Sleepers 1996

Critics score:
74 / 100

Reviews provided by RottenTomatoes

Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times: In craft terms alone, Sleepers is considerably better than average filmmaking, but it's difficult to take this film as seriously as it takes itself. Read more

Entertainment Weekly: Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: Despite protests from the Catholic Church (which whines about any movie that portrays priests as anything less-than-pure), Sleepers, which represents two and one-half hours of gripping entertainment, is well worth the price of admission. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: As entertainment, the movie functions successfully. But I don't believe the story is true -- not true to the facts, and not true to the morality it pretends to be about. Read more

Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle: At times the images are agonizing to behold, men in their most desperate, hateful depths preying on children. The film, exceptional on many counts, ultimately is sad in a hopeless, haunting way. Read more

Richard Schickel, TIME Magazine: It is all legally preposterous. But Levinson is a slick craftsman, his actors are insinuatingly real, and cinematographer Michael Ballhaus casts a disarmingly believable light on these proceedings. Read more

Derek Adams, Time Out: Levinson has done nothing to sift the half-truths from the melodrama... Read more

David Stratton, Variety: If audiences aren't bothered by this disturbing subtext, there's a lot to enjoy in this impeccably structured, handsomely produced saga. Read more