Braveheart (1995)

The critic hails Gibson's second directorial effort as an epic achievement that stands with classics like Spartacus, praising his passionate yet controlled direction of massive battle scenes and strong performances from the cast. It singles out the film's breathtaking beauty, resonating brutality, and rip-roaring storytelling as reasons to surrender to the legend over strict historical accuracy.

Gibson directs and stars with flourish in this saga of Scottish revolt, delivering effective battle scenes and capturing the spirit of revolution and patriotism. Some stereotypes and loss of credibility in emotional moments are noted but do not outweigh its strengths.

The critic dismisses the film as pure hokum and a stew of Hollywood clichés with simplistic heroes-and-villains storytelling and rude stereotypes. Battle scenes are staged effectively but the film is ultimately a one-dimensional star vehicle.

The critic calls the film the most hilariously sexed-up piece of pap to win Best Picture, portraying it as an oblivious ode to unspoken man-on-man love with absurdly phallic action sequences. They single out its blatant Christ symbolism and trite historical evocation for particular derision.

Ebert praises the film as a full-throated battle epic that captures the glorious sweep of Hollywood swordplay classics mixed with grungy ferocity. He singles out the frequent, bloody battle scenes for their technical brilliance in massing men and horses without becoming confusing.

Lane finds many amazing things about the film, including Scotsmen with blue faces and spectacular battle sequences with every kind of mortal blow. He singles out the women's dignity, especially Catherine McCormack as Murron, which shames the malice of the villains and the bravado of Wallace.

James calls the film one of the most spectacular entertainments in years and an exhilarating new-fashioned epic. She singles out Gibson's stroke of brilliance in reveling in epic qualities like tragic romance, heroism, and gorgeous photography while adding a contemporary kick.

Lowry describes the film as a huge, bloody and sprawling epic that essentially delivers despite being a massive vanity piece. He singles out the spectacular battles, with almost balletic stunt and second-unit work, once the fighting starts.

The critic finds the film an hour too long with excessive slow-motion and confusing politics that undermine its historical subject, while noting Gibson's star turn and the violent, energetic action sequences as its main strengths. It functions best as entertaining fiction rather than serious drama.