Hearts in Atlantis 2001

Critics score:
50 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Bruce Newman, San Jose Mercury News: Hicks seems uncertain how to tie up all his loose threads, framing a scene near the end amid diaphanous white sheets on a clothesline. Read more

Terry Lawson, Detroit Free Press: The performances are all first-rate, reinforcing the promise Hicks showed in the beautifully acted Shine. Read more

Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald: Watching it feels like leafing through an old photo album you've been forced to thumb through one time too many. Read more

Michael Wilmington, Chicago Tribune: Hearts in Atlantis is, in many ways, a wonderful movie, but it's too clean and well behaved. Read more

Ebert & Roeper: Read more

Philip Wuntch, Dallas Morning News: A poignant and often beautifully acted film. Read more

Stephen Holden, New York Times: A nostalgic fiasco so shameless it makes movies like Simon Birch and Frequency seem as austere as the work of Robert Bresson. Read more

Cody Clark, Mr. Showbiz: Too formulaic and discursive to engage our emotions. Read more

Gene Seymour, Newsday: The story's enchantment feels forced and coy, its mysteries tricked-up and flimsy. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: Much of Hearts feels a little empty, a little unmotivated. Read more

Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: At its best, the movie has that 'a tale told' quality that Goldman used so winningly in The Princess Bride. Read more

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: Hicks, whose style did not enhance Snow Falling on Cedars, proves to be a good match for this material. Read more

Bruce Westbrook, Houston Chronicle: Put simply, the movie drags. Read more

Paul Clinton (CNN.com), CNN.com: The acting is so good, you almost want to forgive the fact that they're not saying anything, and the film has no real point. Read more

Steven Rosen, Denver Post: Going for transcendence, [Hicks] gives us lugubriousness. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: Hearts in Atlantis is too poky and contrived to be a good movie, but its lushly serene atmospherics, given current events, make it a pure slice of sentimental comfort food. Read more

Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: All that early promise goes for naught when the picture approaches the final act, whereupon the various mysteries yield solutions that prove to be silly or sentimental or both. Read more

Rex Reed, New York Observer: A sweet coming-of-age story set in the summer of 1960, akin in mood to [King's] Stand by Me. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: For me, the turgid pace and uneven writing muted any appreciation I might have of what it offers. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: Rarely does a movie make you feel so warm and so uneasy at the same time. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com: You come out of the theater with nothing more specific than half-pleasant memories of baseball gloves, Ferris wheels and vintage automobiles. I've had naps that were more exciting. Read more

Edward Guthmann, San Francisco Chronicle: Unabashedly sentimental, it's meant to touch our hearts in profound and important ways, but misses the mark by drawing too deeply from a pool of schmaltz. Read more

Jeff Strickler, Minneapolis Star Tribune: Read more

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Read more

Peter Howell, Toronto Star: All atmosphere and no action. Read more

Derek Adams, Time Out: Read more

Mike Clark, USA Today: Don't underestimate the appeal of a heart-tugger that's this well mounted. Read more

Todd McCarthy, Variety: Read more

Michael Atkinson, Village Voice: The unblinking sympathy for kids struggling with evil and with the strange frequencies of prepubescent passion can, if your defenses are down, lay you out. Read more