Kevin Thomas of the "Los Angeles Times" stated that the film "is blatant in its borrowing from the more sensational headlines and naked in its manipulation of emotions to the susceptible," adding that "Gilbert is nothing if not consistent: the acting and the relentlessly risible dialogue are uniformly terrible." Gary Arnold of "The Washington Post" wrote, "Unfortunately, Lewis Gilbert's film version of the novel is quite faithful to the letter and spirit of the original. It alternates from slaughter to torpor to sex to torpor and back again to slaughter. Whatever the mode, the scenes are usually hideous or clumsy on their own terms and useless as clues to subsequent events or the characters' motives." "The Monthly Film Bulletin" called it "A three-hour slog through every imaginable cliché of writing and direction" and further remarked, "This might be described as the film with everything; trouble is, it is difficult to imagine anybody wanting any of it."