--- title: "Giant: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/giant-1956/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/giant-1956" critics_score: 65 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." --- # Giant (1956): what the critics said Critics' score 65 from 13 reviews: 8 positive, 2 mixed, 3 negative. Most critics like Giant, and the praise gathers around two things: the scale and James Dean. From the first notices onwards it is treated as a large, serious picture about Texas, oil and money, and several reviews credit it with unusual directness on racism for its period. Stevens’ handling of landscape, dissolves and blocking is admired, and Dean’s Jett Rink is named again and again as the performance to watch, with Taylor and Hudson praised more evenly. The reservations gather around length. Nearly every review, including the warm ones, mentions the three-hour-plus running time; the mixed and negative ones find it plodding, heavy-handed about the American Dream and closer to soap opera than epic. The spread is wide. Variety and The New York Times are among the strongest notices, while The New Yorker, in the same week, finds it rambling and elementary, and Slant Magazine dismisses it as long and boring. ## The New York Times — Bosley Crowther Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 11 October 1956. The film is a tremendously vivid picture-drama that gushes a tawdry tragedy and gives an almost documentary picture of how oil exaggerated and confused the feudalistic ways of Texas. It is a strong contender for the year's top-film award, with exciting performances from the cast including Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, and especially James Dean. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1956/10/11/archives/screen-large-subject-the-cast.html) ## Variety — Hift. Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 10 October 1956. For the most part an excellent film which registers strongly on all levels with breathtaking panoramic shots, personal dramatic impact, and a resounding message; performances by Taylor, Hudson, and Dean match the production values under Stevens’ direction. It is a powerful indictment of the Texas superiority complex and measures up to its expectations at the box office. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1956/film/reviews/giant-2-1200418151/) ## Sight and Sound — Peter Tonguette Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 13 December 2016. The critic presents Giant as an ambitious, daring and weird epic whose vast canvas and visual poetry anticipate the unruly auteur films of 1970s New Hollywood. Particular praise goes to its painterly use of landscape, dissolves and scale. [Read the review](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/bigger-than-texas-giant-60) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 17 September 2025. The critic praises George Stevens’ epic as a film of great conscience and scale, following a Texas family across decades as they confront social and political changes. Dean’s performance as Jett Rink is singled out as the film’s true standout. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/sep/17/giant-rock-hudson-james-dean-elizabeth-taylor-epic-family-drama) ## The Hollywood Reporter — James Powers Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 10 October 2016. The critic calls the film a monumental drama as big and inspiring as Texas itself, praising its epic scale, ambition, screenplay, and standout performances from Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, and especially James Dean. While noting the three-hour-plus runtime may lead to diminishing returns for some viewers, the review deems it one of the great screen epics. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/giant-review-1956-film-936178/) ## The AV Club — Noel Murray Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 14 July 2003. The review positions Giant as a sprawling yet intimate epic that studies characters and Texas life more than grand events, highlighting strong performances with Dean's magnetic method acting contrasting Hudson and Taylor's classicism, and praising Stevens' framing and blocking despite occasional awkward pacing. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/giant-special-edition-dvd-1798198697) ## The Times — Stephen Dalton Rating 3/5. 26 July 2003. The review calls Giant a generation-spanning saga with strong lead chemistry and unusual vigour on racism for its era, but notes it is pure soap opera that is too long and heavy-handed on the American Dream. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/drama-choice-hbxwk33c5rs) ## Los Angeles Times — Kevin Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 27 September 1996. Time has not been as kind to 'Giant' as one wishes; it flows beautifully in early sections but loses momentum later and is too long at 202 minutes, yet it has the pull of nostalgia and sustains emotional impact as a portrait of a durable marriage. It dazzles with late Golden Era star performances and is far from a great film but undeniably a classic of its era. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-09-27-ca-47881-story.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 10 February 2014. The review finds the sprawling epic plodding and unsubtle, striving too hard for serious statements and ending up a long yawn. It singles out the fine landscape photography and James Dean's convincing middle-aged performance for limited praise. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/giant) ## The New Yorker — John McCarten Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 13 October 1956. The picture rambles without clear focus and produces some muscular melodrama but is long and elementary; James Dean provides the main exception with lunatic cuteness in his role. Texas is described at great length and to no particular purpose. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1956/10/20/southwestern-primitives) ## Slant Magazine — Dan Callahan Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 23 May 2005. The critic dismisses the film as an overly long, boring Texas soap opera that fails to live up to its reputation, criticizing its earnestness, arbitrary plotting, poor old-age makeup, and heavy-handed handling of themes like racism, while noting Dean has only a couple of memorable scenes. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/giant/) ## /Film — Witney Seibold Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 11 August 2026. The critic views Giant as a gloriously blunt 1950s epic about Texas ranch life, oil wealth, racism, and personal redemption across decades, with outsized characters and operatic emotions. It singles out the film's influence on later TV like Dallas and Yellowstone, its Oscar recognition (Stevens won for directing), and the redemptive arcs of its leads. [Read the review](https://www.slashfilm.com/2232172/james-dean-final-movie-50s-western-giant/) ## Paste — Amy Glynn Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 23 June 2023. The critic finds Giant significant for its frankness in confronting racism and hierarchy, and for stellar performances from Hudson and Taylor. While it may feel bloated to modern viewers, its iconic status and remarkable acting make it a must-see. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/1950s/best-movies-1950s) --- © 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/giant-1956.md