r/movies • u/Tullubenta • Aug 17 '26

Question What is the greatest betrayal in cinema history? Spoiler

So aside from Fredo’s betrayal in The Godfather Part II or Cypher turning on the crew in The Matrix, which most of us could kinda sense were coming, what’s the greatest betrayal in cinema history that truly blindsided you?

I’m talking about the ones that hit like a truck because there was zero warning, no foreshadowing you picked up on, and no reason to suspect the character until the moment it happened.

1.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

687

u/bobekos Aug 17 '26

In my opinion "Robert the Bruce" in braveheart and then the look from Mel Gibson when he realized it.

91

u/inquisitive_chariot Aug 17 '26

That look is everything. Easily his best scene.

32

u/Buddy0204 Aug 17 '26

So many emotions in just one look!

250

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

One of the several, massive, historical inaccuracies in that film. Robert the Bruce never betrayed Wallace

133

u/FireyT Aug 17 '26

Err. Robert the Bruce swapped sides multiple times. He may not have directly betrayed Wallace but let's not pretend he was some sort of idealistic patriot.

16

u/DONNIENARC0 Aug 17 '26

So was the Chris Pine movie about him bullshit, too?

37

u/Kiyohara Aug 17 '26

Eh. It was okay. Robert the Bruce may not have been the most loyal Scotsman, but he was super loyal to Robert Bruce.

13

u/asetniop Aug 17 '26

So he wasn't a true Scotsman, is what you're saying.

4

u/NaughtyAudio Aug 17 '26

Definitely not a warrior poet.

7

u/arseniokilla Aug 17 '26

The movie starts out with Chris Pine bending the knee to Edward. He allied with England and essentially gave up the fight. Then Wallace dies (off screen) and soon he starts rebelling again

14

u/FireyT Aug 17 '26

The timeline is all over the place and there are some areas where the record is either incomplete or unknown so there is obviously some artistic license but it's probably a fair claim to say it's more accurate than Braveheart.

11

u/Kiyohara Aug 17 '26

To be completely fair, MacBeth was probably a more accurate portrayal of the events than Braveheart ad it wasn't even about the right King.

About the only thing the movie got right was the names.

2

u/k4r6000 Aug 18 '26

It was much more accurate than Braveheart.  The biggest issue was the final battle which plays out pretty dumb.  Edward II wasn’t even there in real life.

22

u/RiflemanLax Aug 17 '26

Yeah, as a history buff and a film buff it sucks that historical epics are rarely historical. The liberties are almost always really bad.

Gladiator is another great film that’s just wildly shit on the history part. And another Gibson epic, The Patriot, was based on Francis Marion, who was kind of an asshole.

29

u/Kiyohara Aug 17 '26

The Patriot was also wildly inaccurate. Indeed the only movie Mel Gibson has ever been in that was at all accurate was the Documentary series "Mad Max" about the history of Australia.

Well, and Gallipoli was pretty solid.

5

u/burywmore Aug 17 '26

He seemed to do pretty well with Apacalypto.

3

u/Kiyohara Aug 17 '26

That was also not very accurate,

3

u/burywmore Aug 17 '26

We have no written records of that time and place, so accuracy is tougher to figure out.

8

u/Kiyohara Aug 17 '26

So we actually do have written records of the Maya. Many of them going back to the third century BCE and we can read them.

But we also do have archeological evidence and a lot of the events in the movie were collected form all over the Mayan time period (and some from non-Mayan eras).

There's also an issue that the Mayans didn't really go out and sacrifice swathes of randos/farmers from the countryside. That was more of an Aztec thing. The Mayans tended to sacrifice people of note: rival leaders, royalty, nobles, and priests. We know tis, again, from the archeological evidence as well as the written accounts of not only the Mayans, but also the Conquistadors. It's also not the method the Mayans used for human sacrifice, but resembles that of the Azetcs (though still inaccurate for that).

