User Score
8.3 out of 10

Universal acclaim- based on 23 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 23
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 23
  3. Negative: 1 out of 23

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. MichaelD.
    Apr 8, 2008
    10
    Brilliant black comedy that condenses one man's nightmarish evening into a series of bizarre encounters with the after hours crowd of Soho. While it might play on people's fears of urban life, much like the Out of Towners did in the 70's, it is more a commentary on the contrast between the button down, workaday life led by many New Yorkers and the late night, artsy subculture.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. Feb 18, 2011
    10
    Scorsese does it yet again.delivers another classic that will keep you glued to your chair.brilliant!this is a must see movie.it might as well be the funniest movie ever.
  3. Mar 12, 2011
    9
    Un film vraiment brillant de la part de Scorsese qui montre ainsi qu'il maitrise assez bien l'art du burlesque. Une sorte de Very Bad Trip avant l'heure !
  4. Dec 14, 2011
    6
    Pepe: Art sure is ugly. Neil: Shows how much you know about art. The uglier the art, the more it's worth. Pepe: This must be worth a fortune, man. Pepe and Neil are a couple of thieves and just two of the many oddly pretentious characters that Paul Hackett runs into. After meeting a woman at a local coffee shop and scoring her number, Paul heads to downtown SoHo to meet her at her apartment. He expects a romantic evening. What he gets is a bizarre series of events and comedic irony that's too smart for the film’s own good. Of course a twenty dollar bill lost during a hellish cab ride ends up on a Paper-Mache model of Edvard Munchs’ The Scream: We’re stuck in a nightmare. Everything makes sense, yet everything doesn’t. And like Paul, we feel paranoid, nervous, and ultimately, left wanting to catch our breath. Ebert calls it a draining film – and how! When the end credits roll, we feel like we’ve run a marathon. The film doesn’t let up and we want Paul to get home more than he wants to get home. This visual attack of style is painful, yet I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t entertained. We have no idea where this film is going and that keeps us engaged. Every person Paul runs into is unique and there are laughs to be had, but at the expense of confusion and awkwardness. And this film is awkward. We don’t know whether to laugh at our character’s misfortune or stare at his futility. We feel frustrated because Paul is frustrated and in that respect, we can sympathize with his hapless evening. And if that is what Scorsese was going for, he succeeds. As a hellish fever dream, it works. In the ninety-ish minutes we spend with New York’s whacky society, we don’t feel gipped. Some critics will call this a masterpiece. But it ranks nowhere near the caliber of Mean Streets, Goodfellas, or Taxi Driver. That being said, it’s still not a bad picture – has Scorsese made a “bad” picture? I find myself feeling that if anyone other than Scorsese had made it, After Hours wouldn’t have gotten the acclaim that so many people thinks it deserves. Expand
Metascore

Universal acclaim - based on 8 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 8
  2. Negative: 0 out of 8
  1. 100
    After Hours is a brilliant film that is so original, so particular, that we are uncertain from moment to moment exactly how to respond to it. The style of the film creates, in us, the same feeling that the events in the film create in the hero. Interesting.
  2. After Hours is not, ultimately, a satisfying film, but it's often vigorously unsettling.
  3. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    100
    A wickedly funny black comedy that follows the increasingly bizarre series of events that befall hapless word-processer Griffin Dunne after he ventures out of his apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and goes downtown in search of carnal pleasures.