Critics’ reviews

Shattered (1991)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 64: 3 positive, 3 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Shattered

64
Positive
3
Mixed
3
Negative
1

Most critics take Shattered as a competent Hitchcock-flavoured thriller that works in spite of a far-fetched plot. The praise clusters on Petersen’s handling of the twists and red herrings, and on the final reveal, which several reviews consider the film’s strongest card. The warmest notices call it sleek, amusing and entertaining; the cooler ones still allow that it grips, and that its clues are planted with some care.

The reservations gather around plausibility and the sheer number of bluffs. Radio Times finds the double-bluffing exhausting, even while admiring the ending that causes it. The one outright dissent comes from Variety, which judges the film emotionally uninvolving and its implausibilities fatal to the suspense, reserving its approval for Bob Hoskins’s lively private detective. The spread is wide for so few reviews, running from a strong recommendation down to a dismissal, and two of the seven cannot be read closely enough to place with confidence.

Los Angeles Times
11 October 1991 · Kevin Thomas
85*

Thomas finds the thriller sleek, amusing, and highly entertaining despite its far-fetched plot. He particularly praises Petersen’s energetic direction, visual panache, and execution of the surprise twist.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
75*

Thomas finds the thriller neat and satisfying, with silly moments that do not derail its suspense. He praises Petersen’s control of the twists and red herrings, which build to an effective reveal.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· NF
70*

The review describes the film as a credible, gripping thriller. It praises the use of ambiguous clues and a complex approach, though the available description is truncated.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The page content is blocked, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No praise or complaint can be reliably identified from the available text.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
11 October 1991
64*

The page returned only an access error, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No specific praise or complaint is available from the provided text.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · John Ferguson
60

Ferguson finds the thriller more successful than most Hitchcock tributes, though its many bluffs and double bluffs become exhausting. He singles out the neat ending twist for praise, while noting it also contributes to the problem.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1990 · Variety Staff
30*

The critic finds the thriller far-fetched and emotionally uninvolving, with implausibilities undermining its attempt at suspense. The review singles out Bob Hoskins’s lively private detective as an enlivening presence.

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