In one of my Medium articles, I broached this subject. Gibson had been interviewed about the historical inaccuracies in the film. His reply was:

“He was a monster…what the Vikings called a ‘berserker.’” To tell his story in Braveheart, “We shifted the balance because someone’s got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way stories are told…We romanticize…”

His point was that when you pit two evils against each other, one has to be less evil than the other. It doesn't mean the less evil is a good person, just better than the other.

We saw this in Batman vs Superman. Two inherently heroes. But like pitting two evils against each other, one having to be less evil than the other, pitting two heroes together means one has to be less heroic than the other.

As I mentioned in my previous comment about Jaws, Braveheart still stands the test of time. c.1995, it maintains an 8.3/10 viewer ranking...30 years on.

Personally, I don't care much for awards. They don't really reflect viewer opinion. I look at films that stand the tests of time, such as your own mentioned The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense, The Exorcist, etc.