Braveheart

It is a bit narcissistic: Mel Gibson figures he'll direct and star in a movie that makes him the perfect man. On the battlefield he can't be felled, nor persuaded away from the front lines with his men; among the lassies he's respectful, yet irresistible enough that the French princess swoons at mere talk of him, and dismantles all politics for his rugged sake; he's a brilliant strategist; he's a farmer who speaks Latin and French; he never backs down from his noble cause; and he doesn't have a single flaw (besides the haircut) or ever do a single thing wrong, at least by Gibson's apparent values, which accommodate mass vengeant murder.

I kind of hate Braveheart, for its alleged historical inaccuracies, its self-indulgence, its cliches, and its director/star's alleged personal character. But I enjoyed it well enough, and you can't deny it makes for a decent movie. It mimics all manner of standard epic, though it predates some of those which bias me against it (LotR, GoT, Troy), and it performs effectively, so I can't ding it too much for feeling generic 30 years later. I like epics, especially ones granting me a window into history; and Braveheart does that, however inaccurate it may be. It's still another nation in another period; it's still giving me enough names, places, and events that future consumption of Scottish history may ring some bells. It's still a historical epic, and I think I got the full value of that.

So you might say I like Braveheart despite myself. It's one of the lesser epics I've seen, but it's still an exciting historical epic, so I still liked it. In another director's hands, it might have been a favorite -- William Wallace has so much potential -- in Gibson's hands, it's a competent thrill.