Laurel Canyon

User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 41 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 41
  2. Negative: 3 out of 41
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Thewiseking
    Mar 17, 2003
    2
    An amateurish mess. this film very clearly represents a freshman effort of a not very sharp director. the film is trite, full of hollywood cliche, and embarassing attempts at symbolism. although much of the acting is awful, and the 2 female leads portraying physicians were laughingly miscast, frances mcdormand did turn in a pretty good performance. i fear this director is just anotherAn amateurish mess. this film very clearly represents a freshman effort of a not very sharp director. the film is trite, full of hollywood cliche, and embarassing attempts at symbolism. although much of the acting is awful, and the 2 female leads portraying physicians were laughingly miscast, frances mcdormand did turn in a pretty good performance. i fear this director is just another trust fund kiddie wasting time in hollywood, who ought to give it up. Collapse
Metascore
61

Generally favorable reviews - based on 36 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 19 out of 36
  2. Negative: 2 out of 36
  1. The cast is as likable as it is improbable (especially Nivola, who all but steals the movie as the charmingly decadent rocker).
  2. 60
    McDormand is the best thing about Laurel Canyon. She's also the most unfortunate victim of a film that seems unable or unwilling to give even its most intriguing and compulsively watchable character her due.
  3. 60
    The spectacle of pretty people floating languidly across the screen notwithstanding, Laurel Canyon is short on conviction and long on contrivance. McDormand, however, has a ball.