39
Metascore
7 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 63Chicago TribuneJohanna SteinmetzChicago TribuneJohanna SteinmetzSo the bad news about The Men's Club is that it leans heavily on cliche; the good news is that it treats the cliche with elan and it doesn't waste a splendid cast. [24 Sept 1986, p.4C]
- 50Los Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonLos Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonThere’s a good movie buried in it, but it stays buried--and, by the end, the annoyances outweigh the pleasures.
- 50Chicago ReaderPat GrahamChicago ReaderPat GrahamThere's no formal stylization to speak of, but this is, after all, a film about performances, and Medak simply points his camera at the actors and lets them chew away. Some of the chewers are better than others, and Harvey Keitel and Frank Langella especially, coming from opposite poles of intensity and languor, deliver the honest emotional goods.
- 40The New York TimesWalter GoodmanThe New York TimesWalter GoodmanNow and then, there is some horseplay involving the whole group or an angry exchange between a couple of them, but mostly we're watching a set of shticks, some amusing, some not. It's like being at an Actor's Studio showcase.
- 25TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineDirector Peter Medak and screenwriter Leonard Michaels (working from his own novel) apparently tried to make a film like THE BIG CHILL for mature men, but the stagy result of their efforts will leave viewers cold. All of the characters are so broadly drawn that they become laughable, rather than interesting.
- 20Time OutTime OutFlashes of genuine intelligence and wit in the writing only render the moral nihilism of the whole high-tack enterprise all the more inexcusable.
- 20Film is a distasteful piece of work that displays the worst in men. Leonard Michaels’ screenplay (from his novel) is all warts and no insight, full of self-loathing for the gender. In addition, film making is as tired as the material. Pic plays like a stageplay, so static is Peter Medak’s direction.