--- title: "Seabiscuit: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/seabiscuit/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/seabiscuit" critics_score: 63 critics_reviews: 14 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." --- # Seabiscuit (2003): what the critics said Critics' score 63 from 14 reviews: 6 positive, 7 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics like Seabiscuit without loving it: six of fourteen are positive, seven mixed, and the praise is consistent about where the film works. The racing sequences are singled out almost everywhere as thrilling and expertly staged, and several reviews say the film is at its surest when the horses are running. The cast is well regarded, with Jeff Bridges singled out, and the Depression-era period detail is called handsome and fastidious. The reservations cluster just as tightly. Critics find the film reverent to a fault, turning a rambunctious true story into high-minded sentiment, with lofty narration and a national-epic framing that several find heavy-handed. More than one says it falls short of the book. The spread is narrow, mostly settling on respectable rather than exciting; Variety’s complaint is typical, that it is respectable when it should thrill. The lone hard dissent comes from Slant, which finds the whole thing corny and over-metaphorical, while Empire alone treats it as unreserved entertainment. ## Empire — Angie Errigo Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). The critic calls it tip-top entertainment with spectacular racing sequences, a great cast and uplifting spirit, while noting it is a superbly crafted Hollywood movie that magnifies every speck of pathos and drama from the true story. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/seabiscuit-review/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 25 July 2003. Ebert liked the film a great deal without quite loving it, praising its thrilling race sequences and strong performances while noting a slow start and limited emotional connection to the horse. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/seabiscuit-2003) ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 21 July 2003. Seabiscuit is a good film that could have been great, offering an emotionally satisfying alternative to summer blockbusters through its true Depression-era story of hope and human (and equine) spirit. The focus on character backstories and the inspirational narrative are singled out, though it lacks some dazzle and has a too-perfect Hollywood veneer. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/seabiscuit/4014251.article) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 29 July 2003. The film is a wholesome, appealing slice of Americana that succeeds through its rousing arc and strong cast despite being airbrushed history. The racing scenes carry heavy symbolic weight, but the film relies too much on iconography over imagination. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/seabiscuit-1798198735) ## The Guardian Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 26 October 2003. The film succeeds in showing why Seabiscuit became a national hero and beacon of hope during the Depression years. The director tells the melodramatic tale with attention to racing detail despite some liberties taken with the story. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2003/oct/26/features.review3) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 25 July 2003. Turan deemed it an honorable effort that succeeds best with its expertly re-created races but is less sure-footed with its humans, praising the cinematic horse sequences while noting it falls short of the book's richness. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-25-et-turan25-story.html) ## The Independent — Brian Viner Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 14 September 2003. The critic finds the film slick, well-acted and impressive in its racing sequences but ultimately sentimental and inferior to the source book, preventing it from cracking his personal top five sports films. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/racing-seabiscuit-loses-by-a-shorthead-in-race-to-join-top-five-films-86893.html) ## The New Yorker — David Denby Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 28 July 2003. Denby called the film effective and satisfying with scale, energy, and vivid emotional detail in its races, but criticized its Oscar-grabbing triumphalism and square national-epic framing that turns idiosyncrasy into salesmanship. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/08/04/horse-power) ## The New York Times — A. O. Scott Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 25 July 2003. Scott found the film a respectable but overly reverent adaptation that turns a rambunctious story into high-minded sentimentality, praising the cast including Jeff Bridges while criticizing its compressed narrative and lofty narration. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/25/movies/film-review-scrambling-to-victory.html) ## Time Out — TJ Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The film is a lush adaptation of the true story of the racehorse that captured America's imagination during the Depression. It contains a classy horse-racing picture but is undermined by lumbering worthiness and self-satisfaction. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/seabiscuit) ## Evening Standard — Sheila Johnston Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The review praises the handsome production, strong performances and thrilling races but criticises the film for overdoing the emotional uplift and moralising in a way that feels too American and formulaic. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/thundering-epic-strives-too-hard-to-be-a-racing-certainty-7436794.html) ## Variety — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 15 July 2003. McCarthy found the film fastidious with historical detail and respectable in its period feel but respectable when it should thrill, praising the character portraits and production values while faulting its long-view approach that drains immediacy and excitement. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2003/film/awards/seabiscuit-4-1200540538/) ## Slant Magazine — Ed Gonzalez Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 21 July 2003. The critic finds the film overly simplistic and heavy-handed in linking the horse's story to broader American history and the Depression. The racing sequences are thrilling, but the narrative is corny and overly metaphorical. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/seabiscuit/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 30 October 2003. The critic finds the film uplifting and a heartwrencher, praising its portrayal of perseverance and the American spirit during the Depression, though noting shallow characterization and a formulaic structure. They single out the message of never giving up and the actors' communication with animals. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/seabiscuit-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/seabiscuit.md