Braveheart: The True Story - A pointless documentary on an inaccurate film

On a night dominated by ITV's coverage of the Brit Awards, the alternative TV choices for anyone not fussed by the warblings of Adele, Rihanna and company were fairly slim.

But with the ongoing row over Scottish independence still dominating the headlines, this documentary uncovering the real story behind the movie Braveheart threatened to grab some of the deflected attention.

So, in a twist worthy of Tinseltown itself, The True Story set about revealing the shocking news of a Hollywood film that isn't 100 per cent factually accurate.

Almost enough to make you spit out your pancakes.

Early on, the programme makers explain that the movie was based on a poem written about William Wallace by a man named Blind Harry, who penned it 172 years after the Scottish warrior's death. Except, he wasn't actually blind and probably wasn't called Harry either.

Which made the remaining 58 minutes of the documentary feel rather pointless. I mean, forgive me for doubting our friend Harry's factual integrity, but it's a simple explanation of why fact is kept wholly separate from fiction in the film.

We find out that, unlike Mel Gibson's character in the film, Wallace was the son of a rich noble, had been caught stealing beer in cahoots with English soldiers and did not even have a wife, let alone pledge to avenge her death.

Nor was Wallace the highest-ranking man on the field at any of the major battles and he didn't even attack York as the Hollywood blockbuster suggests.

So, having firmly established that the film was a load of nonsense, historically speaking of course, the narrator turns his attentions to asking why Wallace became such a hero of Scottish history.

Why not Andrew Murray, who led the Battle of Stirling Bridge only to be mortally wounded during the fight and end up as a footnote in school text books instead, for example?

This point ends up being the real crux of the programme's argument – why some men are made heroes and others forgotten by time.

It's an interesting question, but one that would have consigned this 'entertainment' to the History channel were it not for the rather pointless link to Mel Gibson's film. As, other than in the title, the movie barely plays a part in this particular story.

In fact, the majority of scenes from Wallace's life are told through low budget re-enactments, and not scenes from Braveheart itself.

It makes the documentary feel cheap where it doesn't have to – some of the best sections are as low-tech as they come.

For example, when demonstrating the strength of medieval weaponry, an army of eager history teachers show off their skills on a pig carcass (yes, really.)

The monstrous sword chops it clean in two and the arrow pierces straight through flesh and bone in a simple, yet revealing demonstration of the brutality of war.

And, in the examination of skeletons found on the site of the battlefield, one soldier is shown to have suffered over 100 fractures. Ouch.

Yet these snippets are little more than an aside to the documentary's endless 'revelations' that show Braveheart as an action movie and not an historical re-enactment.

If this episode is anything to go by, then Channel 5's The True Story series is little more than a clumsy, half-hearted attempt at sexing up a history show – leaving it as a halfway house between education and entertainment.

Frankly, I'd have rather watched Adele stand up, sit down, and thank a whole host of people I've never heard of.

It turns out the other channels didn't bother to fight the BRIT awards. Unlike William Wallace, they just let the enemy win this time.

Todd Nash