Critics’ reviews

The Green Mile (1999)

13 reviews from 13 publications. Critics’ score 59: 4 positive, 6 mixed, 3 negative.

Back to our review of The Green Mile

59
Positive
4
Mixed
6
Negative
3

The reviews are mixed, with praise clustering around the performances and Frank Darabont’s careful handling of the death-row setting. Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan draw particular approval, while several critics find the ensemble gives the supernatural story emotional weight. Even some sceptical accounts acknowledge the meticulous craft, and the more favourable reviews value the stillness and unhurried storytelling that allow the relationships to develop.

The disagreement is substantial: the same patience that involves some critics leaves others finding three hours excessive for a simple fable. RogerEbert.com regards the length as allowing the story to develop fully, while less persuaded reviews fault the episodic structure, heavy symbolism and insistent sentimentality. Reservations also extend to racial stereotypes and easily sorted good and bad characters. The Guardian offers the sharpest rejection, finding the death-row drama saccharine and its racial politics patronising, rather than sharing other critics’ response to its emotional appeal.

RogerEbert.com
10 December 1999 · ★★★½/4 · Roger Ebert
88

The critic finds the film involving and well-acted, praising its patient storytelling and strong performances, especially by Tom Hanks and Michael Clarke Duncan, while noting its length allows the story to develop fully.

Read the full review →
Total Film
3 March 2000 · ★★★★
80

Darabont's old-fashioned approach yields powerful, funny, mystical and moving results with standout ensemble acting and effective stillness, though it falls short of Shawshank levels due to episodic structure and minor flaws.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
75*

Darabont delivers a polished, confident adaptation with strong performances and meticulous direction, though it lacks the profundity and nourishment of Shawshank Redemption and feels overly long.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
10 December 1999 · Janet Maslin
70*

The review notes the film's unhurried three-hour length can feel excessive but praises its ability to immerse viewers in the death-row setting and strong ensemble performances despite some talky stretches.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· Rob White
65*

The review highlights the film's focus on grief, moral evasion, and the bond between Tom Hanks's guard and Michael Clarke Duncan's healer on death row. It praises Duncan's performance and the melancholy tone while critiquing reliance on racial stereotypes.

Read the full review →
Variety
29 November 1999 · Todd McCarthy
65*

The critic calls the film intermittently powerful and meticulously crafted but faults its considerable over-length and simplistic notions, noting it has prestige appeal but mixed commercial prospects.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
10 December 1999 · Kenneth Turan
60*

The review acknowledges the strong source material and Darabont's direction but finds the film overly long and reliant on familiar prison-drama tropes, though it benefits from solid performances.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · David McGillivray
60

The adaptation requires suspension of disbelief but effectively manipulates emotions through the relationship between Hanks's guard and the death-row inmate, with strong support from Michael Clarke Duncan.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · NF
55*

The critic finds the film uneven, with too many plot threads and tiresome sentimental elements like the mouse scenes, though the supernatural aspects have emotional power and the production design is strong.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
20 December 1999 · Anthony Lane
50*

The critic describes the film as a lengthy religious allegory centered on a gentle giant convict and a prison guard, highlighting its supernatural elements and the mouse as a symbol while critiquing its heavy-handed symbolism.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
29 November 1999 · Kirk Honeycutt
35*

The critic finds the three-hour adaptation overly self-important and ponderous due to its languorous pace, which burdens a modest fable and makes plot developments predictable. Fine performances by Tom Hanks and the ensemble are noted, but the film is seen as a tough holiday sell despite potential ancillary success.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
25 February 2000 · Peter Bradshaw
20*

Bradshaw finds the film a three-hour stretch of saccharine gibberish and patronising racial politics. He singles out its heritage-style feelgood approach to death-row drama starring Tom Hanks as the main source of irritation.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
19 January 2001 · Angus Wolfe Murray
40*

The critic finds the film overly sentimental and soft, with easy-to-spot good and bad characters and excessive emotion that clogs the narrative. While acknowledging its place among films against capital punishment and praising the cast including Tom Hanks, the review notes that at three hours it feels like too much of a good thing.

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