what is the meaning of movie review

What is a Film Review — Definition, Examples & Top Critics

I n cinema, film reviews hold a significant place, serving as a bridge between the film industry and viewers. They provide an analytical perspective that helps audiences decide what to watch and understand the nuances of a film. In this article, we will delve into the definition of a film review, its critical components, and shed light on some iconic film review writers who have significantly shaped the field.

What is Film Review in Cinema?

First, let’s define film review.

Film reviews hold a unique place in cinema acting as both promotional tools and critical analysis pieces. With the rise of platforms like Letterboxed and Rotten Tomatoes, they are becoming more relevant in the cinematic landscape.

FILM REVIEW DEFINITION

What is a film review.

A film review is a type of critique that provides an evaluation of a film, encompassing various aspects such as the plot, themes, direction, script, and performances. Originating in the early 20th century with the advent of cinema, film reviews have evolved from mere opinion pieces in newspapers to a significant form of journalistic writing.

The primary purpose of a film review is to inform the reader about the film and offer an informed opinion about its various elements. It serves as a guide for viewers, helping them decide whether the film is worth their time and money.

Criteria for Movie Review:

Overview of the film, analysis of the plot and themes, evaluation of the script, direction, and acting, personal opinion and rating, movie review format, components of a good film review.

Film reviews are a blend of various vital components, each contributing to a comprehensive analysis. From evaluating performances and storytelling to dissecting technical aspects, a well-rounded review provides a holistic perspective. By examining these elements of a movie review format we can gain a deeper understanding of the film's impact and appreciate its artistic merit.

This includes a brief synopsis that sets the context without revealing any spoilers. The overview should pique the reader's interest and give them a sense of the film's storyline. Here is one of the greatest film critics, Roger Ebert, on what a film review should do. 

Roger Ebert What A Movie Review Should Do

This involves a deeper look into the narrative and the underlying themes of the film. It should explore the storyline's complexity, originality, and coherence.

This component assesses the technical aspects of the film, such as the screenplay , cinematography , direction, music, and performances. It also includes an assessment of how these elements contribute to the overall impact of the film. 

This is much more popular with the rise of film criticism on Youtube in which film critics can simultaneously play and dissect a scene for an audience. In this video by Nerdwriter1, Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood is dissected visually in a way that would be difficult or at least less effective without a video component.

One Way To Deconstruct There Will Be Blood

This is where the reviewer shares their personal view and overall impression of the film. It often includes a rating system, which can help readers quickly gauge the reviewer's opinion.

A good film review strikes a balance between objective analysis and personal perspective. It is also important that the review uses engaging language and style to hold the reader's attention.

What is Film Review Important For?

Influence of film reviews.

Film reviews have a significant impact on public opinion and can greatly influence the success of a film.  A positive review from a reputable critic can attract more viewers and increase the film's box office revenue. On the other hand, a negative review can dissuade audiences from watching the film.

Attracting Viewers

Positive reviews can generate buzz and attract a larger audience to the theaters. They serve as a powerful tool in building anticipation and interest among moviegoers. Take Rotten Tomatoes for example. Many film goers opt to check the Rotten Tomatoes reviews of a film before they decide to watch or see it in cinema. 

While this can work well for some movies in attracting viewers, it can negatively impact other films. This is especially true with the way Rotten Tomatoes rating system works. For a great insight on to how the platform works and the possible problems with its ratings, check out the video below. 

The Problem With Rotten Tomatoes

Box office success.

Positive reviews often contribute to a film's box office success. When critics praise a movie, it can lead to increased ticket sales and financial profitability for the filmmakers.

Influence on Perception

Reviews shape how people perceive a film. Positive reviews create a positive perception, making viewers more likely to give the movie a chance. On the other hand, negative reviews can deter potential viewers and impact the film's overall reception.

Critical Acclaim

When a film receives critical acclaim from respected reviewers and publications, it can achieve iconic status. This recognition elevates the film's reputation and can lead to long-lasting popularity and cultural significance.

Parasite’s Historic Oscar Wins in 2020

Film reviews hold considerable sway in the film industry. They not only impact the number of viewers but also shape how a film is perceived and remembered.

