Annlee Ellingson of the Los Angeles Times wrote that while Zea "gives a natural performance amid a neighborhood of painful stereotypes", she "doesn’t adjust her cadence, let alone accent, for the historical flashbacks, bringing a modern sensibility that limits the effectiveness of these scenes", while Parise is "reduced to talking to a pet bird to explain his emotions."[1]
Joe Leydon of Variety called the film a "borderline embarrassing vanity project that brings out the worst in TV vet Peter Lefcourt" and wrote that Zea and Parise "bring impressive measures of conviction to laughable dialogue".[2]
Gabe Toro of IndieWire gave the film a grade of "D-" and called it "very cheap, wholly unconvincing, and loaded with dull narration.".[3]
