Critics’ reviews

Ordinary Angels (2024)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 62: 4 positive, 4 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Ordinary Angels

62
Positive
4
Mixed
4
Negative
2

Most critics find Ordinary Angels a decent, old-fashioned true-story drama, and even those who resist it concede the real events are hard to argue with. The praise clusters almost entirely on Hilary Swank, whose performance is called nuanced, forceful and naturalistic by reviewers on both sides of the verdict. Alan Ritchson gets credit from several for carrying the dramatic weight opposite her.

The reservations are about everything around the performances. The film is called predictable, sentimental and too long, and more than one critic notes that it skirts the healthcare politics behind the family’s crisis; Empire says that leaves the viewer angrier than inspired. The spread is wide, running from outright enthusiasm to dismissal. The Los Angeles Times is the sharpest dissenter, arguing the film is less affecting than the story it is based on because Sharon’s motivations never convince.

The Hollywood Reporter
20 February 2024 · Frank Scheck
90*

Scheck finds the true-story drama irresistible and inspirational despite its predictable elements. He praises Hilary Swank’s forceful, nuanced performance and says the rousing finale will have audiences cheering.

Read the full review →
Variety
20 February 2024 · Courtney Howard
78*

Howard finds the film sentimental but ultimately moving, with its community-minded story winning over even cynics. She especially praises Hilary Swank’s nuanced, naturalistic performance, while noting that the score and some heavy-handed explanations weaken the film.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
23 April 2024 · Catherine Bray
65*

Bray finds the film effective as an old-fashioned character drama, though it sidesteps the politics behind the family’s crisis. She particularly praises Alan Ritchson’s dramatic performance.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 February 2024
64*

The page is identified as a review of the film, but its text is inaccessible. The critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be determined.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
22 February 2024 · C · David Ehrlich
57

Ehrlich finds the faith-based drama an interesting change of pace, though not a good film. He praises Hilary Swank’s credible desperation while criticizing the story’s omissions and implausibilities.

Read the full review →
Empire
25 April 2024 · Helen O'Hara
45*

The review finds the story touching but too flat to make a fully compelling drama, and says its healthcare critique leaves the viewer more furious than inspired. It praises the solid performances and heartbreaking setup, while noting that the film’s sermonising is mostly restrained.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
23 February 2024 · Katie Walsh
30*

Walsh finds the film less affecting than the real story, with Sharon’s motivations failing to make her emotional journey convincing. She praises the blizzard and rooftop imagery, but says the film loses the community-care focus that made the true story inspiring.

Read the full review →
Deadline
20 February 2024 · Pete Hammond
78*

Hammond finds the faith-based drama heartfelt and a cut above the genre’s usual fare. He particularly praises Hilary Swank’s commanding, richly defined performance.

Read the full review →
The Playlist
23 February 2024 · B- · Brian Farvour
70

The review finds the film entertaining but overly long and predictable. It praises Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson for bringing commitment and emotional depth to their roles.

Read the full review →
Collider
20 February 2024 · 4/10 · Taylor Gates
40

Gates finds the film formulaic and emotionally manipulative, despite its inspiring true story. She praises Hilary Swank’s charismatic performance but faults the thin characters and drawn-out climax.

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