Related Posts

• What is Cinematography? →
• Understanding Story Structure →
• How Does Rotten Tomatoes Work? →

Movie Review Example and Writers

Iconic film review writers.

The field of film criticism has been significantly influenced by several notable writers who have left a lasting impact on the industry. These writers, through their insightful analyses and thought-provoking perspectives, have shaped the way we perceive and appreciate films. Their contributions have not only elevated the art of film criticism but have also enriched our understanding of cinema as a whole. 

Roger Ebert

Known for his acerbic wit and insightful commentaries, Ebert was one of the most influential film critics. His reviews, published in the Chicago Sun-Times for over four decades, were known for their accessible writing style and keen observations.

Pauline Kael

Writing for The New Yorker, Kael was known for her passionate and provocative reviews. She championed many underappreciated films and filmmakers, influencing public opinion and the course of American cinema.

Pauline Kael on Criticism

Andrew sarris.

A leading proponent of the auteur theory in America, Sarris's writings in The Village Voice and The New York Observer have had a profound impact on the way films are analyzed and appreciated.

Leonard Maltin

Renowned for his annual publication, "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," Maltin's reviews are known for their succinctness and precision. His work has guided generations of moviegoers.

Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide

These critics, with their unique perspectives and styles, have made enduring contributions to film criticism, influencing not just audiences but filmmakers as well.

Film reviews, like the movies themselves, are a form of art. They capture the essence of a film, dissect it, and present it to the audience in a refined form. With their insightful analysis, they help us, the viewers, to better understand and appreciate cinema. 

Remember, a review is not meant to replace or reflect your own judgment of a film but to complement and deepen your viewing pleasure. So, read, watch, and form your own judgment - because nothing compares to your own cinematic experience.

How Does Rotten Tomatoes Work?

As we delve deeper into the world of film reviews and their unique influence, let's turn our attention to a specific and influential platform. In the next article, we explore the intricacies of the Rotten Tomatoes ratings system.

Up Next: How Does Rotten Tomatoes Work? →

Showcase your vision with elegant shot lists and storyboards..

Create robust and customizable shot lists. Upload images to make storyboards and slideshows.

Learn More ➜

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Pricing & Plans
• Product Updates
• Featured On
• StudioBinder Partners
• The Ultimate Guide to Call Sheets (with FREE Call Sheet Template)
• How to Break Down a Script (with FREE Script Breakdown Sheet)
• The Only Shot List Template You Need — with Free Download
• Managing Your Film Budget Cashflow & PO Log (Free Template)
• A Better Film Crew List Template Booking Sheet
• Best Storyboard Softwares (with free Storyboard Templates)
• Movie Magic Scheduling
• Gorilla Software
• Storyboard That

A visual medium requires visual methods. Master the art of visual storytelling with our FREE video series on directing and filmmaking techniques.

We’re in a golden age of TV writing and development. More and more people are flocking to the small screen to find daily entertainment. So how can you break put from the pack and get your idea onto the small screen? We’re here to help.

• Making It: From Pre-Production to Screen
• What is a Light Meter — Understanding the Photographer's Tool
• What is Metonymy — Definition, Examples & How to Use It
• What is a Short Story — The Art of Brevity in Literature
• What is an Action Hero — Best Examples & Defining Traits
• What is a Movie Spoiler — Types, Ethics & Rules Explained
• 0 Pinterest

• Writing Style
• How to write …
• Analysis of Speech
• Storytelling
• Career Development

How to Write a Film Review: Preparation, Steps, Examples

• by Anastasiya Yakubovska
• 06.10.2022 25.09.2023
• How to write ...

How to write a film review (true, professional, and comprehensive) and not be limited to the phrase “What a great movie!”? In this article, you will find answers to the next questions:

• How long is a movie review? 
• How many paragraphs does a movie review have? 
• Features of the Film Review 
• What is the main purpose of a film review? 
• Functions of the Movie Review 
• How to Write a Film Review: Preparation for Writing 
• 10 Questions You Need to Answer Before You Start Writing a Movie Review 
• How to Write and Structure a Film Review: Step by Step 

What Is a Film Review?

A film review is a critical judgment or discussion that informs about the release of a new film and contains its analysis, assessment, summary, as well as personal impressions and experiences after watching.

How long is a movie review?

