User Score
5.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 10 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 10
  2. Negative: 4 out of 10
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. SeanF
    Aug 9, 2009
    7
    Not sure why this was panned by the critics. Not as good as Wonder Boys, but better than the majority of Hollywood fare. I hadn't seen Peter Sarsgaard or Sienna Miller in a comedic role before, both I think have further potential in that arena. The main character (Jon Foster), I did not know, and have not seen before, but he did a more than adequate job in this film as well. This has Not sure why this was panned by the critics. Not as good as Wonder Boys, but better than the majority of Hollywood fare. I hadn't seen Peter Sarsgaard or Sienna Miller in a comedic role before, both I think have further potential in that arena. The main character (Jon Foster), I did not know, and have not seen before, but he did a more than adequate job in this film as well. This has not been a great season for DVD's IMO, so this is a good rental among the limited selections for the summer of 2009. Expand
  2. Dec 23, 2010
    6
    For the purpose of condensing the novel, I can understand why some of the choices are made. However, removing Arthur and consolidating him with Cleveland was questionable. Having read the book, it made me fairly uncomfortable, but somehow the ending came to practically the same conclusion minus perhaps a bit of emotion.
  3. JayH.
    Aug 2, 2009
    5
    Nicely acted, but the movie is just fair. It's well enough done, it has a polished and professional look to it. The story just didn't always hold my interest. Nice cinematography.
  4. DwayneB
    Apr 10, 2009
    2
    Missed the tone of the novel completely, distorting characters relationships, motivations and even sexual orientations. Did Thurber even read the novel? Or just the dust jacket? A hatchet job.
  5. LeviK
    Jan 18, 2010
    1
    Director Thurber and lead Foster really had to work overtime to mess this one up so badly. I can't believe Chabon consented to this script. The second most important character in the novel (Arthur Lecompte) was cut entirely, which through the remaining storyline and characters off completely. What remains is a well shot and poorly acted cliche, with the exception of Sarsgaard's Director Thurber and lead Foster really had to work overtime to mess this one up so badly. I can't believe Chabon consented to this script. The second most important character in the novel (Arthur Lecompte) was cut entirely, which through the remaining storyline and characters off completely. What remains is a well shot and poorly acted cliche, with the exception of Sarsgaard's work. Blah. The real tragedy is not that I wasted my time and money on this, but that I'll never be able to see one of my favorite novels adapted into the fine film it was destined to be. Thurber should stick to what he does best-- Dodgeball II, anyone? Expand
Metascore
38

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 15 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 15
  2. Negative: 6 out of 15
  1. Reviewed by: Jamie Tipps
    60
    Disappointed fans of Michael Chabon will have to watch "Wonder Boys" for solace, for The Mysteries of Pittsburgh boasts only one core mystery: how one can take such promising material and render it completely unmemorable?
  2. Reviewed by: Duane Byrge
    80
    In the film's most flamboyant role, Peter Sarsgaard's devil-ish charisma and cold bluster is frightening.
  3. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    70
    The full warmth and idiosyncrasy of Chabon's original is missed in an adaptation that feels more impersonally observed. But Lawson's pic, (with the director making a left turn from prior feature "Dodgeball," which he says was a money gig undertaken to hasten this dream project) is entertaining and involving enough on its own terms.