Critics’ reviews

Chimes at Midnight (1965)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 84: 9 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Chimes at Midnight

84
Positive
9
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics regard Chimes at Midnight as one of Welles’s major works, and the praise gathers in two places. The first is his own Falstaff, described as mercurial and moving, with several reviews noting the lonely pride and fear beneath the swagger. The second is the Battle of Shrewsbury, singled out again and again for its staging, its rhythmic editing and its refusal to make violence look handsome. Gielgud’s performance draws mention, as does the poignancy of Falstaff’s treatment by Hal, and more than one review credits Welles with making a great deal from a small budget.

The reservations are mild and remarkably consistent: distracting flaws, an unfinished feel, an occasional lack of coherence. Nobody lets these lower the verdict beyond a shrug. The spread is narrow, and the only mixed notice is also the earliest, from Variety in 1965, which admires the performance more than the film around it. The warmest reviews arrive with the 2016 restoration.

Slant Magazine
29 August 2016 · ★★★★★ · Chuck Bowen
100

Bowen presents the restoration as a revelatory release and calls the film Welles’s ultimate masterpiece. He especially praises the Battle of Shrewsbury for its inventive staging and unglamorous portrayal of violence.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
8 January 2016 · Richard Brody
95*

Brody celebrates the film as a major work by Welles and a landmark in cinema. He singles out Welles’s performance and the play-acting scene’s piercing self-recognition for particular praise.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
1 January 2016 · Kenneth Turan
90*

Turan presents the film as a major, deeply affecting achievement, rich in melancholy and humor. He especially praises John Gielgud’s performance and the battle scenes’ imagery and rhythmic editing.

Read the full review →
Empire
30 March 2006 · David Parkinson
85*

Parkinson calls the film a melancholic masterpiece despite some distracting flaws. He especially praises Welles’s performance and the Battle of Shrewsbury sequence.

Read the full review →
The Independent
30 April 2015 · Geoffrey Macnab
85*

The review is strongly positive, calling the film a moving and rewarding work. It singles out Welles’s performance as Falstaff and the poignancy of Falstaff’s rejection by Hal.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
28 June 2015 · Philip French
80*

French calls the film a rich, elegiac masterpiece despite its flaws and unfinished feel. He especially praises Welles’s editing of the Battle of Shrewsbury and his mercurial performance as Falstaff.

Read the full review →
Time Out
13 November 2013
80*

Time Out’s description presents the film as fascinating and highly resourceful. It singles out how Welles makes the most of a small budget.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1965 · Variety Staff
70*

The review presents the film as a personal, melancholy blend of comedy and heroism. It praises Welles’s portrayal of Falstaff, noting the lonely pride and fear beneath his swagger.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
69*

The URL identifies this as a Great Movies review, but the page text is blocked. The critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be verified.

Read the full review →
The Skinny
29 June 2015 · ★★★★ · Philip Concannon
80

Concannon praises the film as a thrillingly alive, rambunctious Shakespeare adaptation, despite occasional lack of coherence. He singles out Welles’s Falstaff performance and the film’s dazzling direction, editing and battle sequence.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate