What Is the Metacritic Rating for Coco

Coco, the 2017 Pixar animated feature directed by Lee Unkrich and Adrian Molina, earned a Metascore of 81 on Metacritic, placing it firmly in the “Universal Acclaim” category. This score reflects an exceptionally strong critical reception, with 94% of the 45 counted reviews being positive, 6% mixed, and none negative.

The film’s Metacritic rating demonstrates that critics across major publications widely recognized Coco as a significant achievement in animation and storytelling. The Metascore of 81 puts Coco among Pixar’s most critically celebrated works, a distinction earned through its ambitious narrative about family, cultural heritage, and the bonds between generations.

This score represents not just numbers on a rating scale, but a consensus among dozens of professional critics who evaluated the film’s artistic and technical accomplishments.

Table of Contents

• How Does Coco’s Metacritic Score Compare to Other Animated Films?
• What Critics Praised About Coco’s Critical Consensus
• Understanding Metacritic’s Rating Scale and What 81 Means
• How to Use Metacritic Ratings When Choosing Films to Watch
• The Limitations of Metacritic Scores for Understanding Critical Reception
• Coco’s Reception in Context of Pixar’s Critical History
• What the Score Tells Us About the Film’s Enduring Legacy
• Conclusion

How Does Coco’s Metacritic Score Compare to Other Animated Films?

A Metascore of 81 represents elite status within the animation category. For context, this places Coco above many beloved animated films and shows that critics took the film’s ambitions seriously.

The score reflects the quality of storytelling and visual execution that Pixar has become known for, though it falls short of the highest-rated animated films of all time, which occasionally reach scores in the high 80s and 90s.

The critical breakdown is particularly telling: with 94% positive reviews among the counted assessments, Coco demonstrated the rare achievement of building broad consensus across critics with different perspectives and priorities.

Comparing this to typical animated releases, which often see more variation in critical opinion, Coco’s consistency of praise indicates that its strengths resonated across diverse critical voices. The film managed to please both those focused on technical animation quality and those prioritizing narrative depth.

What Critics Praised About Coco’s Critical Consensus

The 81 Metascore reflects critical appreciation for multiple dimensions of the film: its animation quality, its culturally significant storyline centered on Mexican Day of the Dead traditions, and its emotionally resonant musical score. Critics noted how the film balanced family drama with magical worldbuilding, creating a narrative that worked for both children and adults.

The universal praise stemmed from Pixar’s commitment to authentic cultural representation and visual storytelling that showcased years of technical development.

However, the 6% of mixed reviews suggest that not every critic found the film equally successful in all areas. Some reviewers may have felt certain plot elements were predictable or that the pacing in particular sequences could have been tighter.

A Metascore of 81, while exceptional, also indicates there’s a meaningful distinction between this film and the rare animated features that achieve scores in the low 90s—a ceiling that typically requires near-unanimous critical enthusiasm without any significant reservations.

Understanding Metacritic’s Rating Scale and What 81 Means

On metacritic‘s scale, scores are divided into categories: 81 falls into “Universal Acclaim,” which typically begins at 80 and extends upward. This distinction matters because it signals that critics didn’t just find Coco to be good—they found it to be exemplary.

The difference between a score of 75 (Generally Favorable) and 81 (Universal Acclaim) represents a meaningful jump in critical consensus and perceived quality.

The Metascore is calculated from critic reviews that Metacritic carefully selects from major publications and established film critics. The 48 critic reviews that informed Coco’s rating came from sources with established editorial standards.

This methodology means the 81 score carries weight beyond simply averaging viewer opinions—it represents professional critical judgment from individuals whose reviews are published under editorial oversight and accountability.

How to Use Metacritic Ratings When Choosing Films to Watch

A Metascore of 81 for Coco serves as a strong indicator that the film merits viewing, particularly if you value critical consensus and artistic ambition. The score suggests you’re unlikely to encounter a film with significant technical flaws or narrative problems, though individual taste will always vary.