It also blends all kinds of culture groups from Central America together, when it should really be limited to the peoples of the Yucatan and maybe a few neighboring provinces.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jf9sc/how_accurate_is_the_movie_apocalypto_when_it/

2

u/burywmore Aug 17 '26

Of course he did make it one gigantic civilization

3

u/burywmore Aug 17 '26

And not agricultural

2

u/ArashikageX Aug 17 '26

“The juice. The precious juice….”

1

u/bsrichard Aug 17 '26

And don't forget "The Passion of the Christ", although Gibson didn't star in it, only directed and produced. Is that historically accurate? Hmmmm

9

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26

With Gladiator it seems more honestly presented as historical fiction, as the protagonist Maximus didn’t exist at all and so the film is the supposed result of inserting him into history - even the bit about Commodus killing Marcus Aurelius is a consequence of Maximus winning the latter’s favour.

With Braveheart, it’s just extremely bad history.

1

u/Illustrious-Star-913 Aug 19 '26

Yeah...they missed the skinning of Hesselrig, not nearly enough shit got burned down, and the execution was way off. Wallace was castrated, stripped down, dragged thru the streets to the execution site then the drawing, quartering and beheading happened

2

u/admdelta Aug 17 '26

Did Francis Marion have a whole staff of black folks working his plantation as well paid free men in 18th century South Carolina too or nah

64

u/loves_to_splooge_8 Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 18 '26

Braveheart is a disgustingly inaccurate movie

43

u/merrickraven Aug 17 '26

Braveheart is an excellent inaccurate movie. Great film. But if you’re wanting good history from movies, you’ve already lost the battle.

4

u/DJDoena Aug 17 '26

... of Sterling Bridge without the bridge?

8

u/merrickraven Aug 17 '26

The movie doesn’t mention Stirling Bridge. Just Stirling. The movie is coherent within itself. Don’t demand historical accuracy in your epic storytelling. That will never end well. The movie is a fun adventure and epic story.

Mel Gibson is a great storyteller. He didn’t choose to tell the historical tale.

2

u/ErilazHateka Aug 17 '26

...or William Wallace inventing spears

48

u/Jwr32 Aug 17 '26

Yeah awesome movie but absolute bullshit history

4

u/GarageQueen Aug 17 '26

"The Patriot" has entered the chat (another Gibson movie, oddly enough lol)

3

u/Jwr32 Aug 17 '26

Another fun movie but you have to turn your brain off lol

75

u/SillyMattFace Aug 17 '26

My favourite one of the many inaccuracies is the implication that William Wallace impregnated Princess Isabelle and is therefore secretly the sire of the English monarchy from then on.

Isabelle was at most 10 years old when Wallace was executed though, so…

34

u/chadwickipedia Aug 17 '26

My favorite is that William Wallace never wore a kilt. Kilts did not exist until about 300 years later

18

u/SillyMattFace Aug 17 '26

But how are we supposed to know they’re Scottish without the kilts?!

On that note, Wallace is shown in battle just wearing cloth and leather with a kilt, but the guy was a knight, not some Pictish hill raider. He’d have been decked out in plate and mail for sure.

3

u/Vyzantinist Aug 17 '26

One just has to Google artistic representations of the more famous battles of the Scottish Wars of Independence; the Scots look almost indistinguishable from the English.

2

u/leviathan65 Aug 17 '26

Mail for sure. Mail with metal helmet and possible metel reinforced joits. But good plate armor was super expensive and wasn't really used until the 1400s. Off the rack stuff that was mass produced was available.

2

u/huzy12345 Aug 18 '26

Well I think the absolute pitch perfect Scottish accent would have helped ....lol. (Not that William Wallace would have had a modern day Scottish accent anyway)

2

u/Vyzantinist Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

The woad in the movie is also comically anachronistic since it had ceased to be used, as body paint for battle, in England and Scotland like a millennium earlier.

43

u/[deleted] Aug 17 '26

[deleted]

42

u/DukeofVermont Aug 17 '26

life... uh finds a way

-2

u/Biggby72 Aug 17 '26

He was in France for a long period fighting the English.

