56
Metascore
20 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 75Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertChicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertMermaids is not exactly good, but it is not boring. Winona Ryder, in another of her alienated outsider roles, generates real charisma. And what the movie is saying about Cher is as elusive as it is intriguing.
- 70Washington PostHal HinsonWashington PostHal HinsonWhat's lost in momentum is gained back in the unexpectedness of the jokes and the quality of the performances. Mermaids is an infectious, bouncy diversion, like the fruity dance the girls and their mother do around the kitchen table at the film's end.
- 60EmpireAngie ErrigoEmpireAngie ErrigoAll three leads are genuinely appealing here, with Ryder once again acting her bobby sox off and giving yet further reminder of just how sorely she was missed in Godfather III.
- 60The New York TimesVincent CanbyThe New York TimesVincent CanbyA terribly gentle if wisecracking comedy about the serious business of growing up.
- 60As eccentric mother-daughter films go, this one [from the novel by Patty Dann] falls into the same category as Terms of Endearment, with many of the same comedic pleasures and dramatic pitfalls. The delightful Ryder, billing notwithstanding, is really the star. Cher is also fine as the cavalier, self-centered mom, an equally amusing if less sympathetic character.
- 50Time OutTime OutThe film is burdened by curious details and observations, and its preoccupation with all things aquatic (little sister is an ace swimmer, Mom dresses up as a mermaid for New Year's Eve, etc) is overworked. Characterisation suffers, with Charlotte and her mother too self-absorbed to engage our sympathies. Crucially, they just aren't funny.
- 50TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineSadly, the film had all the elements to be a very captivating experience, but it fails to bring those elements together into a strong whole.
- 50Boston GlobeJay CarrBoston GlobeJay CarrFrankly, Mermaids is the kind of movie that needs the strong personalities of Cher and Ryder, and is lucky it has them. They put the movie over. It has a weak script, and the direction by Richard Benjamin - who had two predecessors on this project - is so reticent as to be almost absent. There's almost no pacing or shaping to speak of. [14 Dec 1990, p.53P]
- 40Washington PostDesson ThomsonWashington PostDesson ThomsonThis movie, set in the '60s and starring Cher, Winona Ryder and Bob Hoskins, doesn't come of age so much as die of it. It's awash in mediocrity, waterlogged with innocuousness and redeemed only occasionally by sweet-faced Ryder.
- 33Entertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanEntertainment WeeklyOwen GleibermanIn the end, there’s something a little insulting about a contemporary movie that reduces women to either trashy bimbos or repressed virgins.