Critics’ reviews

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 55: 0 positive, 8 mixed, 3 negative.

Back to our review of Once Upon a Time in Mexico

55
Positive
0
Mixed
8
Negative
3

Most critics land in the middle, and they agree on where the fun is. Johnny Depp’s CIA agent is singled out again and again as the best thing in the film, and several reviews say the energy drops whenever he is off screen. The action is generally thought to be handled well, and more than one critic finds the whole thing enjoyable in a loud, brash way even while admitting it disappoints.

The reservations cluster on the plot. Nearly everyone calls it overcomplicated, meandering or rushed, and a few find it a repeat of the series’ formula with Banderas pushed to the margins. The spread is fairly narrow: eight reviews are mixed, three are negative, none are positive. The AV Club takes the harder line, calling it an overstuffed misfire while still praising Banderas and the action choreography; Slant finds the violence increasingly rote. Collider, writing years later, mostly commends the Blu-ray transfer.

The Guardian
26 September 2003 · Peter Bradshaw
65*

Bradshaw finds the film boisterously entertaining but says it loses energy when Johnny Depp is off screen. He singles out Depp’s comic performance as the main source of its fun.

Read the full review →
Variety
28 August 2003 · festival review · David Rooney
65*

Rooney finds the film an entertaining, technically accomplished action spectacle, though its overcomplicated plot weakens it. He especially praises Johnny Depp’s inventive performance and the soulful flashbacks to the Mariachi’s relationship with Carolina.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
3 September 2003 · Lee Marshall
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but its verdict is not accessible. The review text is behind a paywall, so its specific praise or criticism cannot be determined.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
12 September 2003 · A.O. Scott
64*

The page is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. Its praise or complaint cannot be verified from the available text.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GM
64*

The available description characterizes the film as brash and flamboyant, but does not reveal the critic’s overall verdict. It singles out the film’s influences, though the description is cut off before specifying them.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · ★★★ · Mark Dinning
60

Dinning finds the film disappointing overall but still terrific fun. He praises Johnny Depp’s comic performance, while criticizing the meandering plot and the way it sidelines Banderas.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · Adam Smith
60

Smith argues the film repeats the series’ familiar formula and feels stuck in a groove. He singles out Johnny Depp’s CIA agent as the film’s most entertaining element.

Read the full review →
Total Film
26 September 2003 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review finds the film enjoyable but too rushed and unfocused to match its Sergio Leone inspirations. It especially praises Johnny Depp’s entertaining, quirky performance as Sands.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
22 September 2003 · ★½/4 · Jeremiah Kipp
38

Kipp gives the film a sharply negative verdict, faulting its sham plotting and increasingly rote violence. He singles out Johnny Depp’s lost, wandering character as the film’s more effective element.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
9 September 2003 · Keith Phipps
30*

Phipps finds the film an overstuffed, convoluted misfire that loses its direction and humor. He praises Banderas’s performance and Rodriguez’s action choreography, but faults the long expository stretches and sloppy plotting.

Read the full review →
Collider
1 February 2011 · Andre Dellamorte
30*

The critic finds the film chaotic and wearying, with a plot that struggles to connect its many characters and set pieces. They praise its clean, beautiful Blu-ray presentation, which makes the film more palatable.

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