---
title: "Braveheart"
year: 1995
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/braveheart"
fi1m_id: "braveheart"
imdb_id: "tt0112573"
tmdb_id: 197
wikidata_id: "Q162729"
fi1m_score: 68
critics_score: 66
critics_reviews: 13
published: "2026-09-13"
updated: "2026-09-18T08:38:17.937900+00:00"
region: "US"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Braveheart (1995)

Directed by Mel Gibson · 2h 58m · MPA R · Action, Drama, History, War

## Identity

Braveheart

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/braveheart
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** braveheart
- **IMDb ID:** tt0112573
- **TMDB ID:** 197
- **Wikidata ID:** Q162729
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/197, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q162729

**Fi1m score: 68** · Critics 66 from 13 reviews

*In a sentence:* A Scottish revolt with room for several armies and scarcely a doubt about its leading man

> Mel Gibson stages the fighting with force and clarity, but *Braveheart* gives its politics and characters much less care. The battles justify some patience, though the broad characterisation and 178-minute running time demand plenty.

## Synopsis

William Wallace (Mel Gibson) becomes a figure of Scottish revolt as romance and patriotism feed a struggle fought with men and horses. Around him are Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), Hamish Campbell (Brendan Gleeson) and Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen). Royal power has its own figures in King Edward (Patrick McGoohan) and Princess Isabelle (Sophie Marceau). Gibson also directs this war drama, which moves between personal relationships, political disputes and battles. Wallace’s place at the centre of the rebellion shapes a story concerned with heroism, loyalty and the violence of armed resistance.

## Review

*Braveheart* is worth considering for the battles, provided we can tolerate how little it questions the man at their centre. Mel Gibson directs and plays William Wallace with an assurance that can carry a large-scale war film a long way. It cannot quite carry this one through all 178 minutes. William Wallace’s screenplay gives its hero few complications, and Gibson commits to that simplicity even when some doubt would make the drama more interesting.

Gibson’s performance has the conviction the material needs, and he makes Wallace’s bravado easy to follow even when it becomes tiresome. Catherine McCormack’s Murron MacClannough provides a welcome change of emphasis: her dignity gives the romance some feeling that does not depend on the hero’s importance. She makes us wish the film would spend less time insisting on him. The screenplay keeps returning to broad contrasts of goodness and malice, leaving the actors limited room to surprise us.

The fighting is another matter. John Toll’s photography keeps the massed men and horses legible, allowing the scale of a confrontation to register without losing the people caught inside it. Steven Rosenblum’s editing makes the violence forceful without reducing it to a succession of disconnected blows. We flinched at the bloody collisions of men and horses. Gibson lets the brutality interrupt the pleasure of watching an army move.

Thomas E. Sanders’s production design gives the fighting a substantial physical setting, and that sense of weight helps the violence work. James Horner’s music is less inclined to stand back, and its emotional emphasis becomes wearing when the drama has already made its point. Both contributions suit the kind of film Gibson wants to make. The problem comes when the scale of the images and the urging of the music leave us no space to respond at our own pace.

The politics are harder to accept, because these disputes need to feel worth thinking about. Patrick McGoohan’s King Edward belongs to a division of heroes and villains so firm that almost every complication feels unwelcome. The stereotypes make Gibson’s patriotism easier to sell and the struggle less interesting to follow. A film can ask us to support a revolt while still allowing the people involved to have inconvenient motives.

Then there is the length. Rosenblum can organise a battle, but the repeated slow motion makes an already expansive film feel reluctant to move on. Gibson understands the appeal of the traditional historical adventure: romance, danger, physical courage and the satisfaction of seeing large numbers of people move with purpose. What he does not judge as well is how often those pleasures need refreshing. Once the emotional positions are established, the film spends too long confirming them.

We would recommend it to committed admirers of battlefield spectacle, with a firm warning about the patience required between clashes. There is enough skill in the action to make that bargain reasonable, just about. Anyone hoping to understand the politics should leave time for some reading afterwards.

