Critics’ reviews

Vertical Limit (2000)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 54: 3 positive, 3 mixed, 5 negative.

Back to our review of Vertical Limit

54
Positive
3
Mixed
3
Negative
5

The reviews lean towards disappointment, though praise repeatedly centres on Campbell’s handling of the mountain action. Even several detractors find effective moments of vertiginous danger, while the more enthusiastic critics regard the stunts and sustained tension as enough to carry a familiar adventure. The aerial photography and James Newton Howard’s score also draw praise, and Digital Spy singles out Scott Glenn’s performance for bringing depth to the brooding mountain man.

The main reservations concern thin characters, predictable plotting and unnecessary subplots, but critics differ sharply over how much these weaknesses matter. For some, the action compensates; for others, the script drains the danger of urgency and leaves too few convincing thrills. The effects are another point of disagreement: the Evening Standard enjoys the snow-and-ice spectacle, whereas Total Film finds the artificial-looking effects and sets damaging to the suspense. The spread runs from enthusiastic entertainment to weary frustration with the formula.

Evening Standard
10 April 2012
80*

The critic finds the film wildly entertaining despite its absurd, over-the-top approach. They single out its nonstop action, stunts and snow-and-ice effects as the source of its appeal.

Read the full review →
Variety
29 November 2000 · Todd McCarthy
75*

McCarthy finds the film an exciting, muscular adventure despite its one-dimensional characters and hokey plot elements. He especially praises Campbell’s tense, visually inventive action sequences, including a breathtaking camera shot during a climber’s fall.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
5 December 2000 · Mike Goodridge
64*

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

Read the full review →
The New York Times
8 December 2000
64*

The review’s verdict cannot be verified because the page returned an access-denial message. Its specific praise or criticism is likewise unavailable.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
21 January 2001 · Philip French
60*

French finds the film effective at sustaining tension, though its characters are less interesting than its dramatic background. He praises the spectacular settings and singles out the absurd Pakistani army ritual and the wealthy climbers’ destructive self-discovery.

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

The critic finds the adventure predictable but watchable, with an uncharismatic hero. Enjoyable action sequences help compensate for clichéd characterisations.

Read the full review →
Total Film
19 January 2001 · ★★ · Total Film
40

The critic finds the film formulaic and ultimately dull, with too few effective thrills to overcome its weaknesses. They especially fault the artificial-looking effects and sets, which undermine the mountain action and suspense.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· TJ
35*

The review is broadly negative, finding the film’s contrived, over-plotted screenplay and second-rank stars hard to overcome. It gives Campbell credit for making effective use of vertiginous jeopardy.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
8 December 2000 · Nathan Rabin
25*

Rabin finds the film weighed down by clichés, needless subplots, and thin characterization. He praises Campbell’s impressive action sequences but says the weak script drains the story of urgency and suspense.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
9 July 2002 · 7/10 · Dek Hogan
70

The review finds the formulaic plot outweighed by Campbell’s energetic command of action. It especially praises Scott Glenn’s layered performance as the brooding mountain man.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
26 July 2001 · Nicola Osborne
40*

The critic finds the film entertaining in places but ultimately undermined by a weak story and average script. She praises the aerial photography and James Newton Howard’s score, while criticizing the CGI and characterization.

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