Critics’ reviews

The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 49: 0 positive, 5 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of The Ballad of Jack and Rose

49
Positive
0
Mixed
5
Negative
5

Nobody comes out firmly in favour. The reviews split evenly between mixed and negative, and the praise lands almost entirely in one place: the acting. Daniel Day-Lewis is singled out again and again for a naturalistic, charismatic performance, with Camilla Belle and Catherine Keener also admired, and several critics credit Rebecca Miller with complex, carefully drawn characters and some well-made individual scenes.

The complaints are just as consistent. Most critics find the symbolism clumsy and the storytelling precious, tipping from poignancy into melodrama; others add that it runs long, that its psychology is thin, and that the coda is weak. The spread is wide, from middling three-star notices to Eye for Film, which calls the film awful despite its good looks and its cast. One small quarrel over Keener: The Guardian finds her role underwritten, while Variety counts her among the film’s clear assets.

RogerEbert.com
64*

The page is blocked by a browser check, so the critic’s verdict cannot be verified. No specific praise or complaint is visible in the available content.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
3 March 2005 · Beth Pinsker
64*

The page identifies this as a review of the film, but the review text is unavailable. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined from the visible content.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
25 March 2005 · A. O. Scott
64*

The available page does not expose the critic’s verdict. Its specific praise or criticism cannot be verified from the accessible text.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
8 March 2005 · ★★½/4 · Nick Schager
62

Schager finds the film’s idealism insightful but its dreamy, precious storytelling frustrating. He singles out Daniel Day-Lewis’s naturalistic performance for praise and criticizes Miller’s clunky symbolism.

Read the full review →
Total Film
31 March 2006 · ★★★ · Total Film
60

The review finds the film engrossing but patchy, ultimately more pretentious than poignant. It praises the complex characterisation and strong performances, especially Daniel Day-Lewis and the young cast, while faulting trite metaphors and melodrama.

Read the full review →
Empire
31 March 2006 · Anna Smith
40*

Smith finds the drama atmospheric but ultimately undermined by clumsy symbolism, indulgent length, and a weak coda. She praises the characters and singles out the performances of Daniel Day-Lewis and the supporting cast.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · Dave Aldridge
40

Aldridge gives the film a low rating, suggesting a largely unfavorable verdict. The available review text focuses on Day-Lewis’s performance and the family relationships behind the film.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
31 March 2006 · Peter Bradshaw
35*

Bradshaw finds the film eccentric and unsatisfying, failing to make the most of its cast. He praises Daniel Day-Lewis’s charisma and Camilla Belle’s performance, but faults Catherine Keener’s underdeveloped role.

Read the full review →
Variety
26 January 2005 · festival review · Todd McCarthy
35*

McCarthy finds the drama distracted and psychologically underdeveloped, despite its strong performances and well-crafted scenes. He particularly praises the cast, singling out Daniel Day-Lewis, Catherine Keener, and Camilla Belle for their convincing character work.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
15 March 2006 · The Exile
15*

The critic finds the film ultimately awful despite its visual beauty and strong performances. Daniel Day-Lewis and Catherine Keener’s understated scenes earn praise, while the film’s excessive symbolism and lack of restraint draw criticism.

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