- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
75As sensuous as its title, Silk is an exquisitely felt love story that unfolds as delicately as a blooming flower. And as slowly.
-
58Sensual but profoundly silly, Silk is ultimately little more than softcore porn with arthouse trappings, a moony, dopily romantic "Red Shoe Diaries" variation for the NPR set.
-
50Everything is brought together at the end in a flash of revelation that is spectacularly underwhelming.
-
Beautiful but flimsy film.
-
50Cinematographer Alain Dostie's stunning, painterly cinematography is the best -- and perhaps only -- reason to endure this stunted epic.
-
50Though elegantly staged, Silk is badly written and indifferently cast.
-
50Failing to make a lick of rational sense, Silk grasps at poetic straws.
-
50Though the film aspires to the epic with pretensions of deeper philosophical meaning, it ultimately settles for being the "Escape (The Piña Colada Song)" of historical romances.
-
A visually arresting period piece.
-
42Wan, generically pretty adaptation of Alessandro Baricco's 1996 novel.
-
40Mr. Pitt is a reasonably photogenic specimen. But this actor, whose typical screen character is a broken, androgynous man-child, is disastrously miscast.
-
38By the end of Francois Gerard's plodding, uninvolving melodrama, his boredom will have nothing on yours.
-
38By any standards, Silk is a bad movie: pretentious, stillborn, devoid of emotion.
-
20Silk is a snooze. Vacuous, arid and terminally dull, this adaptation of Alessandro Baricco's freak bestseller hasn't a trace of real life or energy to it, and is hamstrung by a lethargic lead performance by Michael Pitt.
-
Silk isn’t just bad. It’s utterly mad. It stutters and hiccups from scene to scene, from country to country, but never once does it make narrative or emotional sense.