*Fi1m score 68, published 13 September 2026.*

## What the critics say

Most critics come down in favour, and almost all of them, dissenters included, agree on where the film works: the battles. The massing of men and horses, the stunt and second-unit work and the sheer bloodiness are praised across the board, and several reviews treat it as one of the last large-scale historical epics staged without digital help. Gibson the star draws nearly as much approval as Gibson the director; his Wallace is called charismatic and likeable, and The New Yorker picks out Catherine McCormack’s Murron for a dignity the villains lack.

The spread is wide. Reservations cluster on the writing: hokey dialogue, hiss-the-English villainy, stereotypes and a loose hand with history. Admirers wave this away as the price of legend; the negative reviews treat it as the whole problem, with the Los Angeles Times finding no interest in the war’s other side and Slant Magazine mocking the Christ symbolism. Later reappraisals sit in the middle, calling it silly and overlong but more durable than expected.

## Straight answers

**Is Braveheart worth watching?**

*Braveheart* is worth watching for admirers of large-scale battlefield spectacle, and we scored it 68. Mel Gibson stages the fighting with force and clarity, but the politics are drawn as plain heroes and villains, and the 178 minutes drag between clashes. Anyone who wants the history examined rather than saluted should look elsewhere.

**How long is Braveheart, and what is it rated?**

*Braveheart* runs 2h 58m and is rated R by the MPA in the US. It is an action and drama film.

**Where can I watch Braveheart in the US?**

*Braveheart* is streaming on Paramount+, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV and The Roku Channel in the US, and it is also available to rent from Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video from $4.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.

**How violent or frightening is Braveheart, and is it suitable for children?**

*Braveheart* carries a UK 15 and a US R, and it is too violent for children. The battles are bloody, with men and horses colliding hard enough that we flinched, and Gibson lets the brutality register rather than glossing over it. Older teenagers used to war films should manage; the squeamish will spend long stretches looking away.

**How does Braveheart compare to The Last of the Mohicans?**

*Braveheart* and [*The Last of the Mohicans*](https://film.one/film/the-last-of-the-mohicans) are both romances carried through warfare, and the earlier film is the tighter and more consistently entertaining of the two. Michael Mann keeps the running time under control and the action and music are hard to resist, while Gibson's battles have greater scale but the film insists on its hero for 178 minutes. Choose *Braveheart* for massed spectacle, *Mohicans* if you want the evening to move.

**What should I watch after Braveheart?**

After *Braveheart*, try [*The Last of the Mohicans*](https://film.one/film/the-last-of-the-mohicans) (1992, Fi1m 84): Another romance carried through warfare, with a tighter grip on the running time. Then [*Ran*](https://film.one/film/ran) (1985, Fi1m 92): Armies, family loyalties and power, with considerably less faith in heroic men.

