Critics’ reviews

Schindler's List (1993)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 84: 9 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Schindler's List

84
Positive
9
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics regard this as Spielberg’s most serious work and a clear departure from his usual manner, and the praise clusters around restraint: the near-documentary hand-held camerawork, the black-and-white photography, and a refusal to dress up the horror. Neeson, Fiennes and Kingsley are singled out again and again, and several reviews treat the film’s decision not to explain Schindler’s motives as a strength rather than a gap. The liquidation of the Krakow ghetto is the sequence most often named for its immediacy.

Reservations are fewer and mostly British. Empire finds the film over-sentimental for a subject that needs no help; The Independent objects to kitsch and emotional manipulation in the coda; The Guardian, the lone mixed voice, finds a certain flatness and less emotional force than hoped, while still placing it far ahead of other Hollywood films on the subject. Slant, writing two decades on, notes a personal remove. The spread runs from wholehearted to respectfully qualified; nobody dismisses it.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · Alan Jones
100

This outstanding Holocaust drama, based on Thomas Keneally's bestseller Schindler's Ark, won seven Oscars including best picture and director. Spielberg uses stark, brutal realism, stunning black-and-white photography and gritty handheld camera work to deliver powerful points about racism and ethnic cleansing, with standout performances from Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Kingsley.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
24 June 2001 · ★★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
100

The film succeeds as parallel character studies of Schindler and the sadistic Goeth, showing that resistance to evil is possible even amid the Holocaust's horrors. Spielberg joins artistry with popular appeal, focusing on Schindler's ambiguous heroism and the arbitrary nature of survival.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
15 December 1993 · Kenneth Turan
90*

Spielberg demonstrates remarkable restraint in this major departure, creating an indelible portrait of the Holocaust through hand-held documentary-style realism and strong performances. The film makes an unbelievable story believable and real, succeeding where more obvious approaches might fail.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
13 December 1993 · Terrence Rafferty
90*

Spielberg’s film is great, impossible and inevitable, respecting the mystery of Schindler’s ambiguous personality in a new way for the director. The liquidation of the Krakow ghetto sequence makes the Holocaust overwhelmingly immediate, and the film is by far the finest dramatic depiction of it.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
15 December 1993 · Critic’s Pick · Janet Maslin
90*

The film presents the Holocaust as if discovering it anew through Spielberg's fury and immediacy, distilling complex events into indelible images. It is dark, sobering and invigoratingly dramatic, making terrifying sense to anyone.

Read the full review →
Variety
20 November 1993 · Todd McCarthy
90*

Spielberg delivers a remarkable, rigorously intelligent work with brilliant performances (especially Neeson, Kingsley, and Fiennes) and restrained technique that avoids sentimentality. The film focuses on Schindler's gradual transformation while vividly depicting the arbitrary cruelty of the Holocaust in near-documentary style.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
12 March 2013 · Chris Cabin
75*

The critic finds the film a tough yet engaging study of the limitations of success and mortality, praising its unique scope and imagery while noting its personal remove from the events.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 1993 · Colin Kennedy
70*

The critic calls it a necessary Holocaust movie made for a Western audience that is beautifully crafted and hopeful. They note it is at times over-sentimental when the subject matter hardly needs any dressing up.

Read the full review →
The Independent
18 February 1994 · Adam Mars-Jones
70*

The critic finds the film a considerable achievement for Spielberg, mixing harrowing pseudo-documentary elements with effective melodrama. It is praised for its authenticity and intensity but critiqued for some kitsch and emotional manipulation in the coda.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
17 February 1994 · Derek Malcolm
65*

The film is Spielberg's most substantial and difficult achievement to date, telling its story with unusual restraint and without his usual flamboyance. It has flaws including a certain flatness and less emotional impact than hoped, though it presents understated horrors effectively and is leagues ahead of other Hollywood films on the subject.

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