On average, the length of a film review is about 1000 words.

How many paragraphs does a movie review have?

It is recommended that the film review should consist of 5-7 paragraphs.

Read also article “How to Write a Book Review: Step by Step and Examples”.

Features of the Film Review

A film review is a persuasive piece of writing, it has some features as:

• A less formal style of writing. 
• You need to write objectively about the film. 
• But, on the other hand, movie reviews contain personal thoughts and feelings. 
• The film review’s audience is wider and more diverse. 

Movie reviews can be written by two groups of reviewers: professional critics and ordinary consumers. Therefore, the text of the review will differ. In the first case, when the reviewer is a professional critic, he will describe the movie instead of evaluating it. While consumer critics mostly write from a personal perspective. 

What is the main purpose of a film review?

The main purpose of a film review is to inform readers about the film (what can expect from it) and to help them determine if they want to watch the movie. 

Functions of the Movie Review

The film review performs several functions at once: it informs, analyzes, persuades, and entertains. If you can include all of these points in your review, then you will have an excellent result in the end. 

How to Write a Film Review: Preparation for Writing

Writing a review is, of course, a creative process, but you should not forget about the analytical approach to creating a convincing and high-quality text. You must take the work responsibly, which we will do now.

To write a professional film review, you first need to complete the following preparation steps:

• Of course, the first step is to find a film, if it has not been previously chosen by the manager/client/boss. There will be more chances to write a good review if the film was liked by both – film critics and you personally.
• Watch the movie at least 2-3 times. After the first viewing, you will get a general impression of the picture, and try to fully immerse yourself in the atmosphere of the film. Pay attention to the details the next time you watch it: the sound, the actor’s play, the editing, the plot. 
• If you have difficulty understanding the events covered in the film (for example, historical), be sure to find additional information and research the topic.
• If after two viewings you still do not have a final assessment of the film in the form of a brief thesis, watch the film again. You can look at other works of the director who worked on this film, this will help you determine his characteristic style. Also, as an option, you can look at the game of actors in other films (for comparison).
• When watching a movie, take notes: key scenes, interesting plot twists, inconsistencies, details, and quotes. Then, based on them, you can build a review text, and a good quote can become an excellent epigraph.
• Find information about the filming: location, duration, season, details about the filming process, difficulties the production team faced, casting, etc. Such information will make the review more attractive to readers.
• If the film is nominated for awards and prizes, please include this information in your film review. For a potential viewer, such an assessment of the film will be a weighty argument in the direction of -> compulsory viewing.

10 Questions You Need to Answer Before You Start Writing a Movie Review

• Does the film split into multiple parts? A sequel, prequel, or one of the movie series? 
• What is the film genre (action, comedy, historical, drama, fantasy, Western, political, thriller, gangster, horror, tragicomedy, romance, sports, mystery, science fiction)? Is the movie based on real or fictional events?
• Did the screenplay writer create an exciting plot?
• Is the rhythm of the film slow and quiet, heavy and static, or chaotic and frantic?
• What is the film’s rating according to the MPAA? ( G – General Audiences. All ages admitted. PG – Parental Guidance Suggested. PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned. R – Restricted. Under 17 requires an accompanying parent or adult guardian. NC-17 – Adults Only.) 
• Are there any films with a similar/same theme? Sometimes it is worth mentioning some of them in a review, as a comparison.
• How can you characterize the work of a cinematographer? How accurately are the most expressive compositional, lighting solutions, as well as camera angles, selected and embodied?
• Is the film entertaining or covers a serious themes?
• Was the casting successful? Did all the actors cope with their roles?
• Is the atmosphere of the film tense, mysterious, sinister, relaxed, or romantic?

The answers to all of the above questions will help you understand how to write a film review, and above all, create a draft version of your future review. But, of course, this is not enough for the final result.

How to Write and Structure a Film Review: Step by Step

Writing a film review is a long and complicated process. Therefore, it is better to break it down into stages and move step by step. This will help you not to get lost and not get confused in the details.

• The catchy introduction.

The introductory part of the review should contain important information about the film: title, director, release date, and genre. 

You can mention nominations and awards, as well as indicate the box office (if the numbers are impressive) and the cast. 

