Girl, Interrupted 1999

Roger Ebert, At the Movies: Although there are individual scenes of powerful acting, there doesn't seem to be a destination. Read more

Susan Stark, Detroit News: It has neither the clarity nor strength of purpose to engage an audience much beyond the converted. Read more

Chris Vognar, Dallas Morning News: As we take our mental health for granted, Girl, Interrupted does justice to those who ultimately can't. Read more

Stephen Holden, New York Times: You can drive yourself crazy, or you can get over it. The choice is yours. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: The best work [Ryder's] ever done. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: What helps the film stay as honest as it manages to sporadically be are the purity and grace of its lead performances by Ryder and Angelina Jolie. Read more

Jeff Millar, Houston Chronicle: The film generates real empathy, without too much let's-laugh -at- the -crazy- people humor or too much stereotyping. Read more

Paul Tatara, CNN.com: Ryder is no Jack Nicholson. And Whoopi Goldberg sure as hell ain't Louise Fletcher. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: If only the story of Susanna's evolution didn't keep getting interrupted by everything else. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Shrewd, tough, and lively. Read more

David Ansen, Newsweek: They've managed to avoid the usual asylum-movie cliches. Read more

Jami Bernard, New York Daily News: [Ryder] is often just a crumpled, listless figure on a bed, which, while true to the nature of depression, is not, cinematically speaking, the most arresting image. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: The inclusion of this picture on [Mangold's] resume will only enhance his future prospects. Read more

Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com: Not even foxy sociopath Angelina Jolie can save this nut-house drama. Read more

Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle: A muddled production that misses the jarring tone of the autobiographical book by Susanna Kaysen on which it is based. The film is entertaining, but not very powerful. Read more

Charlotte O'Sullivan, Time Out: Does it matter that every time Jolie's offscreen the film wilts a little? Ryder should be perfect as the bright spark; her lines are sharp as a knife. There's a gap, however, between what we hear and what we see. Read more

Emanuel Levy, Variety: Unevenly structured and directed, its sensibility only one notch above that of a Lifetime telepic. Read more

Abby McGanney Nolan, Village Voice: Ryder's is an earnest, well-meaning performance -- and she also coproduced the movie -- but the book's interesting tension and dark humor are pretty much absent. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: Sensitive, well-acted. Read more