User Score
8.3

Universal acclaim- based on 70 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 63 out of 70
  2. Negative: 6 out of 70
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. BrentS.
    Mar 20, 2004
    3
    Boring, boring and boring. It gets a 3 only because it was clean.
  2. AnthonyB.
    Apr 12, 2003
    0
    Unquestionably the worst, most boring, badly edited, totally lacking in any narrative power and failing even to jerk a mildly inebriated tear film I have ever seen. I wonder, as may many other non-illiterate film-goers, why it was made at all.
  3. MichelleM.
    Jul 7, 2003
    0
    Awful, awful, awful. Self-indulgently edited with a torturous, painfully slow pace ? it is difficult to find a single redeeming feature to this film. It would have been kinder not to have made it.
  4. BurnieV
    Jul 5, 2007
    0
    I never dreamt there were bad movies without Steven Seagal, it was a horror to sit through.
Metascore
86

Universal acclaim - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 31 out of 32
  2. Negative: 0 out of 32
  1. 100
    Its simplicity belies an emotional complexity that will linger in your mind like a gentle dream.
  2. If there is any justice in the world, Farnsworth will be remembered at Oscar time.
  3. I loved it...Without trying very hard, Farnsworth commands a unique and immensely appealing screen presence that could be called "a compilation of all the great western heroes of the movie past."