In addition to “technical” aspects and a simple presentation of the plot, it is necessary to express your impression of the film in the form of a thesis, for example, to tell:

• about the connection of the film’s central idea with current events and social problems;
• about the similarity of the film’s plot with a personal life situation, personal experience, and feelings;
• about the connection of technical elements (lighting, sound, editing) with the theme of the film.

2. Pass the verdict.

Do not torment the reader and express your opinion about the film in the first paragraphs of the review.

You should not leave all the most interesting “for later”. If you decide to give a final assessment of the film at the end of the review, what are the chances that the reader will read to this end?

3. Write a summary of the plot.

Choose 4-5 main events.

Avoid the film’s ending and spoilers. Keep the intrigue. If you want to spoil and share an unusual story development, warn the reader about this.

4. Bring the feelings.

In addition to presenting the plot of the film, you should add emotions to the text of the review and show what you felt while watching it.

5. Define the main purpose of the movie. 

Perhaps the film’s purpose is hidden in its plot. Or maybe the film does not pretend to solve global problems at all. Perhaps the film is entertaining, and this is its advantage – it is relaxed and simple.

Sometimes the main idea of a serious and deep film can be found in an interview with a film crew, a screenwriter, or a director.

6. Add some details of the filmmaking process. 

It is important to know the measure and not to overdo it with the terminology. Here’s what you can write about:

• Cinematography: visual mood, lighting elements, shot sizes and widths, camera angles, etc. 
• Sound. The main goal is to create the necessary atmosphere in the film. Sound in movies includes music, dialogue, sound effects, ambient noise, background noise, and soundtracks. 
• Editing is the creation of a finished motion picture from many shot scenes. A film editor must creatively work with the layers of images, story, dialogue, music, pacing, as well as the actors’ performances to effectively “re-imagine” and even rewrite the film to craft a cohesive whole.
• Mise-en-scène (from French – placement on the stage) is the mutual arrangement of the actors and their environment on the set, natural or pavilion. Mise-en-scene includes landscapes, visual effects, the psychological state of the characters, etc.

7. The deep meaning.

You may be able to spot specific symbolic items, repetitive moments, or key phrases that give depth to the film.

8. Give examples.

It is not enough to say “ an excellent game of actors ”. Explain what exactly caught your attention (appearance, facial expressions, costumes, or movements of the actor). 

9. A convincing conclusion.

Write about the moments in the film that made the biggest impression on you. Share a recommendation. To whom and why do you advise to watch this movie?

10. Reread the review text several times .

Edit, and correct mistakes that can spoil the impression even from a professionally written film review.

Examples of Film Reviews

To consolidate the received information, let’s move from theory to practice. Below are two examples of film reviews.

Apocalypse Now

Review by Roger Ebert

Francis Ford Coppola’s film “Apocalypse Now” was inspired by Heart of Darkness, a novel by Joseph Conrad about a European named Kurtz who penetrated to the farthest reaches of the Congo and established himself like a god. A boat sets out to find him, and on the journey the narrator gradually loses confidence in orderly civilization; he is oppressed by the great weight of the jungle all around him, a pitiless Darwinian testing ground in which each living thing tries every day not to be eaten.

What is found at the end of the journey is not Kurtz so much as what Kurtz found: that all of our days and ways are a fragile structure perched uneasily atop the hungry jaws of nature that will thoughtlessly devour us. A happy life is a daily reprieve from this knowledge.

A week ago I was in Calcutta, where I saw mile upon square mile of squatter camps in which hundreds of thousands live generation after generation in leaky huts of plastic, cardboard and scrap metal, in poverty so absolute it is impossible to see any hope of escape. I do not mean to equate the misery of those hopeless people with a movie; that would be indecent. But I was deeply shaken by what I saw, and realized how precious and precarious is a happy life. And in such a mood I watched “Apocalypse Now” and came to the scene where Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) tells Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) about “the horror.”

Kurtz is a decorated hero, one of the best soldiers in the Army, who has created a jungle sanctuary upriver inside enemy territory, and rules Montagnard tribesmen as his private army. He tells Willard about a day when his Special Forces men inoculated the children of a village against polio: “This old man came running after us and he was crying, he couldn’t see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile, a pile of little arms. . . .”

