreds. Just as it really happened. When oh when will hollywood learn that history makes just as good (if not better) films than their version of history.

And of course they definitely needed to include the scene where my distant ancestor William de'Ormseby, who was high chancellor of Scotland at the time, barely escapes from Wallace's clutches...but I might be a bit biased towards this one

Oh well. I guess after Braveheart there won't be another William Wallace film for at least many years.

[AlfonsoVIII]

I went to Google Earth and Jerusalem is surrounded by sand, by the actual town in covered in trees and grass, like a giant oasis.

[lordextra0]

try google map
it's more accurate more often updated in my experience

[Angrychris]

I wanted to see it for the longest but was disapointed when i saw its release on dvd. I later saw them interview the main character and one of his promotions for the movie was that who knew what really happened then and their during that time because none of us were there.