Braveheart: Mel's Directing Debut...Worth The Hype?

Okay, so I finally got around to watching Braveheart (1995) and I have thoughts. As a director-focused watcher, I was super curious about Mel Gibson's directorial debut. I knew it was a big swing, historical epic and all that, but I wanted to see if his vision held up. Honestly, it's... messy, but undeniably powerful. The battle scenes are BRUTAL. Like, Saving Private Ryan levels of visceral intensity (which, granted, came later). The opening scene with Murron getting murdered really sets the tone for Wallace's rage and motivation. What worked for me was that Gibson, the director, isn't afraid to lean into the melodrama. The speeches, the slow-motion, the soaring music - it's all very heightened, which totally fits the legendary status they're going for. I also particularly liked how he visually distinguished the Scots from the English, especially with the costuming. Subtle touches like that really make the world believable, even if the history isn't always. However...I can't ignore the historical inaccuracies. I know, I know, it's a movie, not a documentary. But some of the changes felt unnecessary and just played into tired stereotypes. And...Wallace painting his face blue before battle? Come on, Mel. Still, I can appreciate the sheer ambition and emotional impact of the film. It's not perfect, but it's a damn impressive debut. Plus, Peter Mullan is always a win. So, overall verdict? A flawed but compelling war epic that showcases Gibson's potential as a director. Definitely see where he's going after this. I'd give it a solid 7.5/10. Thoughts?