Critics’ reviews

Pink Flamingos (1972)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 66: 5 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of Pink Flamingos

66
Positive
5
Mixed
2
Negative
2

Most critics respond positively to Pink Flamingos, with praise centred on Waters’s ability to make deliberate bad taste funny rather than merely shocking. The favourable reviews admire its audacity, comic invention and willingness to provoke, with several arguing that its humour remains effective despite, or because of, the repellent material. The use of music also earns attention for making an obscene scene into a pointed comic set piece.

The spread is wide, however, and the central disagreement is over whether the disgust produces enough comedy to justify itself. Time Out stresses the succession of deliberately disgusting gags, while Variety condemns both the material and the poor cinematography. The Los Angeles Times rejects claims of groundbreaking filmmaking and finds the execution technically inept, but still praises Divine’s larger-than-life performance and the cast’s camaraderie.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · Alan Jones
100

Jones presents the film as a gleefully outrageous celebration of bad taste. He singles out its shocking set pieces and Divine’s infamous finale as hallmarks of Waters’s comic provocation.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
21 June 2022 · ★★★★½ · Eric Henderson
90

Henderson praises Criterion’s definitive release of Waters’s landmark film. He singles out the restoration’s vivid image and deliberately rough, faithful sound.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Christopher Hemblade
85*

The review finds the film audacious, funny and influential. It particularly praises Waters’ ability to make its provocative bad taste shake up cinema.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
29 March 2002 · Keith Phipps
80*

Phipps finds the film as funny as it is deliberately repellent, and says its bad taste remains relevant. He singles out the comic genius of setting an obscene scene to “Surfin’ Bird.”

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The page content is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint can be verified.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· VG
50*

The review presents the film as an exercise in deliberately appalling taste, warning that it is not for sensitive viewers. Its main complaint is the series of deliberately disgusting gags.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
2 April 1992 · MARK CHALON SMITH
30*

The critic sees the film as a crude, technically inept novelty rather than the groundbreaking work some claim. Divine’s larger-than-life performance and the cast’s camaraderie earn praise amid the criticism.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1973 · Variety Staff
10*

The critic gives the film a scathing verdict, calling it vile, stupid, and repulsive. They single out its poor cinematography and grotesque coprophagy scene as complaints.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
10 August 2007 · Chris
90*

The critic finds the film uproariously funny and entertaining, calling it a classic. They praise its original, skilful execution of its deliberately outrageous material.

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