- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
88It overflows with a combustible blend of street sensitivity and testosterone.
-
Edward Norton is in top form as Ray, a burned-out detective whose investigation into the deaths of four cops leads him to suspect his brother-in-law, Officer Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell, also terrific).
-
75Its value is unquestionable as drama and moral provocation.
-
70The stark drama harkens back to Sidney Lumet classics like "Serpico" and "Prince of the City"-filmmaking that went after an unadorned, jagged realism, with acting to match.
-
63The final 15 minutes are so awful that it's difficult to believe that the bulk of the film is actually decent.
-
63If you enjoy a cop drama, regardless how packed with trite and worn plot points, Pride and Glory should do the trick.
-
60What makes the characters in Pride and Glory real -- and raises the movie above the standard corrupt-cop fare -- is their capacity to live and die in shades of gray.
-
58At times, Pride and Glory seems to be about a war between actors, not cops. Nobody comes off well.
-
50It follows the well-worn pathways of countless police dramas before it.
-
50Full of interesting little grace notes, and the cast is excellent, yet it grows more and more frustrating.
-
50It's lifted from pretty much every movie or TV show you've ever seen about police corruption, only not done as well.
-
50Gritty, jumpy and rife with cliches.
-
50Everything in this good-cop/bad-cop action drama is shrouded in gray and attended by wailing. This isn't a feel-good genre, granted, but does it have to feel this bad?
-
50A talented cast and moments of brutal violence can't dislodge a sense of ho-hum predictability in Pride and Glory.
-
50You can feel the debt to Sidney Lumet's '70s studies in police corruption and cop brotherhood, but O'Connor never captures the edge of danger, anger and moral stands being ground up in compromise.
-
50Not especially good, but there is enough rough artistry in Mr. O'Connor's direction to make you wish the film were better.
-
50Feels like a film that should have been made at least 25 years ago. Or made as a period piece. Heavy, doom-laden and, unfortunately, entirely predictable.
-
42A movie full of actors improvising their idea of how cops in a Scorsese flick would talk. It's a special sort of cartoonishness, a hard-to-pin-down brand of emotionally grandstanding fakeness you sometimes see in movies trying way too hard to be "gritty."
-
40Overshoots the mark by spinning its implausible, hyperviolent tale around too tight a family circle.
-
40There's something fundamentally unconvincing and contrived about the story. Forget the fact that O'Connor hauls out every cliché in the bad cop handbook and the dialogue is more boilerplate than hard-boiled. The premise itself is just plain preposterous.
-
40It's a good thing this movie has been sitting on the shelf for a year or more, because, apart from the difference in release dates, there's little to distinguish this new cop drama from last year's cop drama "We Own the Night."
-
40The movie is as histrionic as it is ham-fisted, a bad combination that leads to scenes such as the one in which officers threaten to torture a baby to get their point across.
-
38Edward Norton plays Ray, a (possibly) honest cop wearing an unexplained scar positioned just so on his cheek. It looks like it was bought in the markdown aisle of Halloween Mart on Nov. 1.
-
38Pride and Glory would be a pretty cool movie if it were made in 1982.
-
38It's déjà vu all over again. There isn't much more to say about "We Own the Night 2." Oops, make that Pride and Glory.
-
30Pride and Glory would be risible if it weren't so reprehensible.
-
25A single 125-minute monstrosity of a cop movie.
-
25Norton is infamous for rewriting scripts and acting as a de facto director on his movies yet he seems lost and defeated here.
-
How ironic that a movie filled with police officers should end up feeling like a hostage situation.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 13 out of 15
-
Mixed: 1 out of 15
-
Negative: 1 out of 15
-
BobG.3
-
JohnH5I didn't like this movie. Edward Norton's performance was good but I found the movie to move too slowly.
-
8