What Kurtz learned is that the Viet Cong were willing to go to greater lengths to win: “Then I realized they were stronger than we. They have the strength, the strength to do that. If I had 10 divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment.” This is the “horror” that Kurtz has found, and it threatens to envelop Willard, too.

The whole movie is a journey toward Willard’s understanding of how Kurtz, one of the Army’s best soldiers, penetrated the reality of war to such a depth that he could not look any longer without madness and despair.

The film has one of the most haunting endings in cinema, a poetic evocation of what Kurtz has discovered, and what we hope not to discover for ourselves. The river journey creates enormous anticipation about Kurtz, and Brando fulfills it. When the film was released in 1979, his casting was criticized and his enormous paycheck of $1 million was much discussed, but it’s clear he was the correct choice, not only because of his stature as an icon, but because of his voice, which enters the film from darkness or half-light, repeating the words of T.S. Eliot’s despairing “The Hollow Men.” That voice sets the final tone of the film.

Film review: example

Diana biopic Spencer wobbles between the bold and the bad

By Nicholas Barber

You may feel that you’ve had enough of Princess Diana’s story on the big and small screens, what with Naomi Watts taking the role in Oliver Hirschbiegel’s awful Diana in 2013, and then Emma Corrin playing her in the most recent season of The Crown, with the mantel set to be passed in Elizabeth Debicki in the next run. But, to give it its due, Pablo Larraín’s Spencer marks the only time the People’s Princess has been shown delivering a lecture on Anne Boleyn to an old coat that she has just stolen off a scarecrow, and then having a chat with the ghost of Boleyn herself shortly afterwards. The Chilean director doesn’t go in for conventional biopics, as anyone who has seen Jackie (starring Natalie Portman) or Neruda will know. And here again he has gone for a surreal portrait of his iconic subject. The snag is that his experimental art house spirit keeps bumping up against the naffness and the familiarity of British films set in stately homes, so his psychodrama ends up being both ground-breaking and rib-tickling.

It’s set over three days in 1991, from Christmas Eve to Boxing Day, at Sandringham House in Norfolk. The rest of the Royal Family has arrived for their holiday in a fleet of chauffeur-driven cars, but Diana (Kristen Stewart) rocks up on her own in a Porsche convertible, having taken a detour to visit the aforementioned scarecrow: her dilapidated childhood home, from the days when she was Lady Diana Spencer, is a field or two away from Sandringham. Her late arrival concerns the sympathetic head chef (Sean Harris) and bothers the Scottish army veteran (Timothy Spall) who has the job of ensuring that everything goes the way the Queen wants it to. Her Majesty’s insufferable Christmas traditions include weighing all the guests when they arrive and when they leave to ensure that they’ve been sufficiently gluttonous. But Diana is in no mood for festive japes. Her Christmas present from Charles (Jack Farthing) – a necklace with pearls the size of golf balls – is identical to the one he has given his mistress. And the whisper in the servants’ quarters is that the Princess is “cracking up”. The filmmakers apparently agree.

Steering away from the same territory as The Crown, Larraín and Knight don’t fill the film with awkward meals and heated arguments (although there are one of each of those). Prince Charles does some grumbling, but the Queen has hardly any lines and Prince Philip has none: they are closer to menacing waxworks than people. For most of the time, Diana is either talking to her young sons, her trusted personal dresser (Sally Hawkins) or to herself. It’s interesting, this lack of dramatic conflict and discernible plot, but it can leave the film seeming as listless and purposeless as Larraín’s Diana herself. Her favourite occupation is to wander around the estate until she finds something that has an ominous symbolic connection to her, and then make an unconvincing speech about it. Ah, pheasants! So beautiful, yet bred to be killed!

Stewart is such inspired casting that she makes all this eccentric nonsense watchable. She’s been practising Diana’s signature moves for years – dipped head, hunched shoulders – and she certainly knows what it’s like to put up with intrusive tabloid photographers. She also looks suitably fabulous in the many outfits that Diana is required to wear over the long weekend. And unlike Watts’s performance in 2013, hers doesn’t seem distractingly like an impersonation. Mind you, she delivers all her lines in little bursts of hissing whispers, so if you don’t see it with English subtitles, as its first audiences did at the Venice Film Festival, you might not understand more than half of what she says.

The effect is a bit odd, but there are lots of odd things in the film, not least the tone and the pacing, which lurch around like someone who’s had too much after-dinner port. Between Jonny Greenwood’s squalling jazz soundtrack, the hallucinations, and the blush-making sexual confessions, Spencer is a folly that wobbles between the bold and the bad, the disturbingly gothic and the just plain silly. In some scenes, it’s heart-rending in its depiction of Diana’s self-harm and bulimia. In others, it’s almost as risible as the Diana biopic from 2013, and that’s saying something. I didn’t know any more about Diana afterwards than I did beforehand, but I can’t say I didn’t enjoy it. This is a film that echoes The Shining at the start and 2001: A Space Odyssey at the end. The Crown Christmas Special it ain’t.

Sources of information: 

• “The Film Analysis Handbook” by Thomas Caldwell. 
• https://payforwriting.com/writing/creating-review/how-to-write-movie-review
• www.mtsu.edu
• www.sciencedirect.com/science
• Image:   freepik.com
• Poster from the film Apocalypse Now

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 5

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Netflix streaming
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• Love Lies Bleeding Link to Love Lies Bleeding
• Problemista Link to Problemista
• Late Night with the Devil Link to Late Night with the Devil

New TV Tonight

• Mary & George: Season 1
• Star Trek: Discovery: Season 5
• Sugar: Season 1
• American Horror Story: Season 12
• Parish: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Loot: Season 2
• Lopez vs Lopez: Season 2
• The Magic Prank Show With Justin Willman: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• We Were the Lucky Ones: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• A Gentleman in Moscow: Season 1
• X-Men '97: Season 1
• The Gentlemen: Season 1
• Palm Royale: Season 1
• Invincible: Season 2
• Quiet on Set:The Dark Side of Kids TV: Season 1
• American Rust: Season 2
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces Link to Steve! (martin) a documentary in 2 pieces
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Box Office 2024: Top 10 Movies of the Year

MonsterVerse Movies and Series Ranked: Godzilla, Kong, Monarch by Tomatometer

Women’s History

Awards Tour

The Rotten Tomatoes Channel: Watch on Samsung, Roku, And More

The Visibility Dilemma

• Trending on RT
• Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire
• 3 Body Problem
• Play Movie Trivia

About Rotten Tomatoes ®

Rotten Tomatoes and the Tomatometer score are the world’s most trusted recommendation resources for quality entertainment. As the leading online aggregator of movie and TV show reviews from critics, we provide fans with a comprehensive guide to what’s Fresh – and what’s Rotten – in theaters and at home. And the Tomatometer is just the beginning. We also serve movie and TV fans with original editorial content on our site and through social channels, produce fun and informative video series, and hold live events for fans across the country, with our ‘Your Opinion Sucks’ live shows. If you’re an entertainment fan looking for a recommendation, or to share an opinion, you’ve come to the right place.

What is the Tomatometer®?

The Tomatometer score – based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans.

Back in the days of the open theaters, when a play was particularly atrocious, the audience expressed their dissatisfaction by not only booing and hissing at the stage, but also throwing whatever was at hand – vegetables and fruits included.

The Tomatometer score represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show. A Tomatometer score is calculated for a movie or TV show after it receives at least five reviews.

When at least 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a red tomato is displayed to indicate its Fresh status.

When less than 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a green splat is displayed to indicate its Rotten status.

When there is no Tomatometer® score available, which could be because the Title hasn’t released yet or there are not enough ratings to generate a score.

What is Certified Fresh?

Certified Fresh status is a special distinction awarded to the best-reviewed movies and TV shows. In order to qualify, movies or TV shows must meet the following requirements:

• A consistent Tomatometer score of 75% or higher.
• At least five reviews from Top Critics.
• Films in wide release must have a minimum of 80 reviews. This also applies for films going from limited to wide release.
• Films in limited release must have a minimum of 40 reviews.
• Only individual seasons of a TV show are eligible, and each must have a minimum of 20 reviews.

The above requirements for Certified Fresh status are only the bare minimum a film must achieve to qualify for the distinction. A film does not automatically become Certified Fresh when it meets those requirements. The Tomatometer score must be consistent and unlikely to deviate significantly before a film or TV show is marked Certified Fresh.

