the 'inaccuracies' are there to let those in the audience who don't know the story of William Wallis understand it more clearly, Mel Gibson would of had to imbellish parts and leave parts out to make the overall movie flow better and balance in all, I doubt the actually story would have been as intersting to watch if it was 100% true to real life, Im sure Mel gibson didn't simply make it all up. :) And I don't think theres anything wrong with making a lil bit of money :wink: Personally I would have much rather seen a two-hour factual documentary on William Wallace. What's more understanding, to people who don't know about the subject, than a factual film? Take a read of this. If you are going to make a historical film, based on a real person, you might as well make it accurate. If you want start chaning things about why not just make a completely new story? Couldn't that be just as exciting? The makers of the movie were just trying to cash in on the name of William Wallace and the history of Britain.