--- title: "Barton Fink: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/barton-fink/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/barton-fink" critics_score: 69 critics_reviews: 8 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." --- # Barton Fink (1991): what the critics said Critics' score 69 from 8 reviews: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics respond warmly to Barton Fink, with praise clustering around the Coens’ visual control, literate writing and performances. John Turturro and John Goodman receive repeated attention, while Michael Lerner’s studio mogul is another source of approval. The favourable reviews find the mixture of Hollywood satire, psychological unease and absurd comedy assured, with several seeing a sharp attack on writers whose concern for ordinary people exceeds their willingness to listen to them. The spread is wide, however, and the central disagreement concerns how much the film has to say beneath its elaborate style. The Guardian admires its imagination but questions its substance, while the Los Angeles Times finds it amusing without being convinced that it adds up. The New Yorker is more firmly opposed, treating the allusions and twists as empty display. Even some sympathetic reviews therefore share the sceptics’ reservations about what all that technique achieves. ## Empire — Phil Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1991. The critic lauds the performances from Turturro, Goodman and others along with the Coens' visual flair and literate screenplay. It singles out the film's subtle critique of arrogant, self-absorbed writers who fail to engage with the 'common man'. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/barton-fink-review/) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 3 May 2011. The review describes the film as a bizarre blend of brooding psychodrama and screwball satire that shifts into outrageous Gothic fantasy. It praises the Coens' superb writing and assured direction along with a roster of marvellous performances that make everything cohere on multiple levels. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/barton-fink) ## Radio Times — Alan Jones Rating 4/5. The critic calls it the most brilliantly observed Hollywood put-down since Day of the Locust and a vitriolic yet successful attack on the industry. It singles out the gorgeously designed paranoid parable packed with sharp detail, great in-jokes and Michael Lerner's Oscar-nominated turn as the studio mogul from hell. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-n8wcfk/barton-fink/) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 23 August 1991. Ebert finds the film an assured piece of comic filmmaking that warns about the perils of talented filmmakers heading to Hollywood, but not one of the greatest ever made. He singles out the visual style and performances, particularly those evoking the rise of Nazism in its subtext. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/barton-fink-1991) ## The Guardian — Derek Malcolm Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 13 February 1992. The critic finds Barton Fink the Coens' most accomplished film, praising its style, imagination, and cinematic illustration of the writer's dilemma, but notes it is heavy on movie references and uncertain content with little substance. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,558586,00.html) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 13 September 1991. Turan finds the film an enormously amusing crackpot take on Hollywood but questions whether it adds up to anything substantial. He singles out its brazen assurance and the ambivalence it provokes in viewers as its core effect. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-13-ca-2016-story.html) ## The New Yorker — Terrence Rafferty Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 2 September 1991. Rafferty views the film as an empty tour de force and a nihilist showoff exercise that feels thin despite its allusions and twists. He singles out its hermetic meaninglessness and the Coens' apparent pleasure in it as the main flaw. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1991/09/09/1991-09-09-076-tny-cards-000146376) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby 21 August 1991. Canby calls it an unqualified winner and an exhilarating original after the Coens' earlier films. He singles out its flamboyant style, effortless technique, and the way performances merge seamlessly with the characters in this dark comedy about the perils of the mind. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/21/movies/review-film-barton-fink-a-dark-comedy-from-joel-and-ethan-coen.html) ## Variety — Variety Staff 31 December 1990. The review praises the film as a painstakingly miniaturist work full of ferocious strength and humor that will appeal to buffs. It singles out the sensational performances, especially Michael Lerner's studio overlord and John Goodman's neighbor. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1990/film/reviews/barton-fink-1200429001/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 21 June 2001. The critic praises the Coen brothers' maverick originality in depicting a naive playwright's descent into frustration and absurdity while struggling to write a B-movie in 1940s Hollywood. Turturro and Goodman's performances and the eerie, humid atmosphere of the hotel are singled out as complements to the film's surprising, dangerous tone. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/barton-fink-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/barton-fink.md