Metascore
49

Mixed or average reviews - based on 19 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 19
  2. Negative: 5 out of 19
Watch On
  1. 90
    So truly and exceptionally fine, a spiny and dispassionate little masterpiece of a marriage movie.
  2. 75
    Strong performances and sharp dialogue distinguish Jeff Lipsky's melancholy second feature, which charts the two-year course of a "perfect" relationship whose flaws are evident from the outset.
  3. Curiously, the film seems to have no discernible point, and yet -- this is practically unique -- the absence of a point becomes, in itself, a form of narrative interest.
  4. Mr. Lipsky’s screenplay, a messy collection of fragments arranged chronologically, adds up to one of the most intimate screen portraits of a relationship ever attempted.
  5. The hero remains such an exhibitionistically cocky, walled-off jerk that Flannel Pajamas' glib conversational ''candor'' yields no mystery. And that's a problem in two hours of talk.
  6. Love can be a battleground, and, despite its homey-sounding title and gentle, almost nonchalant air, Jeff Lipsky's Flannel Pajamas gives us a series of messages from the front.
  7. 58
    You never really end up rooting for their happiness, as a couple or individually, so emotionally there's not much at stake.
  8. The script is overwritten and has too many themes--suicide, abuse, anti-Semitism--to support, but Nicholson does remarkable work in an unsympathetic role, helped by Lipsky's fine control of his characters.
  9. What starts out seeming like a poor man's Woody Allen morphs into something closer to an American version of "Scenes From a Marriage."
  10. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Visually, the film is without flair or ambition, conveying no sense of atmosphere or mood. But the performances put it over.
  11. Reviewed by: Rob Nelson
    50
    At a full two hours, Lipsky's talky movie is more compelling in its second half, when the spouses finally get around to being themselves.
  12. In what essentially is a two-character play, Kirk and Nicholson behave more like acting partners than real people. Their lack of appetite for each other is particularly awkward in the frequent scenes requiring casual nudity and sexual activity.
  13. 40
    The results are far from perfect: For one thing, Lipsky is so far from being a fluid visual storyteller that the garishly lit, appallingly composed Flannel Pajamas makes another two-hander talkfest Lipsky famously distributed -- "My Dinner With Andre" -- seem like "Lawrence of Arabia" by comparison.
  14. For all the time we spend watching Justin and Nicole negotiate their needs, we have no idea who these people are.
  15. 38
    For much of Flannel Pajamas I wondered if the couple's big problem was that Stuart was secretly gay. Nothing so interesting - he's just a narcissistic control freak and she's off-puttingly needy.
  16. Ever been on a blind date that you knew would be dismal from the start? Well, this is the movie version of that date, stretched out over the slowest two hours imaginable.
  17. 30
    The two main characters are so shallow and self-involved -- not to mention the friends, family members and sundry apparatchiks they lug around with them -- that the two hours of Flannel Pajamas begin to feel like real time.
  18. 25
    Opaque acting, excruciating dialogue, and flat, affectless direction certainly don't help, but even in brilliant hands, Flannel Pajamas would still be a movie about two horrible, unsympathetic people doing dreadful things to each other, and learning nothing in the process. Why should anyone else have to endure it too?
  19. Reviewed by: Don R. Lewis
    20
    The thing is, these chatty, pedantic, annoying characters are simply not interesting enough to follow for five minutes, let alone over two hours.
User Score
6.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 10 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 5
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 5
  3. Negative: 3 out of 5
  1. JerryM.
    Apr 8, 2009
    10
    "One of the wisest films I can remember about love and human intimacy. I will not forget it." Roger Ebert That about says it all.
  2. EvieB.
    Sep 4, 2007
    2
    Wow, this movie was really boring. And it irritated me that the seasons never changed. When they went to Montana for Christmas, the leaves Wow, this movie was really boring. And it irritated me that the seasons never changed. When they went to Montana for Christmas, the leaves were just turning. When they got married in June, the leves were just turning. Bad art direction. Full Review »
  3. drewH.
    Aug 11, 2007
    1
    This is going on the very bottom shelf. If you believe the failures of marriage are best expressed in a masochistic, tedious two hours full This is going on the very bottom shelf. If you believe the failures of marriage are best expressed in a masochistic, tedious two hours full of unbelievably self-involved individuals who lack the humor and self-awareness to be relatable, then this is the torture rod for you. Maybe stereotypical "Neurotic New Yorkers" (as in the roughly two percent of the city that actually lives in posh 36 floor Tribeca flats) feels this way about marriage but that species is by all accounts, insane. That and the dialog is incredulous and the acting doesn't get around it. So many loose ends are never developed... like did the mother have Alzheimer's or what? This movie needs to be beaten with a humor stick and so does the scriptwriter's face. Mercilessly. Full Review »