Dear Bernard, Whilst having a look through the site I noticed your opinions on the movies 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot', I agree completely with your opinions about Braveheart. It was an utter sham; I have not seen the Patriot (after reading the reviews I decided I wouldn't dignify it by going to see it, I also think Mel Gibson must have something against the English). The problem is that a large part of the audience will have taken Braveheart at face value, despite the fact that it was historical nonsense. There have been occasions where you have altered events slightly so Sharpe can be in the thick of it, now this is Ok because in essence the novels are historically accurate, its just detail that gets changed; e.g. Sharpe's division may make an attack at a certain place when it was actually the light division, the attack did, however, take place, and in much the way described (and you always own up to the facts in the historical note). But Braveheart wants to rewrite history completely and seems to have partially succeeded; a statue supposedly of William Wallace was put up in the car park of the national William Wallace Monument. It isn't a statue of William Wallace at all; it's of Mel bloody Gibson! I would suggest that this was simply a cynical attempt to cash in on the success of the film, and I would lay goods odds that plenty of Scots find it embarrassing (well it is, isnt it? It's an absolute mockery of the real man). And then we get the enigma machine captured by an American submarine, presumably King Arthur was American and Horatio Nelson came from a little town just outside Boston. I really do object to our history being so abused and misrepresented, but what is historical accuracy next to the rapacious greed of Hollywood? Richard Griffiths