Critics’ reviews

The Barefoot Contessa (1954)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 71: 4 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of The Barefoot Contessa

71
Positive
4
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to The Barefoot Contessa as a sharp satire of the film business, with praise clustering around its dialogue and performances. Ava Gardner is central to that approval: the reviews find her well suited to the title role and praise the fire of her performance. Humphrey Bogart also earns credit for his quietly effective work and cynical lines, while the writing’s wit and sharply drawn characters give the Hollywood satire its bite.

The available scores suggest a fairly narrow spread, though the evidence for the more cautious responses is incomplete. The New Yorker identifies a strangely undramatic quality, yet still finds the treatment of ambition and the distance between screen image and private life incisive and poignant. Three reviews lack enough accessible text to establish their reservations, so there is no securely documented pattern of dissent.

Radio Times
★★★★ · Tony Sloman
80

Sloman presents the film as a mordant satire of the movie business, though less theatrical than Mankiewicz’s All About Eve. He singles out Ava Gardner’s beauty and performance as central to the film’s appeal.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1953 · Variety Staff
80*

Variety gives the film a strongly positive verdict, praising its sharp characters, wit, and high-voltage dialogue. It singles out Ava Gardner as ideal in the title role and Humphrey Bogart for his quietly effective performance.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
28 March 2012 · Richard Brody
75*

Brody finds the film incisive and poignant, despite its strangely undramatic quality. He especially praises its exploration of Hollywood ambition and the divide between an actor’s screen image and private life.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · empire
70*

The review finds the film an entertaining satire of the movie industry. It praises Gardner’s fiery performance and Bogart’s cynical lines.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. No praise or complaint can be confirmed from the provided page.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 September 1954
64*

The page identifies a review, but its text is inaccessible, so the critic’s verdict cannot be determined. No specific praise or complaint can be reliably extracted.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TM
64*

The page is a review, but the critic’s verdict cannot be determined from the available text. Its description singles out the film’s funeral-to-flashback structure and multiple guides to the central character’s life.

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