If you’re considering whether to invest time in Coco specifically because of its critical standing, the 81 score indicates broad appeal across different types of audiences and critical perspectives.

The tradeoff to understand is that a high Metacritic score predicts critical appreciation more reliably than personal enjoyment. A film rated 81 by critics might not resonate emotionally with every viewer, even though it demonstrates technical excellence and narrative craft.

Using Metacritic ratings as one input among several—alongside audience scores, genre preferences, and personal recommendations—creates a more complete picture than relying on the critic score alone.

The Limitations of Metacritic Scores for Understanding Critical Reception

While an 81 Metascore provides useful information, it compresses complex critical assessments into a single number. A critic who gave Coco an 85 (positive) might have had reservations about specific elements, but those nuances disappear into the aggregate score.

The methodology also excludes reviews from critics outside Metacritic’s selected outlets, meaning some professional perspectives don’t influence the final number.

This limitation is particularly relevant for understanding whether the film has any consistent criticisms that nearly everyone noted. Another consideration is that Metacritic’s scoring system is not universally applied—different critics use different scales and approaches to rating.

A publication rating Coco 8 out of 10 might translate differently on Metacritic’s 0-100 scale than another critic’s similar assessment. The 81 score represents the platform’s mathematical reconciliation of these different rating systems, which provides consistency but can obscure the underlying reasoning critics offered for their assessments.

Coco’s Reception in Context of Pixar’s Critical History

Coco’s 81 Metascore reflects Pixar’s track record of creating critically acclaimed animated features. The studio has built a reputation for films that appeal to both critics and audiences, and Coco exemplifies this achievement.

The film’s focus on cultural specificity—centering Mexican traditions and family structures—represented a notable direction for the studio and contributed to its critical standing as a culturally significant work, not merely an entertainment product. The critical success also helped position Coco within broader conversations about representation in animation and mainstream filmmaking.

Critics recognized the film’s achievement in bringing authentic cultural details to a major studio production, which elevated its standing beyond typical animated feature discussions.

What the Score Tells Us About the Film’s Enduring Legacy

An 81 Metacritic score suggests Coco will likely maintain its status as a significant film in animation history. The broad critical consensus creates a foundation for the film’s longevity in critical discourse and recommendation patterns.

As animation evolves and new films receive critical evaluation, Coco’s strong score from 2017 continues to serve as a reference point for quality in the medium. The score also reflects the film’s success in achieving what Pixar set out to accomplish: a film that honored its cultural inspirations while creating compelling entertainment.

This balance—achieving both critical and artistic success—is what an 81 Metascore ultimately communicates to potential viewers.

Conclusion

Coco’s Metascore of 81 represents a clear statement about the film’s critical quality: it achieved universal acclaim from professional critics who found merit in its animation, storytelling, cultural authenticity, and emotional depth.

The 94% positive review ratio demonstrates that this wasn’t a case of critical opinion splitting between enthusiasts and detractors, but rather broad agreement that the film represented significant achievement in animated filmmaking.

This score places Coco among the most respected animated films and signals that viewers approaching it with high expectations are likely to encounter a film that delivers on the promise of critical acclaim.

When considering whether to watch Coco, the 81 Metacritic score provides meaningful evidence that the film has been recognized as artistically accomplished and broadly appealing across different critical perspectives.

Combined with other research about the film’s themes and your personal preferences, this score offers a solid foundation for the decision to invest your time in watching one of Pixar’s most celebrated works.

---

You Might Also Like

• What Is the Metacritic Rating for WALL-E
• What Is the Metacritic Rating for Up
• What Is the Metacritic Rating for Toy Story

Browse more: Box Office | Entertainment | Film | Movie News | Movies

For more on Metacritic Rating Coco, see the full breakdown above – the metacritic rating coco details cover what most viewers want to know.