A Certified Fresh movie or TV season whose score drops and remains consistently below 70% will lose the Certified Fresh designation. The certification removal might not happen as soon as the score drops below 70%; as with CF designation, removal will take place when the score settles.

A movie or TV season that loses Certified Fresh status can regain it by reaching a consistent score of 75% or more and meeting the other minimum requirements.

Rotten Tomatoes has assembled a team of curators whose job it is to read thousands of movie and TV reviews weekly. The team collects movie and TV reviews from Tomatometer-approved critics and publications every day, generating Tomatometer scores. Our curators carefully read these reviews, noting if the reviews are Fresh or Rotten, and choose a representative pull-quote. Tomatometer-approved critics can also self-submit their reviews.

What is the Audience Score?

The Audience Score, denoted by a popcorn bucket, represents the percentage of users who have rated a movie or TV show positively. With films for which we can verify users have bought a ticket, the default Audience Score we show is made up of “Verified Ratings,” which represents the percentage of users who have rated a movie or TV show positively who we can verify bought a ticket; it is displayed once enough of those Verified Ratings are in to form a score. For all other titles, we display an “All Audience Score” that includes ratings from people regardless of whether or not we can currently verify they have seen the movie or show. Titles eligible for Verified Ratings have an All Audience Score, too: To see it, just click on the popcorn bucket and you can toggle between both the Verified Audience Score and the All Audience Score. You can read more about recent changes to the score box HERE .

When at least 60% of users give a movie or TV show a star rating of 3.5 or higher, a full popcorn bucket is displayed to indicate its Fresh status.

When less than 60% of users give a movie or TV show a star rating of 3.5 or higher, a tipped over popcorn bucket is displayed to indicate its Rotten status.

When there is no Audience Score available, which could be because the Title hasn’t released yet or there are not enough ratings to generate a score.

When you see this next to a review it means we’ve confirmed the user bought a ticket to the movie. Learn More

Community Code of Conduct

We’re all about debate and discussion at Rotten Tomatoes, and want to know what our fans think. For our community code of conduct, click here.

BibGuru Blog

Be more productive in school

• Citation Styles

How to write a movie review [Updated 2023]

Writing a movie review is a great way to practice critical analysis skills. In this post, we explore what a movie review is, how to start a film review, and steps for writing and revising it.

What is a movie review?

A movie review is a concise evaluation of a film’s content and formal elements (cinematography, sound, lighting, etc.). Also known as a film review, a movie review considers not just what a film means, but how it means. Essentially, when you write a film review, you are conducting a critical analysis or close reading of a movie.

How to write a movie review

To write a successful review about a movie, you need to evaluate a film’s content, as well as its form. In this section, we break down these two components.

A film’s content includes its plot (what it’s about), characters, and setting. You’ll need to determine the main plot points of the film and how the film’s story works overall.

Are there parts that don’t make sense? Are certain characters more important than others? What is the relationship between the movie’s plot and its setting? A discussion of a film’s content provides good context for an analysis of its form.

Form refers to all of the aesthetic and/or formal elements that make a story into a movie. You can break down form into several categories:

• Cinematography : This element comprises all aspects of the movie that derive from the way a camera moves and works. You’ll need to pay attention to elements like camera angles, distances between the camera and the subject, and types of shots (i.e. close-up, aerial, etc.).
• Lighting : Films use lighting in various ways to communicate certain effects. For instance, noir films tend to utilize chiaroscuro lighting (deep contrasts between light and dark) to express a sense of secrecy or foreboding.
• Sound : The way a film uses sound can vary considerably. Most movies have a soundtrack, sometimes with music composed specifically for the film. Some films play around with ambient sounds or use silence at key points to signify important moments. What is the relation of sound to the image in specific scenes or sequences? Do sounds link images? Does it ever become more important than the image?
• Editing : The movies we watch online or in theaters have been heavily edited in order to achieve a particular flow. When you are preparing to write a movie review, pay close attention to elements like the length of shots, transitions between scenes, or any other items that were finalized after filming.
• Costumes, Props, and Sets : Are the costumes and props believable in relation to the film’s content and setting? Are costumes particularly elaborate or understated?

