Critics’ reviews

Time Regained (1999)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 72: 7 positive, 4 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Time Regained

72
Positive
7
Mixed
4
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Time Regained, with praise centred on Ruiz’s inventive visual treatment of Proust’s shifting memories and chronology. The cinematography, sets and period detail draw repeated admiration, while several reviews find the adaptation intellectually accomplished without sacrificing pleasure or emotion. Performances receive less consistent attention, though Variety singles out Marcello Mazzarella as Proust, and IndieWire praises John Malkovich’s restraint.

The main divide concerns how much familiarity with Proust the film demands, with responses ranging from enthusiastic to distinctly mixed rather than outright negative. Even favourable reviews acknowledge that its fragmented storytelling can be difficult to follow. IndieWire finds it confusing and rambling but absorbing when approached as a sequence of scenes. The AV Club offers the strongest reservation: it admires the cinematic handling of temporal shifts but finds too little emotional connection with the characters to carry viewers unfamiliar with the novel.

The Guardian
11 June 2000 · Philip French
90*

French praises the film as magnificent, describing it as a dazzling rendering of Proust’s final volume. He singles out its kaleidoscopic scope and its interplay between Proust as writer and participant.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
8 December 2016 · Richard Brody
90*

Brody regards Ruiz’s adaptation as a triumph that brings the filmmaker’s artistry to exquisite new heights. He singles out its inventive visual effects and meticulous recreation of Proust’s era.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
85*

Thomas finds Ruiz’s adaptation an exquisite, sophisticated achievement, though its shifting focus can marginalize some of its stars. He especially praises the inventive visual techniques and the sumptuous cinematography and set design.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

The critic calls the film a technically dazzling and intellectually accomplished literary adaptation. They praise Ruiz’s imaginative use of narrative, memory, emotion and dream to convey Proust’s complex novel.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
18 November 2018 · ★★★★ · Jake Cole
80

Cole praises Ruiz’s ambitious adaptation as visually and emotionally rich. He singles out the Blu-ray’s intricate art direction, cinematography, and sound mixing.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TCh
70*

The available description suggests a positive verdict on Ruiz’s ambitious adaptation. It singles out the film’s unusual blend of avant-garde art film and lavish literary period drama.

Read the full review →
Variety
20 May 1999 · David Rooney
70*

Rooney finds the film engrossing and entertaining despite its fragmented, difficult-to-follow adaptation of Proust. He praises its polished period production and standout performances, especially Marcello Mazzarella as Proust.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

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

Read the full review →
The New York Times
16 June 2000
64*

The accessible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no praise or complaint that can be reliably attributed to the review.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
30 September 1999 · festival review · David Bourgeois
55*

The critic finds the film confusing and rambling for viewers unfamiliar with Proust, but ultimately absorbing if experienced as a series of scenes. He particularly praises the casting, singling out John Malkovich’s restrained performance.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
29 March 2002 · Scott Tobias
45*

Tobias finds the film an accomplished but ultimately hard-to-follow adaptation that will leave viewers unfamiliar with Proust behind. He praises Ruiz’s inventive translation of the novel’s temporal shifts into cinematic form, while faulting the characters’ lack of emotional resonance.

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