Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
I Shot Andy Warhol
Metascore
75 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 20 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 20
  2. Mixed: 4 out of 20
  3. Negative: 1 out of 20
view
per page
  1. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Edward Guthmann
    100
    Typically, films about '60s subculture recycle the same set of media cliches and teach us nothing. Harron approaches the milieu with curiosity, compassion and an anthropologist's eye.
  2. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Owen Gleiberman
    100
    As riveting as its title.
  3. Salon.com
    Reviewed by: Laura Miller
    90
    In the title role, Lili Taylor continues her campaign to become the female Harvey Keitel, a consistently engaging character actor with a penchant for droll, oddball parts. She's wildly fun to watch.
  4. Variety
    Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    An exemplary and dynamic work that goes about as far as a narrative film can in both analyzing a complex personality and portraying a cultural scene.
  5. The New Republic
    Reviewed by: Stanley Kauffmann
    90
    It's dazzling and serious, with flurries of impulse playing around a persistent core of madness. [6 May 1996, p. 24]
    All this critic's reviews
  6. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    89
    Mary Harron's movie turns out to be anything but a sensationalistic bio-picture; it neither sanctifies nor demonizes the shooter or her famous victim. What the movie accomplishes is something trickier: It treats its two principals, Solanis and Warhol, with respect and humanity.
  7. Rolling Stone
    Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    88
    Immensely entertaining and provocative.
  8. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    88
    Lili Taylor plays Solanas as mad but not precisely irrational. She gives the character spunk, irony and a certain heroic courage.
  9. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Mike Clark
    88
    A cool and clinical reportorial remembrance whose very title reminds us who Solanas was. [3 May 1996, p. 10D]
    All this critic's reviews
  10. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Elvis Mitchell
    80
    The film's greatest directorial success is in finding a thoroughly entertaining way of inviting the audience to share Valerie's point of view.
  11. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Jonathan Rosenbaum
    80
    If you want to know what the Warhol scene was all about, this is even better than the documentaries.
  12. Christian Science Monitor
    Reviewed by: David Sterritt
    75
    Buoyed by Lili Taylor's explosive acting, the movie paints a vivid portrait of Warhol's eccentric universe without stinting on lurid details and outrageous behaviors.
  13. San Francisco Examiner
    Reviewed by: Barry Walters
    75
    After more than an hour of fun, the film turns dark as Solanas' mental state worsens. Not only does the brilliant kook wear out her welcome with Warhol, but the portrayal also grates on the viewer.
  14. ReelViews
    Reviewed by: James Berardinelli
    75
    This is a film of powerful ideas, impressive set design, and compelling performances.
  15. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Kevin Thomas
    70
    Might have benefited from a more satirical edge.
  16. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Staff (Not credited)
    60
    The film does nothing to demythologize the '60s; rather, it uses prevailing myths as a substitute for critical thinking.
  17. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: Terrence Rafferty
    60
    The movie is fairly entertaining; it's too bad the guest of honor is such a drag.
  18. Newsweek
    Reviewed by: David Ansen
    50
    Harron sets the stage expertly, but her lack of a point of view ultimately enervates the movie. [6 May 1996, p. 78]
    All this critic's reviews
  19. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Desson Thomson
    40
    Feels so slight and pointless.
  20. Washington Post
    Reviewed by: Rita Kempley
    30
    Obstreperous, male-bashing pain in the patoot.
prev next
Page:
  • 1

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
tbd

No user score yet- Awaiting 3 more ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 1
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 1
  3. Negative: 0 out of 1
  1. NicoDaFlagburna
    9
    On the surface the film feels compressed and seems to mirror the tone of Warhol culture. On a deeper level Harron is implicitly examining the role of violence as a part of the human experience. Solanas is used as a narrative frame and the audience see the world from her perspective. The film is not about Andy Warhol or the 1960s, it is an examination of the internal and external workings of the human mind. In this sense it is extremely complex, Solanas is exposed as a person who is organised and articulate yet weak and exploited. She doesn't see people as individuals, she sees them as personalities and defines herself the same way therefore leaving her vulnerable to violence. She is criticized as comfortable within a violent world and desperate to belong. You can learn about violence by watching how her world changes when she leaves confined settings and merges into the streets. Mary Harron is admirable in her attempt to criticize human desire and there is a great deal to talk about, though the film is not perfect. Is Solanas a hero or is she a loser? Nobody knows though she will sure argue her case.… Full Review »