Robert the Bruce Is a Secret Braveheart Sequel That Flew Completely Under the Radar

by

Thirty years after its release, *Braveheart* remains a beloved and critically acclaimed historical epic. The film, based on the life of Scottish hero Sir William Wallace, powerfully portrays his fight for independence from English rule, with Mel Gibson giving a memorable performance filled with passion, sadness, and determination. *Braveheart* won five Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director, and is considered a cinematic masterpiece. Surprisingly, many fans are unaware of an unofficial sequel that exists, featuring a member of the original cast in the starring role.

I recently saw *Robert the Bruce*, and it’s fascinating to see Angus Macfadyen revisit the role. This film isn’t a sequel in the traditional sense, but it feels like a continuation of the story we started with Scotland’s fight for independence – the same conflict drives both movies. What really struck me, though, is that *Robert the Bruce* works as a kind of apology for his character’s actions in *Braveheart*. It tries to make us understand – and even sympathize with – his earlier choices, like betraying Wallace and briefly siding with the English. It’s a compelling look at a complex figure seeking redemption.

How Robert the Bruce Connects to Braveheart

As a movie buff, I always found the ending of Wallace’s story incredibly powerful, but also a turning point. In 1305, he was captured and faced a brutal execution – hanged, drawn, and quartered. The English hoped it would break Scotland’s will to fight, but it actually had the opposite effect! It fueled the rebellion that Robert the Bruce eventually led to victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. The film *Robert the Bruce* picks up the story right after Wallace’s death, showing how Bruce rallied the Scots and prepared for that final battle, though it doesn’t always stick rigidly to the historical dates.

Unlike *Braveheart*, which focuses on the entire life of William Wallace, *Robert the Bruce* only shows a small part of King Robert’s story, starting in 1306, not long after Wallace died. The movie opens with Robert, feeling defeated and without his crown, considering giving up the fight with his troops. After being injured by soldiers who are easily bribed, he’s rescued by Morag (Anna Hutchison), a widowed farmer, who nurses him back to health while he hides from those hunting him.

Robert eventually discovers that Morag’s husband had bravely fought alongside him in the war, but tragically died after losing a leg in battle. Even after his injury, he remained committed to Robert’s cause until his death, and his family carries on that same loyalty. This unwavering dedication inspires Robert to fight again, ultimately leading him to become king.

Aside from the return of actor Simon Macfadyen, the film *Robert the Bruce* doesn’t have much in common with the original, which is why it’s considered an unofficial follow-up. Though it doesn’t quite reach the same heights as the first film, *Robert the Bruce* features beautiful visuals and cinematography.

The movie features stunning, wide-open shots of snowy mountains contrasted with the close, intimate setting of a small cabin. You can really *feel* the harsh environment – you can even see the actors’ breath in the frigid air as they trudge through deep snow, barely protected by their worn clothing. While there are some fight scenes, the story focuses more on the characters and isn’t as action-packed as films like *Braveheart*.

Robert the Bruce Isn’t on the Same Scale as Braveheart

I have to say, *Robert the Bruce* really focuses on its characters, but it just doesn’t reach the heights of *Braveheart*. The biggest problem is scope – *Braveheart* was a massive, sweeping epic, and this feels like just one small part of that story. The film takes a single chapter in Robert the Bruce’s life and tries to stretch it into a full movie, but it ends up feeling more like an afterthought, or a postscript to a much larger tale. Honestly, it felt like a missed opportunity to properly build on the world of *Braveheart*, and a lot of potentially great storytelling moments just fell flat.

The film primarily focuses on Robert’s journey of healing and how war affects everyday lives – a compelling idea. However, the story spends over fifty minutes showing Robert recovering from his injuries in a cave before he even meets Morag. This cave is significant because of a local legend: the future King of Scotland, after losing several battles against England, was losing hope. He then observed a spider repeatedly trying to build its web. The spider failed six times, but on its seventh attempt, it finally succeeded, inspiring the king.

Witnessing the spider’s persistence reminded Robert the Bruce of his own six losses to the English. He decided that if the spider could try again and again, so could he. Although the story of the spider is a powerful moment in the film, the scene is drawn out too long, lessening its effect and causing the audience to lose sight of its important message.

In this story, Robert the Bruce attempts to defeat the hero, but fails. Unlike *Braveheart*, where the main villain is a king, the antagonist here, Brandubh, only picks fights he’s sure to win. There are no large-scale battles or famously painted warriors; instead, a small group of soldiers harass a vulnerable group – three children, a grieving widow, an injured king, and a blacksmith’s daughter.

In the end, the soldiers only succeed in killing the blacksmith’s daughter, a rare courageous woman in the movie. However, her death doesn’t feel significant because she isn’t shown on screen for very long. While attempting to be similar to *Braveheart*, the film ultimately feels drawn out, painful to watch, and focuses on small-minded, oppressive rulers.

Robert the Bruce Was Overshadowed by Outlaw King

Despite the film *Outlaw King* coming out two years prior, the story of Robert the Bruce remained less well-known. Both *Outlaw King* and the tale of Robert the Bruce begin after William Wallace’s execution, during the conflict between Great Britain and Scottish rebels following their loss at Stirling Castle. King Edward I (played by Stephen Dillane) is firmly in control, demanding loyalty from Scottish lords, but increasing taxes on ordinary people fuel a fresh desire for independence. Following news of Wallace’s death, Scottish leaders start to unite and plan to take back their land.

I was really captivated by the dynamic between Robert and his wife, Elizabeth de Burgh, played brilliantly by Florence Pugh. Even though she was connected to the King, she was a huge source of strength as Robert tried to unite the Scottish lords. One of the most compelling relationships was with James Douglas, portrayed by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Despite a shadow hanging over his family’s past, Douglas became Robert’s most loyal ally, and together they really inspired the Scottish people to fight for their independence from England. It was a powerful story of loyalty and a nation’s fight for freedom.

The main difference between the two films, and a key disadvantage for *Robert the Bruce*, is that *Outlaw King* covers a much longer timeframe, highlighting Robert’s plan to overcome the well-equipped English army. The film unfolds almost like a thrilling heist, with Robert strategically capturing castles to catch the English off guard and gather supplies and allies. Instead of the direct, but unsuccessful, battles fought by Wallace, Robert inspires his people, and their strong connection to their homeland makes them a powerful fighting force. While the action is exciting, the film is particularly notable for its focus on the political side of warfare.

Many viewers saw *Outlaw King* as a follow-up to *Braveheart*, so when *Robert the Bruce* came out, audiences already felt they’d seen this part of Robert’s story. This hurt the film, as it had to compete with both *Braveheart* and what felt like its unofficial sequel. *Robert the Bruce* is a strong film on its own, carefully portraying the beginning of Robert’s rise to power and the hardships he faced. It’s also remarkably accurate, staying as close to historical facts as possible while still being a compelling movie.

The problem is that this film doesn’t feel like a proper sequel. Audiences were expecting something similar in scale and impact to *Braveheart*, and even those excited to see David Macfadyen return felt it lacked the grand scope and dramatic tension of both *Braveheart* and *Outlaw King*. Ultimately, *Robert the Bruce* didn’t quite make its own mark, as it was constantly compared to and overshadowed by *Braveheart*, which had already become the unofficial continuation of that story.

Read More

2025-10-08 03:40