Critical reception
Stephen Tobolowsky in 2012. His portrayal of insurance-selling "pest" Ned Ryerson was well received.[81][82]Groundhog Day received generally positive reviews from critics.[83] CinemaScore polls reported that moviegoers gave it an average rating of "B+" on a scale of A+ to F.[84]
It was seen as a significant change from the previous works of Murray and Ramis.[85] Kenneth Turan appreciated it as a gentle, endearing, and smaller-scale film.[85] Hal Hinson called it the best American comedy since 1982's Tootsie (also featuring Murray). He said that Groundhog Day demonstrated Ramis's capable comedic timing, and offered a clever plot without pretension.[86] Critics compared it to a combination of It's a Wonderful Life and the surreal science-fiction/horror television series The Twilight Zone (1959).[82][86][87] Roger Ebert compared it to the Murray-starring Christmas-comedy Scrooged (1988), featuring a similar transformation from selfish to selfless. He said that where that film offered a "grim discontent," Groundhog Day offered optimism.[88]
Critics agreed that the film had an obvious moral, but disagreed on its presentation. Desson Thomson found the film initially intriguing but believed it deteriorated into a Hollywood-style morality tale.[89] In Turan's opinion, Groundhog Day started as a traditional Hollywood story, but was earnest enough to convert the audience by the end, and had a "romantic innocence" that prevented it becoming formulaic.[85] Hinson said that the moral core of the story was never presented in a way that insulted the viewer's intelligence or required they sacrifice their cynicism to accept it. He continued that Phil evolves into a better version of himself, but never stops being a jerk.[86] According to Janet Maslin, the film balanced sentimentality and nihilism.[82] The Hollywood Reporter appreciated that the film endorsed small town morals and their positive effect on Phil.[87] The New Statesman argued that it appealed simultaneously to cynicism and optimism.[90]
The tone was described as inconsistent, and the film poorly paced, some scenes going on too long.[81] Owen Glieberman compared it unfavorably to another time-travel film, Back to the Future (1985), which he found more cleverly structured. He described some scenes as isolated comedy sketches rather than part of a larger narrative.[91] Thomson said that the repetition of scenes worked against the film, making it seem as if no progress was being made.[89] Hinson countered that minor alterations to the scenes kept them interesting as part of a "brilliantly imaginative" and "complex" script.[86] Some reviewers said that the humor was often mild, eliciting small chuckles instead of outright hilarity,[91][82] although Hinson found it to be "wildly funny."[86] The Hollywood Reporter wrote that it offered a range of comedy and satire, all tempered by the love story between Phil and Rita.[87] Critics highlighted the deeper story behind the comedy. Ebert called it a comedy on the surface but with an underlying thoughtfulness.[88] Maslin said that her initial impression was of a lightweight fare, but it became "strangely affecting."[82]
Murray was consistently praised for his performance.[81][85][86][89] Critics were in agreement that his performance was essential to the film's success by making Phil's transformation believable.[81][82][92] Gene Siskel wrote that any other actor could not have prevented the film from becoming too "saccharine."[92] Turan said that Murray's natural gruffness and comedic barbs prevented over-sentimentality. Turan also appreciated the endearing performance by Murray compared to his more abrasive, past performances.[85] Hinson said that Murray had never been funnier. He continued that Murray was a vital component in keeping the film's optimism from seeming dishonest or manufactured. Hinson liked that even after Phil's redemption, he retains a cynical edge.[86] Glieberman believed that Murray's indifference retains the audience's attention, but added that while Murray was talented enough to play a redeemed person, it was not a good fit for him.[91] Ebert found Murray significantly funnier as a sarcastic antagonist than the friendly protagonist.[88]
Critics were enamored with MacDowell's performance. Siskel said that she lit up the screen when she was on.[92] Maslin called her a "thorough delight," saying that MacDowell's performance offered a comforting, comedic presence.[82] Hinson said that the on-screen chemistry between MacDowell and Murray was "otherworldly" and that she was a perfect fit for comedy.[86] Tobolowsky also received praise as a hilarious "pest."[81][82]
Accolades
At the 1993 New York Film Critics Circle Awards, the screenplay came runner-up for Best Screenplay, tying with Schindler's List.[93] The same year, it won Best Comedy Film at the British Comedy Awards.[94] In a then-unprecedented move, in late 1993, Columbia Pictures sent over 4,500 members of the Academy Awards voting committee a custom box containing videotapes of nine of their eligible films. The campaign was estimated to have cost between $400,000 and $650,000. Groundhog Day was included among these nine films,[95][96] but received no nominations at the 66th Academy Awards.[97]
At the 1994 BAFTA Awards, Rubin and Ramis won the award for Best Original Screenplay.[98] MacDowell won the award for Best Actress at the 20th Saturn Awards ceremony, where Groundhog Day also received nominations for Best Fantasy Film (losing to The Nightmare Before Christmas), Bill Murray for Best Actor (losing to Robert Downey Jr. in Heart and Souls), Best Writing and Best Direction (losing both to Jurassic Park), and Best Costumes for Jennifer Butler (losing to Hocus Pocus).[99] At the American Comedy Awards, Murray and Elliott were nominated for, respectively, Funniest Actor and Funniest Supporting Actor.[100] The film was nominated for Best Dramatic Presentation at the Hugo Awards, losing to Jurassic Park.[101]
