--- title: "Braveheart: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/braveheart/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/braveheart" critics_score: 66 critics_reviews: 13 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): what the critics said Critics' score 66 from 13 reviews: 8 positive, 2 mixed, 3 negative. 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. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1995. 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 the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/braveheart-1995) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 29 May 1995. 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 the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1995/06/05/great-scot) ## The New York Times — Caryn James Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1995. 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 the review](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 Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 8 September 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. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/braveheart-review/) ## Radio Times — Tom Hutchinson Rating 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 the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-cu6hb3/braveheart/) ## The Telegraph Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 25 September 2023. 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 the review](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mel-gibson-best-films-roles/) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 2025. 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 the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/may/24/braveheart-at-30-mel-gibson) ## Variety — Brian Lowry Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 19 May 1995. 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 the review](https://variety.com/1995/film/reviews/braveheart-2-1200441629/) ## Los Angeles Times — Peter Rainer Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 24 May 1995. 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 the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-24-ca-5288-story.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. 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 the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/braveheart) ## Slant Magazine — Rob Humanick Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 4 January 2008. 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 the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/braveheart/) ## The Ringer — Rob Harvilla Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 17 June 2016. 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 the review](https://www.theringer.com/2016/06/17/movies/braveheart-game-of-thrones-a8fcfd1fdb35) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. 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 the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/braveheart-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/braveheart.md