• Record Label: RCA
  • Release Date: Jun 14, 2005

Generally favorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 26
  2. Negative: 0 out of 26
  1. Entertainment Weekly
    Arguably the year's first great hot-weather record. [24 Jun 2005, p.161]
  2. Los Angeles Times
    Loud, anthemic, joyous and bitter, it's easily the best Foo Fighters album in a decade. [12 Jun 2005]
  3. The first half is instantly familiar, throwing up the same flurry of guitars and post-grunge drudge the Foos have been hammering home for years. The more laid-back stuff is... charming and warm.
  4. Spin
    Both these records chronicle the physical and mental graffiti of figuring out how to emerge from some very large shadows, including his own, with nerve and power. [Jul 2005, p.96]
  5. Alternative Press
    The most accomplished work of Grohl's post-Nirvana career. [Aug 2005, p.174]
  6. By stretching out, the Foo Fighters not only have expanded their sound, but they've found the core of why their music works, so they now have better songs and deliver them more effectively.
  7. Filter
    If you buy In Your Honor and toss out the second half, you'll own the band's best record since The Colour and the Shape. [#16, p.88]
  8. The New York Times
    The rock CD overpowers the acoustic one. Yet among the quieter songs, there are enough supple melodies and hypnotic guitar patterns to suggest fine prospects for a follow-through album that would dare to mix plugged-in and unplugged. [12 Jun 2005]
  9. It is clean, polished rock with a vaguely punk edge that stays within a clear set of boundaries but in doing so manages to appeal to indie-kids and metal-lovers alike.
  10. Feels a bit like your bedroom partner trying on all kinds of flash costumes and gadgets to try and excite you, and the realisation that it wasn’t really necessary and they wouldn’t have had to bother had you just shown them a little more love in the first place.
  11. The rock was catchy, but it’s the slow stuff that flips you on your axis with its depth.
  12. Uncut
    Unquestionably the work of a band with ambitions rekindled. [Jul 2005, p.92]
  13. It is not the Foo's finest moment, but for all its flaws and flab, this meandering record may just become one we all learn to love.
  14. Under The Radar
    This is by far their most realized and balanced attack. [#10, p.111]
  15. In Your Honor, like most Foo Fighters records, is sterile and controlled; there is never any threat of dissolution.
  16. Ten tracks of this kind of thing [on the acoustic disc] is pushing Grohl's ability as a Damien Rice, but it makes a neat complement to the first disc, and together they're pleasantly chewy.
  17. In Your Honor's acoustic half reveals Dave Grohl's songwriting shortcomings.
  18. Blender
    Let's face it: Foo Fighters are dull. [Jul 2005, p.117]
  19. Lurking somewhere in its spotty 80+ minutes lies an excellent 40 minute album, one of the best the Foos have ever done. As is, though, with its heaps of filler, dated production and needless segregation of rockers from ballads, it may actually be their weakest.
  20. Some of Grohl's lyrical shortcomings become exposed: The sameness and vagueness of his love lyrics blunt their impact.
  21. Q Magazine
    [Disc 1] is impressive stuff--the sound of a muse regained. Pity the acoustic disc is nowhere near as good. [Jul 2005, p.109]
  22. In Your Honor has some great tunes, but it is by no means perfect.
  23. Mojo
    [Disc 1] is grunge-punk-metal boiled down to mere energy -- and calories don't rock. [Jul 2005, p.102]
  24. One can't help but think that by scaling back their ambitions, the Foos could have made one great album instead of two average ones.
  25. Sure, the Foos are excellent at what they do. It’s just unfortunate that what they do is so unavoidably mediocre.
  26. 'In Your Honour' is as rancid and moribund and as redundant of ideas as it is possible to be.
User Score

Universal acclaim- based on 161 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 9 out of 161
  1. j30
    Sep 28, 2011
    Half of the songs are great and the other half feels filler and a bit boring. A really ambitious project and I applaud them for that.
  2. Jan 28, 2011
    While it has a number of enjoyable tracks the problem with In Your Honor is the way it's twenty tracks are arranged. Rather then having aWhile it has a number of enjoyable tracks the problem with In Your Honor is the way it's twenty tracks are arranged. Rather then having a blend of hard and soft It groups all the "loud" songs onto the same disc and the "quiet" tracks onto a separate disc. While it's an interesting idea it doesn't work so well in practice and the end result is that both discs lack any kind of flow, both end up sounding the same from beginning to end. Of the two the acoustic disc fares better then the rock when listened to on it's own. About half the tracks feel unnecessary and if they had blended the best tracks from both discs we would have had a great album with a half decent b-sides release to boot. Full Review »
  3. Nov 9, 2013
    I thought this was a superior record to One By One, which was so boring I can't remember most of the songs. On here, tracks like "In YourI thought this was a superior record to One By One, which was so boring I can't remember most of the songs. On here, tracks like "In Your Honor", "No Way Back", and "DOA" actually succeed in taking off and shaking the floor, while the new acoustic section boasts a lovely little surprise in "Miracle" which has actually become one of my favourites by this group. As with any Foos release though, inconsistency is a major problem. A couple of the mellower tracks on the second half fall completely flat, and "Best of You" is one of the most irritating and anti-climactic big-release singles I've heard, sadly. Still, not a bad effort just could have done with some generous editing and quality control. Full Review »