Critics’ reviews

Groundhog Day (1993)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 87: 8 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Groundhog Day

87
Positive
8
Mixed
0
Negative
0

The consensus is firmly positive, with praise centred on Bill Murray’s deadpan timing and the warmth he brings to a cynical character. Most critics credit Harold Ramis’s restrained direction with keeping the time-loop premise inventive rather than repetitive. The script earns admiration for finding both comic possibilities and philosophical substance in its central idea, while several reviews also value the supporting performances. Murray’s resistance to easy sweetness is a recurring explanation for why the romance and sentiment work.

The differences concern the degree of enthusiasm rather than any fundamental rejection of the film. Variety offers the clearest reservations, finding that the premise takes time to click and noting uneven tone and dry patches, though it still welcomes the warmth of the payoff. Elsewhere, the reviews differ over emphasis: some celebrate a comedy of ideas, while others respond chiefly to its gentleness and optimism.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · David Parkinson
100

The review hails it as a contender for the best comedy of the 1990s, highlighting Bill Murray's career-best performance as the trapped weatherman and Ramis's inventive direction that keeps the one-gag concept fresh. Supporting turns by Tobolowsky and MacDowell are also singled out for praise.

Read the full review →
Time Out
★★★★★ · GA
100

The critic praises the script's rigorous exploration of every nuance of the time-loop premise and its mix of gags with philosophical depth. Ramis directs with a light touch that allows Murray's performance to shine in this comedy of ideas.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Caroline Westbrook
90*

Groundhog Day is one of the finest comedies of the 1990s, remaining fresh, funny and original after repeated viewings. Bill Murray delivers a career-best performance and director Harold Ramis avoids sentimentality in favour of hysterical set-pieces while offering no complex explanation for the time-loop premise.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
12 February 1993 · Kenneth Turan
85*

The critic finds it the most endearing film from Murray and Ramis, a sweet surprise that uses the star's comic hostility to make sentimentality palatable in a gentle, small-scale effort.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
14 March 1993 · Caryn James
80*

The critic calls the film one of the season's most entertaining, crediting Bill Murray's likable cynicism for making the time-loop romance and social absurdity work as a major hit.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
12 February 1993 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

The critic praises the film's lovable and sweet take on self-redemption through a time-loop premise, highlighting its optimistic view of human nature and originality over formulaic comedy.

Read the full review →
Variety
8 February 1993 · Richard Natale
70*

The critic notes the premise takes time to click and the film is inconsistent in tone, but the payoff brings warmth; audiences will forgive dry patches and leave smiling thanks to the cast and Ramis's restrained direction.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
8 February 1993 · Duane Byrge

The critic finds the film a broad but sharply satirical comedy elevated by Murray's deadpan performance and Ramis' even-handed direction, which highlights the virtues of small-town life and its maturing effect on the cynical protagonist. A winning love subplot with Andie MacDowell adds narrative strength.

Read the full review →
HeyUGuys
7 December 2012 · ★★★★★ · Dave Roper
100

The critic calls it an utterly brilliant film and one of the very best comedies ever made, with a flawless central concept and a nigh-on faultless lead performance from Bill Murray. They single out Murray's comic timing, pathos, and the moving arc from narcissist to selfless redeemer, along with strong supporting turns that keep their characters fresh despite repetition.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate