User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 200 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 17 out of 200

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream 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

User Reviews

  1. JaredC.
    Sep 23, 2007
    3
    The film keeps you dozing around for a while and makes you painfully snore later on, but once a violent image appears. Your brain couldn't respond to the act quick enough that it turns into mush. What a disaster.
  2. PeterD.
    Nov 29, 2007
    3
    I've never seen so many people walk out of the cinema before. A very boring movie with overlong stretched scenes, trying to evoke emotions where there are none. Yes, some nice shots and yes, you get an good idea what it must have been like to live in those desolate times. But mumbling dialogs, too heavily accented, I cannot understand halve the time. I wouldn't recommend it!
  3. DaveN.
    Sep 24, 2007
    3
    Stinker -slowest large budget film in history - just awful -director complete egomaniac!
  4. VioletN.
    Oct 11, 2007
    2
    This movie gets a 2 only for the, at times, beautiful cinematography. Otherwise, it was plodding, overly obvious, and ran like a book on tape. The unenthusiastic, sleepy narrative all throughout the film never gave the actors a chance to do their job: act. Brad Pitt is like a mournful ghost, flitting in and out, never really committing or digging his heels in to the grit and substance of This movie gets a 2 only for the, at times, beautiful cinematography. Otherwise, it was plodding, overly obvious, and ran like a book on tape. The unenthusiastic, sleepy narrative all throughout the film never gave the actors a chance to do their job: act. Brad Pitt is like a mournful ghost, flitting in and out, never really committing or digging his heels in to the grit and substance of his character. Affleck is just plain uninspiring and unconvincing. At the end, the whole theater was asleep. They were waking each other up, going: 'Is it over?' I thought it was impossible to make a boring movie about Jesse James, but - apparently, you can. Expand
  5. AdamK.
    Oct 18, 2007
    1
    Easily the most boring movie I've seen in 10 years.
  6. CydneyB.
    Oct 5, 2007
    1
    Gave this 1-1/2 hrs and then dragged ourselves sleepily out the door. Boring... aka "moody reverie" by the critics. Go see 3:10 to Yuma if you're looking for an engaging western. Or rent "Tombstone".
  7. SarenaC.
    Oct 11, 2007
    1
    Wow, how spectacularly uneventful! For 3 hours, absolutely nothing happens in this film, either emotional or action-wise - because the narrative tells you 'how it is' without letting the true drama unfold. The scenes are ponderous, monotonous, and disjointed. The characters are one-dimensional, completely awash in a sea of pretentiousness, this desperate striving for depth and a Wow, how spectacularly uneventful! For 3 hours, absolutely nothing happens in this film, either emotional or action-wise - because the narrative tells you 'how it is' without letting the true drama unfold. The scenes are ponderous, monotonous, and disjointed. The characters are one-dimensional, completely awash in a sea of pretentiousness, this desperate striving for depth and a misguided attempt to create an 'art' film. Affleck in particular is made to carry this film, and his performance is fair, but not extraordinary. It just emphasizes the fact that he is not leading man material. Expand
  8. MartyY
    Jan 19, 2008
    1
    The acting of Casey and Brad is more than awesome but the whole movie, well,it is worse than a piece of crap.
  9. ChristopherC.
    Feb 10, 2008
    0
    I think the worst thing about the movie is that it fools some people into thinking it's intelligent and thoughtful. Watching these people calling this film 'high art' is a bit scary, and a little disheartening. This is intelligence? This is what art has become? I hope to God not. Please, give me a reason to hope not.
  10. JacobP.
    Feb 8, 2008
    0
    Half of this film are people sitting around a table or a campsite eating. Eating... and... talking. And then someone says something and everyone get really quiet until the "tension" which you never feel, is broken by a lame, thought-up-at-the-last-minute crude supposed cowboy joke. Huh huh huh. The film is all about taking forever to get to the point, if there is one. The actors look like Half of this film are people sitting around a table or a campsite eating. Eating... and... talking. And then someone says something and everyone get really quiet until the "tension" which you never feel, is broken by a lame, thought-up-at-the-last-minute crude supposed cowboy joke. Huh huh huh. The film is all about taking forever to get to the point, if there is one. The actors look like they came out of the 20th Century. The accents are obviously not natural. The film is tedious, and insulting- in the first half an hour, I was glad I got to see it for free, but near the end, I just left. This is a horrible film made by a man who must've been getting paid by the minute or something. Expand
  11. May 6, 2013
    0
    I cant say how bad is this. I really cant but I will try, even if is painful to remember. Lets see, It does not make you cry or bring tears at least (its not a drama film), it has very few bullets or kills or chases (is not an action film), it will not scare you (is not a terror film), it does not have a mystery or plot twist (is not a suspense film), it absolutely will not make you laughI cant say how bad is this. I really cant but I will try, even if is painful to remember. Lets see, It does not make you cry or bring tears at least (its not a drama film), it has very few bullets or kills or chases (is not an action film), it will not scare you (is not a terror film), it does not have a mystery or plot twist (is not a suspense film), it absolutely will not make you laugh (is not a comedy film), It does not help you at all (it is not a self-help film), it has not biographical accuracy or plot (is not a bio film). To be short, IT IS NOT A FILM AT ALL. But if it would be a film, it would be the worst film ever. Expand
Metascore
68

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 32
  2. Negative: 1 out of 32
  1. This fascinating relationship gets smothered in pointlessly long takes, repetitive scenes, grim Western landscapes and mumbled, heavily accented dialogue.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    One of the best Westerns of the 1970s, which represents the highest possible praise. It's a magnificent throwback to a time when filmmakers found all sorts of ways to refashion Hollywood's oldest and most durable genre.
  3. 60
    Although not as radically defamiliarizing as Jim Jarmusch's avant-western "Dead Man," Jesse James has the feel of an attic ransacked for abandoned knickknacks.