Metascore
50

Mixed or average reviews - based on 13 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 12 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 13
  2. Negative: 2 out of 13
  1. Young Guns is best watched in the playful, none-too-serious spirit in which it was made. Though the film concentrates reverentially on its young stars, it also includes good performances from a few grown-ups, notably Terry O'Quinn as a lawyer and Jack Palance as the story's wild-eyed villain.
  2. The movie blows through the Brat Pack smoke screen - it is superior to Colors in that regard - to reveal the troubled, lonely and sometimes crazy males behind the macho, misogynist posturing of men in groups. You couldn't find a nicer bunch of killers. [12 Aug 1988, p.C3]
  3. Reviewed by: Llyod Sachs
    75
    Considering how tidy and self-aware most such Hollywood projects are, any movie that can give Phillips' Mexican-Indian a monologue in which he painfully recounts the massacre only he survived and then blithely rejoices in idiot gunfire is a movie you have to respect. [12 Aug 1988, p.35]
  4. Reviewed by: Jay Carr
    50
    Fusco's script undercuts whatever freshness it may have brought to its view of Billy the Kid with a steady stream of howlers, most of which involve Kiefer Sutherland, as the sensitive member of the gang. [12 Aug 1988, p.24]
  5. 50
    Billy's burning, self-destructive energy is about all Young Guns has going for it-the suicidal kicks James Dean found in chickie races are here transposed to six-gun shoot-outs, filmed in a slow-motion process that strives vainly to evoke Sam Peckinpah. [12 Aug 1988, p.H]
  6. Reviewed by: Staff (Not Credited)
    50
    YOUNG GUNS is simply not a very good movie--western or otherwise. Fusco's script provides little character development and muddies the narrative with some unlikely supporting characters. Still, it proved to be popular enough to lead to a television spinoff and a sequel in 1990.
  7. Full of odd notions and interludes, the movie never really comes together, but fitfully suggests a cross between Boys Town and Greaser's Palace.

See all 13 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 2
  2. Negative: 0 out of 2
  1. Aug 30, 2010
    5
    I was barely a teenager when I saw this movie so I don't recall having a notable reaction to the plot or the acting. My primary focus was likely the stars who, at the time, were considered particularly dreamy. "Dreamy" isn't likely the most accurate word to describe romantic admiration in 1988 but you get the idea. In hindsight one realizes how much our admiration is motivated by the media. Kiefer Sutherland?! However, I can say with some certainty that I was never terribly impressed by Charlie Sheen. Expand

See all 2 User Reviews

Trailers