48
Metascore
8 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 60The New York TimesVincent CanbyThe New York TimesVincent CanbyLess a movie than an extended sketch, and it's to the credit of Mr. Ritt, his stars and Gary Devore, the screenwriter, that the movie is so much fun, even given its occasional soggy patches.
- 60Time OutTime OutVery good on local colour but a bit sugary in its attitude to the central relationship, it would have been better taking a bleaker cue from Tommy Lee Jones' admirably dry performance.
- 60NewsweekDavid AnsenNewsweekDavid AnsenRitt and DeVore don't capitalize on their fairy-tale structure; they let the magic dribble away. The moviegoer knows from the start that this isn't a story about real people and accepts the fact. [16 Mar 1981, p.97]
- 50Chicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertChicago Sun-TimesRoger EbertHow could they take this material and make it really original? Maybe by refusing to be seduced by the Screenwriter's stock Hollywood "originality" and probing more deeply into the real human lives of the characters. The people in Back Roads are so heavily laden with schtick that they never have a chance to develop personalities.
- 50TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineRitt and Field seem to have been trying to capitalize on the southern backwoods setting that served them so well in Norma Rae, but this time around they didn't have nearly as engaging a story with which to work.
- 42Christian Science MonitorDavid SterrittChristian Science MonitorDavid SterrittSurprisingly, this is the work of director Martin Ritt and Sally Field, the star whose Norma Rae combined sharp drama with keen social awareness. Their new film is the junky underside of that good movie. [26 Mar 1981, p.19]
- 40Washington PostGary ArnoldWashington PostGary ArnoldIndeed, you come out of Back Roads feeling more familiar with the configuration of Sally Field's spinal column and chestbone than the character she's struggling to embody.