AvsGirl41;
Its funny that you mention 'The Patriot', since I have issues with that film as well. Yes, I do blame the screenwriter more than the director, I just found it funny that Mel Gibson starred in two very large films that outright demonised the British. Randal Wallace is truly horrendous; from Braveheart to the bastardization of the 'Man in the Iron Mask', to the laughable 'We Were Soldiers' and not to mention the calamity that 'Pearl Harbour' was. I am acquainted with his work all too well, unfortunately.
I myself enjoyed 'Braveheart' thoroughly, I just thought it had not only mild historical inaccuracies, but some pretty wild ones. Wallace dying on the same day as King Edward? Wallace impregnating the Queen of England? The constant demonising of King Edward (including my favourite, him throwing his son's gay lover out the window) where the only real historical evidence about the man shows him as a reasonable, logical and even 'just' man. I just thought the constant and hugely irreverent demonising of the British was not only uneccessary, but detrimental to the historical integrity of the film. I enjoyed the film, I would have 'loved' the film had it been braver when it came to showing what we have record of. Yes, the poem is the only 'real' evidence of Wallace ever existing, and it was ultimately based on that, but if a film is meant to be 'historical', I think it should atleast try not to take too many liberties.
My fear is that Mel Gibson seems to enjoy demonising certain parties, and, while I'll admit that 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot' are movies more prone to Hollywood sensationalism, I fear that his directing will demonise certain parties in 'The Passion'. It would be a shame if this were to happen.
I didn't think 'Elizabeth' was all that bad, to be honest. Being a fan of Roman history though, I thought 'Gladiator' was a gem. Yes, there were plenty of inaccuracies, but none of them were that far from the recorded truth.