27
Metascore
9 reviews · Provided by Metacritic.com
- 63Chicago TribuneJohanna SteinmetzChicago TribuneJohanna SteinmetzWho's That Girl? is sunny and harmless. Perhaps it's indicative that feminist hostility is taking a milder turn. Or perhaps the genre has gone Hollywood. [09 Aug 1987, p.6C]
- 50TV Guide MagazineTV Guide MagazineThough filled with witty lines, fast-paced overlapping dialog, and screwball situations, this film too often sinks to Police Academy-style stupidity. The only reason Who's That Girl works at all is because of Madonna and Dunne.
- 40Washington PostHal HinsonWashington PostHal HinsonTechnique counts for a lot in directing a picture like this -- more perhaps than in any other genre -- and Foley doesn't have any. His approach here is to toss things up into the air without caring much where they land. And as a result, the noise they make when they land is not a pretty one.
- 40The New York TimesVincent CanbyThe New York TimesVincent CanbyMadonna, left to her own devices and her own canny pace, is a very engaging comedian, and the screenplay, by Andrew Smith and Ken Finkleman, contains a lot of raffishly funny ideas that get lost in the busyness of the physical production.
- 30Time OutTime OutTiring stuff.
- 20Los Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonLos Angeles TimesMichael WilmingtonThe jokes grate on you, the buoyancy seems feigned and none of the nonsense is lyrical. The talent involved seems misused. This film is conceived as a vehicle for Madonna and, even as such, it's a rattling failure. The movie diminishes her, the worst thing a vehicle can do. [10 Aug 1987, p.1]
- 0Miami HeraldHal BoedekerMiami HeraldHal BoedekerWho's That Girl's writers botched the creation of their confection. A successful screwball comedy is like a souffle. This is a souffle made of concrete. [07 Aug 1987, p.D1]
- 0Tampa Bay TimesTampa Bay TimesWho's That Girl is a stern test of your MQ (Madonna Quotient). It is quite possible to hate this movie before the animated credits sequence is over. [10 Aug 1987, p.1D]