Outlaw King Review

Robert the Bruce is seen as one of Scotland’s greatest heroes. He was the man who liberated Scotland from the English. David Mackenzie and Netflix adapted this period of history for the film Outlaw King.

In 1304 the Scottish rebel William Wallace has been captured and executed, ending his rebellion. The Scottish nobility pay homage to Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) in exchange for getting their lands back. This includes Robert de Brus (James Cosmo) and his son (Chris Pine). Despite the peace, the people were still hostile toward the English, leading the young Robert to believe that rebellion is still possible and sets out to liberate his country.

The most famous film that looked at the Scottish War of Independence was Braveheart. It’s considered one of the best films from the 90s, winning five Academy Awards, but ignored historical facts. Outlaw King aimed to be a more historically accurate take on the period. Outlaw King does start with promise for a multitude of reasons. The costumes and armour were more accurate and the film made a point that Robert the Bruce’s family had land in England and Scotland. There was emphasis on the hardships of this time – characters had to trot around in the mud, battles were violent, and there were little details like people having salt fish to preserve it.

But there were also historical accuracies. Artistic license was expected, few films are truly accurate. Some personal drama is added and events are condensed. But this film was a romanticised view on Robert the Bruce who was a man who wanted to protect the people and become a rallying point for both the nobility and the commoners – when in reality he was a man who was fighting for his own self-interest. Outlaw King made Edward II a psychopathic villain when in real life he was an incompetent man who had favourites and liked men and women. He came across as a pantomime villain. The Braveheart version of Edward II was criticised for making the man a fey, gay weakling so Outlaw King‘s version was made to be the opposite. But was also disrespectful to history.

Braveheart was an Americanized version of William Wallace’s story because it was written by an American writer, made by a big Hollywood studio, and the film was actually mostly shot in Ireland. Outlaw King was directed and co-written by David Mackenzie who is a proud Scotsman and gained critical acclaim because of his films Starred Up and Hell and High Water. Mackenzie filmed in Scotland and he was able to make a film that felt a lot more authentic then Braveheart due to its look and battle sequences.

Outlaw King had a great start showing all the Scottish nobles swearing fealty to Edward I just before the siege of Stirling Castle. There was a great use of natural lighting and long steady-cam shots, which was a departure for cinematographer Barry Ackroyd. There were great moments sprinkled throughout the film like the funeral for Robert de Brus whose body was carried through a cathedral and monks singing in the background. Since shows like Game of Thrones and Vikings have raised the bar for medieval action sequences and Outlaw King had to match them. And the film did this with both small scale raids (like the Douglas takeover of a castle) and the big battles. The final battle was a brutal, hand-to-hand brawl.

However, for a two-hour film Outlaw King was surprisingly slow. Braveheart was a three-hour epic but it never felt like that. It was worse in the middle of the film where Robert the Bruce had to go on the run after suffering a defeat. The original cut of the film was four hours and at the Toronto International Film Festival Outlaw King was two hours, 20 minutes – so a lot had been removed.

The Outlaw King is the type of film I should have loved – it was a bloody, downbeat, historical epic that had great battle sequences and looked fantastic. There were fantastic sequences and a solid cast, but it was a little lacking compared to other medieval epics.