Critics’ reviews

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

7 reviews from 7 publications. Critics’ score 84: 7 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

84
Positive
7
Mixed
0
Negative
0

The reviews are uniformly positive. Praise clusters on Elizabeth Taylor as Martha, with several critics calling it the best work she has done, and on Richard Burton, whose mix of passivity and real aggression a few single out over her. Mike Nichols, in his first feature, gets credit for keeping nearly all of Albee’s language while bringing the camera in close enough that the dialogue plays as film rather than filmed theatre. One critic finds the opening credits, a night walk across campus, oddly affecting.

Reservations are few and mild. Time Out thinks the playing is too relentless for realism when the material is at least half fantasy, and Empire calls the experience excruciating, if often painfully funny. The spread is narrow: no review dips below the warm end, and the recent notices sit close to the trade reviews of 1966. The older critics stress how shocking the language was for its time; the newer ones note how little of the heat has gone out of it.

The Hollywood Reporter
22 June 1966 · James Powers
90*

The critic declares the film a motion picture masterpiece, an instant classic that will sweep the Oscars and succeed at the box office without compromise. Nichols receives the greatest credit for the implacable engagement the film creates for its audience, while the adaptation preserves nearly all of Albee's language and vitality.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1965 · Variety Staff
90*

The film transforms Albee's powerful drama into a brilliant motion picture through strong adaptation, production, and direction by Mike Nichols in his feature debut, along with four outstanding performances. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton deliver standout portrayals that capture the characters' complex mix of sensuality, spite, and tenderness.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
25 March 2026
85*

The critic celebrates the enduring power of Mike Nichols’ 1966 debut as a sizzling, gut-busting adaptation that has kept the play in the cultural zeitgeist for six decades. Particular praise goes to Elizabeth Taylor’s searing, ferocious yet vulnerable performance as Martha, which crackles with emotional electricity alongside Richard Burton.

Read the full review →
Film Comment
1 January 2016 · Richard Combs
80*

The critic highlights the film's opening credits sequence as strangely affecting, with its nighttime campus walk and greenhouse imagery suggesting buried lives and alternative possibilities for the characters. It notes how the adaptation marks Nichols' successful shift from theater to a more cinematic style, using close-ups effectively to stress Albee's dialogue.

Read the full review →
Time Out
23 July 2015 · ★★★★ · GA
80

The critic finds Edward Albee's vitriolic stage portrayal translated grainily and effectively to the screen. Taylor delivers what is probably her finest performance as the blowsy harridan Martha, Burton is solid if not quite as hammy as usual, and the verbal fireworks are surprisingly convincing, though the film is played too relentlessly for realism when the subject is at least half fantasy.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · David Parkinson
75*

The critic praises the film's intense, close-up focus on the Burtons' performances and its shocking language for the era, calling it an excruciating but often painfully funny experience that was a commercial success despite production difficulties.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
11 February 2016 · festival review · Jennie Kermode
90*

The critic highlights the film's complex, unflinching close-up of a damaged marriage and praises the lead performances, calling Taylor's a career best and Burton the standout for his mix of passive and real aggression.

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