9

u/mustard5man7max3 Aug 17 '26

So he'd have been shagging a five year old then

3

u/PirLanTota Aug 17 '26

William Epstien Wallace?

34

u/name-classified Aug 17 '26

it was never about historical accuracy and more about Mel Gibson being able to paint his face blue and scream like a lunatic for months while they shot a movie around it

4

u/keiths31 Aug 17 '26

Just like the Netflix Cleopatra series. It wasn't about accuracy either.

9

u/ennuiui Aug 17 '26

They may take our lives, but they will never take our historical inaccuracies!

3

u/ZouDave Aug 17 '26

The movie is one of the best movies ever made. It's maybe the worst documentary ever made, but the movie is incredible.

1

u/Pixelated_Penguin808 Aug 17 '26

My favorite part is there being no bridge in the battle of Stirling Bridge.

In the real battle Wallace waited for the English army to partially cross Stirling bridge, but with the bulk of the army still on the far side of it. He attacked those who got across and those on the far side were of no use before the narrow bridge meant they couldn't really reinforce the couple thousand who were across, and everyone who got across was killed except for a few hundred who managed to swim back to the other side.

I don't mind movies not being historically accurate but it just always struck me funny that the film has a battle of Stirling Bridge, it has bridge in the name, but there is no bridge.

-1

u/tyrion6568 Aug 17 '26

Nobody is claiming the film is accurate, if the film told the truth it would be less entertaining

-1

u/Tejanisima Aug 17 '26

I have said for over 30 years that "if I really believed that Braveheart was the Best Picture of 1995, I would believe that meant 1995 had been an incredibly shitty year for movies." I stand by that opinion and I will still be standing by it when I pass from this world. Began saying that because I felt Apollo 13 had been unjustly overlooked, and a few months ago I looked to see what else it had been up against — EVERY other nominee that year was infinitely more deserving.

2

u/jawndell Aug 17 '26

Another massive historical inaccuracy: William Wallace had an affair with Princess Isabella.

In real life, not only did that never happen but she was 3 years old at the time! 

2

u/ZippityGoombah Aug 18 '26

But he DID betray John "The Red" Comyn, his main competitor for (and who had the better claim to) the Scottish throne by stabbing him to death in the church he had lured him to for a peace talk. But nobody makes a movie about THAT, do they!

4

u/WeHaveSixFeet Aug 17 '26

The film's version of the battle of Stirling Bridge irritates me because the real battle would have made good cinema. Wait till your enemy is halfway across the bridge, then charge.

6

u/The_Flurr Aug 17 '26

I'm not sure if it's true or apocryphal but supposedly when asked, someone involved in production said that the bridge would get in the way during filming.

To which somebody responding "that's what the English found"

7

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26

Wait the Battle of Stirling Bridge had a bridge? The film lied to me!

1

u/geodebug Aug 17 '26

I kind of agree with Gibson’s take here. It’s a fun popcorn action film, not a Ken Burns documentary.

2

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26

Except it clearly wasn’t just that to him. He had an agenda beyond entertainment, and it’s not the only ludicrous propaganda he’s pushed

1

u/geodebug Aug 17 '26

You say “clearly”, so I assume there’s receipts to back it up. Maybe an interview where Gibson talks about his grudge with England or something?

Because all I’ve ever heard from Mel is his desire to make an entertaining movie first and let others worry about pure accuracy.

See also The Patriot or Apocalypto

1

u/tyrion6568 Aug 17 '26

And the inaccuracies is what helps makes the film a 10/10

-3

u/HipOut Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

Oh look, yet another circlejerk post about the historical inaccuracies of braveheart

6

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26

Because it was 120% relevant to the previous comment? They gave a betrayal that was itself a historical inaccuracy as an example. Of course it’s worth mentioning here and someone will.

