User Score
8.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 64 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 55 out of 64
  2. Negative: 4 out of 64
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. AndrewK.
    May 13, 2007
    4
    The Namesake would've been a much better film if it didn't try to cover so much territory. I know it's based on a novel, but a novel is a medium that can cover that large a scope. The film started with its focus on Ashoke and Ashima, and then halfway through it switched to focus on their son, Gogol. You can't switch the character you're focused on halfway through The Namesake would've been a much better film if it didn't try to cover so much territory. I know it's based on a novel, but a novel is a medium that can cover that large a scope. The film started with its focus on Ashoke and Ashima, and then halfway through it switched to focus on their son, Gogol. You can't switch the character you're focused on halfway through a film. Especially to such an uninteresting character. If they were going to focus on Gogol, they should've started with him and shown parts of the parents' story in flashback to help bring understanding to his journey. Ashoke and Ashima were much more interesting characters, and I wish that the film had just been about them. The actors that played their parts were brilliant. Kal Penn, as Gogol, has got to be one of the worst actors I've ever seen. The scenes with his girlfriend (the white one that acts like Kirsten Dunst) were unbearable. They were completely superficial and boring, which I think is somewhat the point, but it didn't come off as realistic. I also resent it when filmmakers think their viewers are so unattentive that they have to be reminded of things that happened earlier in the film by showing us brief clips over again. I disagree with a comment made by Dennis Lim at The LA Times, who said (in a roundabout way) that the film was not didactic. Wrong. We are being constantly reminded of the themes of the film (i.e. Gogol hates his name, etc.) and what it is that we are supposed to be focusing on. There's also a scene in which Gogol is in high school that comes off just like all Hollywood schlock, portraying teenagers in a completely unrealistic way. Gogol is supposed to have graduated in '96, and the other students act like middle eastern people are SOOOO strange. I graduated in '01. I went to school with tons of middle eastern students. Nobody treated them like they were freaks. We got along just like everyone else. Bottom line is this movie is way overrated, lacked focus, had too broad a scoap and was didactic and unrealistic. Which isn't a very good endorsement, is it? Expand
  2. T.S.
    Apr 22, 2007
    2
    Please do not be fooled by this film. This is not a "comedy" by any stretch of the imagination. It is an unfathomably slow moving film about an Indian family that moves to america. The director will have 3 minute shots of people drinking tea etc.
  3. RN.
    Apr 24, 2007
    1
    Rarely have I been in such disagreement with everyone on a film. This one is just terrible, it is so bad you even notice the poor set and make up. The only thing I can say that is complimentary is the cinematography is good.
Metascore
82

Universal acclaim - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 32 out of 33
  2. Negative: 0 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Glenn Kenny
    88
    A thoroughly engaging, terrifically moving family story that's rich in beautifully observed and lovingly conveyed human detail.
  2. It is hard to imagine a better cast or production values so the film should find audiences among sophisticated urban adults.
  3. Reviewed by: Scott Foundas
    80
    A richly compelling story of family and self-discovery.