User Score
6.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 43 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 25 out of 43
  2. Negative: 9 out of 43
Watch 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
  1. Nov 16, 2012
    2
    Interminable, indulgent and pretentious (unrequited) love drama which fails to provide one sympathetic main character (rich girl looking to indulge in a spicy affair; volatile paramour with an adosecelent attitude; ageing, doting cuckold). The intrusive, melodramatic score and clanging 'arty shots' further annoy and mystify. Poor show.
  2. Apr 12, 2012
    1
    This is another one of those movies beloved by the lofty critics and hated by me. Why do I keep getting suckered into seeing these awful movies? It was dark, morose, contrived and dark! Oh did I mention it was dark? Post WW II England, this movie attempts to emotionally manipulate us into caring for a woman torn between lust and who knows what? I didn't care, my wife wanted to leave earlyThis is another one of those movies beloved by the lofty critics and hated by me. Why do I keep getting suckered into seeing these awful movies? It was dark, morose, contrived and dark! Oh did I mention it was dark? Post WW II England, this movie attempts to emotionally manipulate us into caring for a woman torn between lust and who knows what? I didn't care, my wife wanted to leave early as did a friend. Slow, boring and insignificant drivel. Stay home! Expand
  3. Apr 25, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i loved house of mirth, i go for the girly/romantic/classic stuff but this was insufferable. truly. totally predictable, every one comes through stiff, un-animated, sad in a bad way. even rachel weisz is bad. the only high moment is the post-suicide attempt, which lasts 5 mins. the male lead is horrid, horrid. forgettable. Expand
  4. May 6, 2012
    0
    This is a low budget, poorly lit and murky, dreary piece with long scenes with dialogue separated by very long pauses. A bit like a silent film in pacing, and limited technical skill. I think the median age of the critics suggest they're very familiar with silent movies, and wish for their return. But to non movie critics, this is a dull, pretencious piece of garbage. How Rachel endedThis is a low budget, poorly lit and murky, dreary piece with long scenes with dialogue separated by very long pauses. A bit like a silent film in pacing, and limited technical skill. I think the median age of the critics suggest they're very familiar with silent movies, and wish for their return. But to non movie critics, this is a dull, pretencious piece of garbage. How Rachel ended up in this...

    Not only is Finding Nemo a better film, but its also emotionally involving.
    Expand
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 30
  2. Negative: 1 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Bill Goodykoontz
    Apr 26, 2012
    80
    The only flaw here is the score. It's beautiful but so obtrusive, particularly at the start, that it threatens to turn the proceedings into melodrama.
  2. Reviewed by: Rick Groen
    Apr 12, 2012
    75
    Happily, in his adaptation of the Terence Rattigan play, The Deep Blue Sea, Davies has found a setting close to his heart and a subject more nearly suited to his style.
  3. Reviewed by: Steven Rea
    Apr 12, 2012
    88
    The beautiful misery of The Deep Blue Sea - Terence Davies' crushing adaptation of Terence Rattigan's 1952 play - is almost too much.