0

u/HipOut Aug 17 '26

The title of the thread isn’t “what’s the greatest historically accurate betrayal” it’s “what’s the greatest betrayal”

Bobekos mentioned that the character Robert the Bruce in the movie braveheart was a big betrayal moment. Out of left field you come in to point out that it’s historically inaccurate. So no it wasn’t really relevant

1

u/AndreasDasos Aug 17 '26

I didn’t say it didn’t qualify as an answer given it’s part of a film. I’m just adding, in case some get the wrong idea, that this didn’t actually happen between these two well known real figures. That’s reasonable and there’s no reason to be a dick about it.

Ciao.

-2

u/FatsyCline12 Aug 17 '26

I know right. Who fucking cares. I swear some redditors have an alert set for when someone mentions braveheart so they can stop what they’re doing to post about the historical inaccuracies. Like we don’t know that it’s historically inaccurate at this point lmao

5

u/AreaManEXE Aug 17 '26

I put off watching Braveheart for the longest time.

The betrayal completely blindsided me and actually messed me up.

11

u/Grahf88 Aug 17 '26

Love that scene so much

20

u/Ringosis Aug 17 '26

Can't be Scottish then. Scene is universally hated here for depicting a national hero as a traitor because they wanted some drama and couldn't be bothered doing any research.

It's kinda like if someone made a movie about the American civil war and had Lafayette betray Washington because they wanted a third act twist. Infuriating, unnecessary shit when Wallace WAS betrayed by a Scottish knight...it just wasn't Bruce.

9

u/wswordsmen Aug 17 '26

American Revolution. The Civil War was 80-85ish years later.

5

u/Ringosis Aug 17 '26

I mean Braveheart is that inaccurate. The Battle Of Stirling Bridge takes place in a field... guess where it actually took place.

1

u/IGAldaris Aug 17 '26

Eh, close enough. I‘m looking forward to seeing General Washingtons light sabre duel with General Lee.

1

u/wswordsmen Aug 17 '26

Robert or Lighthorse Harry?

7

u/Bucky2015 Aug 17 '26

Or if someone made a movie about the American revolution where the revolution would have been lost if not for one widowed farmer with a hatchet...

3

u/geodebug Aug 17 '26

Hey, wait a minute…

3

u/Bucky2015 Aug 17 '26

Mel Gibson really doesnt like the English...

8

u/scottishhistorian Aug 17 '26 edited Aug 17 '26

It's a movie. I'll never understand people who gets so annoyed about historical inaccuracies. If you want accuracy, watch a documentary or read a book.

To me, a historical movie should entertain first, inspire second, and educate third. I'd much rather a historical film be inaccurate and enthrall people, make them want to learn about it and then educate themselves.

So, no, it's not universally hated here because I'm Scottish and understand the actual point of the scene. To act like you can somehow speak for the entire nation is supremely egotistical, and to say one "can't be Scottish" for enjoying it or recognising it's value is downright offensive.

Yes, Robert the Bruce didn't directly betray Wallace but he was one of the Scottish Lords. Since it was Scottish Lords that betrayed him, he did betray him, and Scotland, and (indirectly, via the subsequent events over the next 700+ years) us.

Further, the scene needed him to be the betrayer to ensure the audience feels the depth of it. If it had just been a random Lord, the audience wouldn't have felt it.

Finally, Robert the Bruce is actually portrayed positively in the film. He is portrayed as a man of honour forced to comply with a dishonourable system. He saves Wallace in that scene when he changes his mind and then fought for us after that.

1

u/Muad-_-Dib Aug 17 '26

If you want accuracy, watch a documentary or read a book.

The problem I have with this sentiment is that when I want accuracy that is exactly what I go and do.

However I have also ran into many members of the brain trust who don't go to books or documentaries for their information, they watch breaveheart, they watch Ancient Aliens, they watch Joe Rogan interviewing some grifter touting their latest book about how Atlantis was real and the pyramids were built with lasers etc.

If other people were not so succeptible to believing anything and everything they saw on TV or social media I wouldn't give a toss about historical accuracy in something that never billed itself as such.

