Metascore
45

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 29
  2. Negative: 7 out of 29
  1. 88
    It overflows with a combustible blend of street sensitivity and testosterone.
  2. Reviewed by: Gregory Kirschling
    83
    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).
  3. 75
    Its value is unquestionable as drama and moral provocation.
  4. The 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.
  5. 63
    The final 15 minutes are so awful that it's difficult to believe that the bulk of the film is actually decent.
  6. Reviewed by: Karl Rozemeyer
    63
    If you enjoy a cop drama, regardless how packed with trite and worn plot points, Pride and Glory should do the trick.
  7. What 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.
  8. At times, Pride and Glory seems to be about a war between actors, not cops. Nobody comes off well.
  9. 50
    It follows the well-worn pathways of countless police dramas before it.
  10. Full of interesting little grace notes, and the cast is excellent, yet it grows more and more frustrating.
  11. 50
    It's lifted from pretty much every movie or TV show you've ever seen about police corruption, only not done as well.
  12. Gritty, jumpy and rife with cliches.
  13. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    50
    Everything 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?
  14. A talented cast and moments of brutal violence can't dislodge a sense of ho-hum predictability in Pride and Glory.
  15. You 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.
  16. 50
    Not especially good, but there is enough rough artistry in Mr. O’Connor’s direction to make you wish the film were better.
  17. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    50
    Feels 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.
  18. A 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."
  19. Overshoots the mark by spinning its implausible, hyperviolent tale around too tight a family circle.
  20. 40
    There’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.
  21. It'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."
  22. The 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.
  23. 38
    Edward 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.
  24. Reviewed by: Cammila Albertson
    38
    Pride and Glory would be a pretty cool movie if it were made in 1982.
  25. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    38
    It'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.
  26. 30
    Pride and Glory would be risible if it weren't so reprehensible.
  27. A single 125-minute monstrosity of a cop movie.
  28. 25
    Norton is infamous for rewriting scripts and acting as a de facto director on his movies yet he seems lost and defeated here.
  29. Reviewed by: Robert Wilonsky
    20
    How ironic that a movie filled with police officers should end up feeling like a hostage situation.
User Score
7.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 29 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 15
  2. Negative: 1 out of 15
  1. Jan 26, 2011
    8
    This movie was shot so realistically that you actually felt like you were in the middle of Washington Heights watching this all play-out. Edward Norton is one of those rare actors that even though he seems out of place in a gritty film like this somehow he makes it work. The cast was exceptional and made you hate and feel bad for them all at the same time. My only two beefs would be that it is one in a billion of corrupt cop movies which weighs a bit on it (though it is one of the better ones around) and the language is a bit excessive, I get that it adds to the realism, but that doesn't mean that I have to enjoy it. Full Review »
  2. Oct 17, 2010
    7
    The compelling reason to see this movie is Edward Norton. There are other fine casting choices, including Jon Voigt, just about all of the female actors and ethnic participants, some of whom are non-actors, but very real. The story is no better than a typical Third Watch episode, but better than a standard NYPD story. Why it took so long to make is a reflection of the producer's lack of focus, or maybe too much focus. Colin Ferrel looks totally out of place and makes very little contribution to his role. Some of the plot is downright ridiculous and the ending is stupid. But, there is enough to draw an interested if limited viewer. There is lots of f-bombs, which seem totally out of place, and just made up to be made up. There is a very sensitive scene with the Chief's cancer ridden wife. The relationships among the cops makes one ask, would that be allowed? To be honest, it is not a good movie. But, because of Norton and a few other gritty character performances, it has merit. The DVD is a "making of" and is generally so self-centred on the director himself, as if there was nothing else going on in the world. Skip it. Full Review »
  3. Sep 19, 2010
    7
    The hailed heroism and glory are things that are ranked high along with the badge for the Tierney family, a well respected circle of father (Jon Voight) and son's (Edward Norton and Noah Emmerich) police officers. They are known for their good deeds, but when a police corruption scandal is discovered by Ray (Edward Norton) things start to heat up. The signs point toward brother in law Jimmy (Colin Farrell) being a loose cannon. Soon the tension is high between Farrell and Norton which ends up to be a very heated, fist clenched, raging rivalry between the two. The family's true code of ethics is put into play as Norton struggles to do what is right. -All of the acting was very genuine and very immersing. Especially the acting from Farrell as he shows us a very angry, above the law cop (The baby and the iron part was very tense), he fleshed out a nice, spiteful bastard. -Overall 'Pride and Glory' was a good cop, crime drama that was pretty well written, with some slight predictability which is made up for by good cast interaction and an overall good main character carried properly by Norton. The story was good enough to keep me watching and the realism was the icing on the cake. Full Review »