### Reviews we read (13)

- **RogerEbert.com**, Roger Ebert (90/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/braveheart-1995)
- **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (90/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/05/great-scot)
- **The New York Times**, Caryn James (90/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/24/movies/film-review-braveheart-the-splashy-epic-finds-new-life-in-the-13th-century.html)
- **Empire**, Ian Nathan (85/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/braveheart-review/)
- **Radio Times**, Tom Hutchinson (4/5): 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. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-cu6hb3/braveheart/)
- **The Telegraph** (75/100, inferred): The critic calls Braveheart a sweeping pre-CGI historical epic whose superbly staged battle scenes and likeable, charismatic central performance from Gibson make it a last gasp of the genre, despite its length, dodgy accent and historical inaccuracies. The stirring lines and Oscar wins are noted positively. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mel-gibson-best-films-roles/)
- **The Guardian** (70/100, inferred): The critic describes Braveheart as a gory, hokey Oscar winner that functions more as rousing fantasy than history, resembling a biblical epic in its sweep and spectacle. The battle sequences and Gibson's charismatic central performance are singled out for praise amid notes on hacky dialogue and historical liberties. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/may/24/braveheart-at-30-mel-gibson)
- **Variety**, Brian Lowry (70/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://variety.com/1995/film/reviews/braveheart-2-1200441629/)
- **Los Angeles Times**, Peter Rainer (40/100, inferred): The film is a rip-roaring but basic hiss-the-English medieval Western that lacks the epic gift. Gibson stages impressive battle scenes but never questions loyalties or conveys the horrors of war on all sides. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-24-ca-5288-story.html)
- **Time Out**, GA (30/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/braveheart)
- **Slant Magazine**, Rob Humanick (20/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/braveheart/)
- **The Ringer**, Rob Harvilla (60/100, inferred): The critic views Braveheart as a flawed but engaging epic that holds up better than expected in hindsight, though it is often silly, soapy, and overwrought. Gibson's early performance as a charming, peace-loving Wallace is singled out as a highlight amid the film's excesses. [Read](https://www.theringer.com/2016/06/17/movies/braveheart-game-of-thrones-a8fcfd1fdb35)
- **Eye for Film**, Angus Wolfe Murray (55/100, inferred): 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. [Read](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/braveheart-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray)

## Details

- **Director:** Mel Gibson
- **Director:** Mel Gibson
- **Writer:** Randall Wallace
- **Cinematography:** John Toll
- **Editor:** Steven Rosenblum
- **Music:** James Horner
- **Production design:** Thomas E. Sanders
- **Costume design:** Charles Knode
- **Producer:** Mel Gibson, Bruce Davey, Alan Ladd Jr.
- **Cast:** Mel Gibson as William Wallace; Catherine McCormack as Murron MacClannough; Sophie Marceau as Princess Isabelle; Patrick McGoohan as King Edward; Angus Macfadyen as Robert the Bruce; Brendan Gleeson as Hamish Campbell; James Robinson as Young William Wallace; James Cosmo as Campbell
- **Runtime:** 2h 58m
- **Certificate (MPA):** R
- **Release (the US):** 24 May 1995
- **Genres:** Action, Drama, History, War
- **Also in:** [Best Picture winners](https://film.one/collections/oscar-best-picture.md) (Winner, 1995); [Golden Globe Best Drama winners](https://film.one/collections/golden-globe-drama.md) (Nominee, 1995)
- **Budget:** $72 million
- **Box office:** $213 million
- **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMft5QDOHek

## Where to watch in the US

- Paramount+: streaming
- Amazon Prime Video: add-on, uhd
- Apple TV: add-on, uhd
- The Roku Channel: add-on, hd
- Apple TV: rent $4.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: rent $4.99, uhd
- Apple TV: buy $16.99, hd
- Amazon Prime Video: buy $16.99, uhd

*Checked 2026-09-13.*

Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EC, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HR, HU, IE, IL, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PE, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SG, SI, TR, UA, US, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## Awards

- Academy Awards 1996: Best Costume Design (nominated); Best Film Editing (nominated); Best Original Dramatic Score (nominated); Best Sound (nominated); Best Writing, Original Screenplay (nominated); Best Cinematography (won); Best Director (won); Best Makeup and Hairstyling (won); Best Picture (won); Best Sound Editing (won)

## If you liked this

- *Spartacus* (1960): For large-scale rebellion with more room for doubt among the speeches.
- *The Last of the Mohicans* (1992), Fi1m 84: Another romance carried through warfare, with a tighter grip on the running time. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-last-of-the-mohicans.md)
- *Ran* (1985), Fi1m 92: Armies, family loyalties and power, with considerably less faith in heroic men. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/ran.md)
- *The Warlords* (2007): Brotherhood and battlefield spectacle, with loyalties that cannot survive on speeches alone.
- *The Wind That Shakes the Barley* (2006): A revolt given political detail, and comrades allowed to disagree about freedom.

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/braveheart