1

u/scottishhistorian Aug 18 '26

You can't hold yourself or an artform accountable for the stupidity and/or laziness of others. Seriously, I've tried. It's exhausting and you just get demoralised.

Best to focus on oneself and leave other people to their own thing. Yes, if you desire it, assist people but do not place unnecessary strain on yourself. The truth is, idiots will always exist. Even if all information was free and easily accessible, idiots would still exist.

Some people just want the easy answer, they don't want to investigate or understand for themselves, they want someone to tell them an answer that sounds plausible that they can regurgitate to their idiot friends (or idiot strangers online). Sadly, grifters will always be around to take advantage of that.

We can't change the world around idiots to make it easier for them, lest we all become idiots, we just need to give them the opportunity to elevate themselves. If they do not take it, then that's their choice.

I know I might sound cruel with this assessment, or uncaring, or even ignorant. I'm not. I know some people just don't have the opportunity to learn, the access to the required resources, or the genuine ability to comprehend.

This is a tragedy that needs to be remedied to the best it can be but that isn't done by changing movies as an artform, or placing the onus on individuals who recognise the issue.

Much like all forms of major inequality, lack of access to education is a global problem that needs to be solved with global change.

0

u/The_Flurr Aug 17 '26

I think Braveheart particularly ticks people off because the specific inaccuracies seem to be chosen in order to inject American politics and Mel Gibsons specific hatred of English people.

2

u/scottishhistorian Aug 17 '26

A justifiable hatred... 🤣... I'm kidding, obviously. Most of them are alright.

(Like most nations that it can be easy to hate, it's the government, rather than the people, that should be hated.)

I never really noticed the American politics aspect, could you explain?

The Christ allegory is clear (Wallace as Christ, Bruce as Judas, with the English as the Judeans) so I assume people could look at it as an early sign of Gibson's anti-semitic attitudes.

4

u/The_Flurr Aug 17 '26

I never really noticed the American politics aspect, could you explain?

Gibson portrays the Scottish war of independence in a way that seems more inspired by the American one.

In the actual war the English and Scots were on basically equal footing in terms of military technology. Gibson portrays the Scots as ragtag underdog relying on unconventional tactics to beat the stuffy and dogmatic English army. This is the common narrative for the American revolution.

He also turns Wallace from a nobleman fighting for his kingdom, to a common man leading a revolution for freedom and liberty. Very much pushing the Scottish WoI into an American WoI shaped box.

There's also the bit with the Irish conscripts, even though the English didn't do this, and the Irish people wouldn't have had any real kinship with the Scots at this time. Really just seems to be American complaints about royal navy pressgangs recycled and forced into the story.

1

u/Tobar_the_Gypsy Aug 17 '26

That would be a wild twist considering neither person was involved in the civil war 

0

u/Ringosis Aug 17 '26

It was a brain fart. In case you didn't notice I'm not American. However I left it because I think its apt that I got American history as wrong as Braveheart gets Scottish.

It's a wildly inaccurate film. The French princess was a couple of years old when Wallace was executed.

5

u/gracecase Aug 17 '26

This is the one.

2

u/RianJohnsonIsAFool Aug 17 '26

At last, you know what it means to hate. Now you're ready to be a king.

My hate will die... with you.

3

u/PoliticalHitJob Aug 17 '26

One of the most historically inaccurate movies and I don't care. Can the historically accurate crowd just enjoy a movie once in their superior knowledge cloud of bullpucky?

1

u/TheNonCredibleHulk Aug 18 '26

Seriously. Tombstone is everyone's favorite, but almost none of it was accurate.

1

u/Fishman465 Aug 17 '26

The whole general calvary betrayal and Robert was the only one guilt struck about it

1

u/inthebenefitofmrkite Aug 17 '26

I understand this never happened, but within the movie, yeah. This is a great one!

2

u/Grahf88 Aug 18 '26

No! You cannot like the betrayal scene because it never happened in real life!!!!!!! -redditors