Editing Groundhog Day (film) (section)

===Critical reception===
[[File:Stephen tobolowsky 2012.jpg|thumb|left|upright|[[Stephen Tobolowsky]] in 2012. His portrayal of insurance-selling "pest" Ned Ryerson was well received.<ref name="VarietyReview" /><ref name="NYTReview" />]]
''Groundhog Day'' received generally positive reviews from critics.<ref name="RollingStoneCrit" /> [[CinemaScore]] polls reported that moviegoers gave it an average rating of "B+" on a scale of A+ to F.<ref name="CinemaScore" />

It was seen as a significant change from the previous works of Murray and Ramis.<ref name="LATimesReview" /> [[Kenneth Turan]] appreciated it as a gentle, endearing, and smaller-scale film.<ref name="LATimesReview" /> [[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.<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> Critics compared it to a combination of ''It's a Wonderful Life'' and the surreal science-fiction/horror television series ''[[The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series)|The Twilight Zone]]'' (1959).<ref name="NYTReview" /><ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /><ref name="THRReview" /> [[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.<ref name="EbertReviewOrig" />

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.<ref name="WashingtonPostRevHowe" /> 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.<ref name="LATimesReview" /> 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.<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> According to [[Janet Maslin]], the film balanced sentimentality and nihilism.<ref name="NYTReview" /> ''[[The Hollywood Reporter]]'' appreciated that the film endorsed small town morals and their positive effect on Phil.<ref name="THRReview" /> The ''[[New Statesman]]'' argued that it appealed simultaneously to cynicism and optimism.{{sfn|Gilbey|2004|p=11}}

The tone was described as inconsistent, and the film poorly paced, some scenes going on too long.<ref name="VarietyReview" /> [[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.<ref name="EWReview" /> Thomson said that the repetition of scenes worked against the film, making it seem as if no progress was being made.<ref name="WashingtonPostRevHowe" /> Hinson countered that minor alterations to the scenes kept them interesting as part of a "brilliantly imaginative" and "complex" script.<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> Some reviewers said that the humor was often mild, eliciting small chuckles instead of outright hilarity,<ref name="EWReview" /><ref name="NYTReview" /> although Hinson found it to be "wildly funny."<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> ''The Hollywood Reporter'' wrote that it offered a range of comedy and satire, all tempered by the love story between Phil and Rita.<ref name="THRReview" /> Critics highlighted the deeper story behind the comedy. Ebert called it a comedy on the surface but with an underlying thoughtfulness.<ref name="EbertReviewOrig" /> Maslin said that her initial impression was of a lightweight fare, but it became "strangely affecting."<ref name="NYTReview" />

Murray was consistently praised for his performance.<ref name="VarietyReview" /><ref name="LATimesReview" /><ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /><ref name="WashingtonPostRevHowe" /> Critics were in agreement that his performance was essential to the film's success by making Phil's transformation believable.<ref name="VarietyReview" /><ref name="NYTReview" /><ref name="RevSiskel" /> [[Gene Siskel]] wrote that any other actor could not have prevented the film from becoming too "saccharine."<ref name="RevSiskel" /> 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.<ref name="LATimesReview" /> 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.<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> 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.<ref name="EWReview" /> Ebert found Murray significantly funnier as a sarcastic antagonist than the friendly protagonist.<ref name="EbertReviewOrig" />

Critics were enamored with MacDowell's performance. Siskel said that she lit up the screen when she was on.<ref name="RevSiskel" /> Maslin called her a "thorough delight," saying that MacDowell's performance offered a comforting, comedic presence.<ref name="NYTReview" /> Hinson said that the on-screen chemistry between MacDowell and Murray was "otherworldly" and that she was a perfect fit for comedy.<ref name="WashingtonPostReview" /> Tobolowsky also received praise as a hilarious "pest."<ref name="VarietyReview" /><ref name="NYTReview" />