The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

Nesselson finds the film funny, sharply written, and genuinely touching. She praises its polished repartee and its tender, irreverent handling of family, friendship, and mortality.

Caplan considers the film more profound than its predecessor and ultimately an argument for tolerance. She praises Arcand’s exquisite, witty dialogue, which she says also handles serious issues.

The review gives the film a positive assessment, comparing its premise to Big Fish. It singles out the dying professor’s reflections on his life and reconciliation with his son.

The review finds the film moving and cerebral, balancing its themes with emotional depth. It singles out the father-son relationship and the cast’s comic chemistry for praise.

Denby finds The Barbarian Invasions a tender, moving meditation on death, friendship, and what one generation passes to another. He especially praises Arcand’s exquisite tenderness in the final connection between Rémy and Nathalie.

The page is identified as a review, but its content is blocked. The critic’s verdict and any specific praise or complaint cannot be determined.

The page is a review, but its paywall shell does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no accessible detail about what Poirier praises or criticizes.

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no specific praise or complaint from the review.

Brunette finds the film’s social analysis facile and its dialogue overly theatrical, though he says its emotional restraint ultimately saves it. He praises the quiet, moving scenes of farewell and a man accepting his mortality.

Murray finds the film winning at times but muddled and overly broad in its social criticism. He praises Arcand’s sparkling dialogue and especially the film’s insight into how people decide what they owe the dying.

Peters finds the film disappointing despite its promising ideas. He singles out clumsy plotting and shallow characterization as weaknesses.

Gonzalez gives the film a harshly negative verdict, calling it self-congratulatory and insular. He particularly faults its crude reunion of the original cast and its weak political context for the characters’ offensive sex talk.

Bradshaw finds the film smug, cynical and unconvincing, rejecting its plea for sympathy. He especially condemns its reactionary sexual politics and the charmless, conceited behavior of its characters.