Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 42
  2. Negative: 12 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Lou Lumenick
    Jun 15, 2012
    38
    Shankman's staging of the numbers - especially the leaden choreography and hackneyed locations such as the Hollywood sign - was far sloppier and less creative than for his last musical, the vastly superior "Hairspray."
  2. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    Jun 14, 2012
    38
    Don't stop believing. Just avoid clich├ęd musicals that try to capture the anarchic spirit of rock with trite commercial re-treads.
  3. Reviewed by: Ann Hornaday
    Jun 14, 2012
    38
    Rock of Ages gets too mired in plotty cul de sacs, manufactured setbacks and numbers that are all staged as show-stoppers. In the words of the Journey song that serves as a climactic singalong, it goes on and on and on and on.
  4. Reviewed by: Nathan Rabin
    Jun 13, 2012
    33
    This glossy musical, from "Hairspray" director Adam Shankman, is a shameless crowd-pleaser where cardboard characters use the most overplayed and ubiquitous hits of the 1980s to express the aching banality of their souls.
  5. 30
    Rock of Ages withholds nothing and makes miracles seem cheap.
  6. Reviewed by: Richard Corliss
    Jun 14, 2012
    30
    Though it has moments where it rises to fun-awful status, with a hideous giddiness that turns moviegoers into rubbernecking motorists at a crash site, it's mostly just awful.
  7. Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    Jun 13, 2012
    30
    Creating plot from lyrics, in this case, leads to heavy-handed literalism and limited creativity. The wall of music is amusing for a while, but grows into a loud, wearying assault long before the movie's two hours are up.
  8. Reviewed by: Nick Pinkerton
    Jun 12, 2012
    30
    A cinematic event. It's not every day, after all, that you get to see two great American traditions - guitar/bass/drums rock music and Tin Pan Alley musical theater - so thoroughly, mutually degraded.
  9. Reviewed by: Connie Ogle
    Jun 14, 2012
    25
    Oddly tone deaf.
  10. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Jun 14, 2012
    20
    Doubtless, like The Producers, it will be adapted back into the theatre, some time in 2017, at which time it will be even more bland and tiring.
  11. Reviewed by: Nick Schager
    Jun 13, 2012
    12
    If the Adam Shankman film's debasement of its subject into campy kitsch is the unavoidable fate of all culturally dangerous art, that doesn't make it any less palatable.
  12. Reviewed by: Rex Reed
    Jun 13, 2012
    0
    I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Battlefield Earth" and "Howard the Duck."
User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 159 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 53
  2. Negative: 12 out of 53
  1. Jun 15, 2012
    8
    First off, this movie can not be fairly rated. Let me explain why. If the critics were a group of people over 55 years old and under 30, they wont even get it. If you are viewers and over 55 and under 30, you wont get it either. You had to live the era. I'm 47 give or take a year. I lived it and give it a strong 8. If it would have been all original bands and singers it would be an 11, off the chart. I will admit you feel like a goof ball almost halfway through the movie for even still being there then, BAMB, it hit key points of my life and what that time period meant to me. There were only about 17 people at the midnite showing. 5 of them were dancing in the isles and happy even when the movie was over. Most all 17 people stayed even through the credits just to listen to the songs as the played out. As everyone left I found my self sitting there with a tear in my eye for my own personal reasons. Yeah it was made cheesy, that is how it was meant to be you bu** hole critics. You will love it or hate it. Depends on your life experiences. I guarantee your jaw will drop a few times and you will just have to see it to believe me. Viewers even clapped at the end of the movie which I haven't heard in awhile. If you are in your teens I even think you will like it. 55 and over dont vote so this movie can at least get a fair review. Your vote shouldn't count. To the rest of us, ROCK ON ! ! IT WILL NEVER DIE FOR US JUST LIKE OUR PARENTS MUSIC THEY LISTENED TO WILL NEVER DIE. Don't prejudge this movie Full Review »
  2. Jun 18, 2012
    2
    If I ever get diagnosed with a life threatening disease, I plan to watch this again because it felt like a lifetime had passed from beginning to end. I was well into this era and scene when it happened. And I do love a good musical. That being said, other than some good moments from Cruise who usually bores me, this movie is a snooze fest. My kids took me for fathers day. I was looking forward to it. By about half way through I though the entire year of 1987 had taken place and we were all a little bit older. This movie is just flat out awful. A bore. And I know it's supposed to be cheesy. That was the ere and i get that. But this was crap. And my kids hated it too. So you have 2 separate generations of viewers that had 2 LOOOOOOONG hours stolen from them. Save yourself. Full Review »
  3. Jun 15, 2012
    10
    Wow, a new sorprise this year. I remember that when I watch the trailers of Rock of Ages I say: "I wanna watch this movie", but when the critics appear I say: "oh no", after I decide watch the movie, and the ressult: Other great musical, have much incredible songs, the performances are cool, the character amazing. I think that Rock of Ages is the Footloose of this year. Full Review »