Critics’ reviews

Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 68: 3 positive, 5 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle

68
Positive
3
Mixed
5
Negative
0

Most critics like it, and none dislike it outright: three positive reviews, five mixed, nobody negative. The praise clusters on the jokes, which several reviewers find funnier and more inventive than the usual gross-out stoner comedy, and on John Cho and Kal Penn, who are repeatedly described as a well-matched pair. Variety calls them a perfectly matched comic duo, and the film’s playful, pointed treatment of racism is counted as a strength by more than one critic.

The reservations are about evenness and familiarity. The Guardian finds dull stretches between the horribly funny moments; Empire thinks the toilet humour holds back a warmer, richer comedy; Slant Magazine, the lowest score, finds it hard to tell apart from earlier stoner films and is troubled by the White Castle promotion and the handling of Asian stereotypes. The spread is moderate rather than wide, from one outright rave to a shrug, and two reviews could not be fully read, so the picture is incomplete.

Time Out
23 April 2008 · DA
90*

The critic calls the stoner comedy one of the funniest films they have seen in years. The visible text singles out its humor for praise.

Read the full review →
Variety
20 June 2004 · festival review · Robert Koehler
80*

Koehler finds the comedy energetic, clever, and more inventive than a conventional gross-out film. He especially praises John Cho and Kal Penn as a perfectly matched comic duo.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
28 July 2004 · eug
75*

The critic finds the film very funny despite its lack of political correctness. The review singles out the outrageous encounters along Harold and Kumar’s burger-seeking adventure as a source of comedy.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
27 July 2004 · Andy Bailey
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its criticism is hidden behind a paywall. No verdict or specific praise or complaint is visible in the available text.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 July 2004
64*

The page could not be read, so the critic’s verdict cannot be established. Its headline suggests a focus on the film’s treatment of stereotypes, but the review’s specific praise or complaints are unavailable.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Damon Wise
60*

Wise finds the comedy warm, inventive and often hysterical, but says it is held back by toilet humour and falls short of its promise. He particularly praises its richer characters and its playful treatment of racism.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
4 March 2005 · Peter Bradshaw
60*

Bradshaw finds the comedy uneven, with stretches of dullness offset by horribly funny moments. He praises Kumar’s fantasy involving a human-sized bag of weed as an inspired gag.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
25 July 2004 · ★★/4 · Nick Schager
50

Schager finds the comedy occasionally amusing but ultimately unsatisfying and largely indistinguishable from earlier stoner comedies. He singles out its shameless promotion of White Castle and troubling handling of Asian stereotypes.

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