User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 62 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 62
  2. Negative: 18 out of 62

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. WendyA.
    Mar 24, 2006
    4
    Very dull, flat, overly talky, and not the least but funny.
  2. ElizabethC.
    Mar 1, 2006
    6
    People seem to either love or hate this film. I found it really frustrating. This is basically two films - the 18th century story of Tristram Shandy and the "mockumentary" of the making of the film. There isn't really much of a narrative, but I understand that this is true to the book. There is some witty interplay between Coogan and Brydon at the beginning and end. Some of the People seem to either love or hate this film. I found it really frustrating. This is basically two films - the 18th century story of Tristram Shandy and the "mockumentary" of the making of the film. There isn't really much of a narrative, but I understand that this is true to the book. There is some witty interplay between Coogan and Brydon at the beginning and end. Some of the period scenes are hilarious, such as Tristram's explanation of why this is called "a cock and bull story". Yet the viewer may become impatient with most of the modern day sequences, which aren't really insightful or all that intersting, and the lack of a story line. Expand
  3. HenryW.
    Jul 17, 2006
    6
    Has its moments, but it's not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. It sells itself as a mocumentry although the mockumentry elements feel forced and unrealistic compared to Christopher Guest stuff. Biggest problem is that it's not actually funny.
  4. DanC.
    Jul 21, 2006
    6
    I know this is supposed to be the height of dry British wit, but I found myself looking at my watch and wishing it were over.
  5. AmeliaS.
    Dec 29, 2006
    4
    This must be the first film that I found bad while Roger Ebert did not. I expected great British comedy from Tristram Shandy - what I got was a film with only several funny moments that was confusing, repetitive, and ultimately, a film of no consequence. Films should leave a viewer thinking, daydreaming, wondering, wanting to be a better person, or questioning themselves. All I felt at This must be the first film that I found bad while Roger Ebert did not. I expected great British comedy from Tristram Shandy - what I got was a film with only several funny moments that was confusing, repetitive, and ultimately, a film of no consequence. Films should leave a viewer thinking, daydreaming, wondering, wanting to be a better person, or questioning themselves. All I felt at the end of this film was "Thank God it's over!" Expand
  6. ElizabethP.
    Mar 22, 2006
    4
    A few good laughs, a few clever points to make, but overall pretty boring and pointless. And I say this despite usually liking British humor. No cohesive story, which I'm sure is very fitting, but doesn't leave you with very much at the end of the film. Don't listen to the critics on this one.
Metascore
80

Generally favorable reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 35
  2. Negative: 0 out of 35
  1. Reviewed by: Kim Newman
    80
    A successful mix of literary adaptation, meta-fictional discourse and inside-showbiz comedy. Both funny and clever.
  2. Long deemed unfilmable, the 18th century novel finds the perfect interpreters in director Michael Winterbottom and actor Steve Coogan.
  3. 75
    Has about a dozen layers of in-joke, and up to the eighth or ninth layer, they mostly work.