The important thing to remember when you are analyzing the formal elements of a movie is that every image, sound, movement, and object has meaning and has been planned. Your review needs to take into consideration how these elements work together with the film’s storyline to create a whole experience.

Once you’ve considered both the content and form of the movie that you’re reviewing, you can begin to evaluate the film as a whole. Is it a successful movie? Would you recommend it? Why or why not?

Step-by-step review writing tips

1. watch the movie.

The first time that you watch the movie, look for overarching themes or patterns, and establish what the film is primarily about. Take note of the main characters, as well as the setting.

2. Watch the movie again and take notes

Next, watch the movie again and take notes as you are doing so, keeping in mind the formal aspects discussed above. Write down anything that seems significant.

3. Evaluate the film’s form and content

Using the categories described above, and any handouts or guides provided by your instructor, evaluate the film’s formal elements along with its content. Are there elements of the movie that strike you as unfamiliar or perplexing? Are there elements that are repeated to emphasize a point or perception?

4. Write your review

A good movie review will contain:

• an introductory paragraph that tells the reader what movie you’re reviewing
• a paragraph that summarizes the movie
• several body paragraphs that explore significant formal elements and how they relate to the content
• a concluding paragraph that discusses your overall reaction to the film and whether or not you would recommend it to others

5. Create citations

You’ll need cite the film and any secondary sources that you consulted while writing. Use BibGuru’s citation generator to instantly create accurate citations for movies, as well as articles, books, and websites.

You may also want to consult a guide on how to cite a film in MLA or another major citation style .

6. Revise and proofread

Once you’ve written your review, you should set aside some time to revise and proofread it before you turn it in.

Movie review checklist

You can use this checklist to ensure that you’ve considered all of the formal elements, as well as the content, of the film that you’re reviewing:

🔲 Cinematography (camera moves and types of shots)

🔲 Lighting (natural vs. artificial light, contrasts between light and dark)

🔲 Sound (soundtrack, sound vs. silence, loud vs. soft sounds)

🔲 Editing (length of shots, transitions between scenes)

🔲 Costumes, props, and sets (believable vs. staged)

🔲 Content (plot, characters, setting)

Frequently Asked Questions about how to write a review about a movie

A movie review should contain a brief summary of the film, several paragraphs of analysis that focus on form and content, and a concluding paragraph that sums up your reaction.

Before you write anything, you need to watch the film at least once. Take notes as you’re watching and pay attention to formal elements and patterns. Then, write your review. The final step is to revise your work before you turn it in.

The tone for a movie review should be critical, yet objective. The goal of most reviews is to persuade a reader to either see a film or not.

The best film reviews balance plot summary with critical analysis of significant formal elements. A reader should be able to decide if she wants to see the film after reading the review.

Make your life easier with our productivity and writing resources.

For students and teachers.

• Freelancing
• Trending Stories

What’s the best way to pen down some phrases for tantalizing plots, spectacular plot twists, and beguiling characters to create the hype for any movie? You guessed it right, It’s a movie review. Now, the question arises how to write a movie review?

For the film buffs who have an underlying penchant for watching the latest movie in the market, movie reviews are the perfect salvation for them to determine if the latest flick is worth it or not.

Some avid fans also love spilling the beans about a movie after watching it. However, the remarks greatly vary on whether the film was a hit or miss. Even writing a movie review is art given it has to be a seamless blend of opinion, some vivid imagery, and conclusive remarks.

The majority often miscalculate the importance of acing the technique to jot down a movie review. If you are one of the people who are confused about how to write a movie review or wish to perfect your movie review writing skills, then fasten your seat belt and prepare for takeoff!  

Table of Contents

What is a movie review?

In general, a movie review is a genre of art criticism and journalism. It is a complex overview, usually made by a professional critic, of films that have just been released, to help decide what film to watch.

Professional reviews differ from those made by amateurs. Without a doubt, reviews by experienced critics are far more structured, sharper, and detailed. That’s not all! They are more compact in wording. In a professional movie review, you will always find awareness of the film’s director, their previous works, and previous filmmaker’s pictures, as well as a deep understanding of different film genres and classics for each of them, and filming techniques and modern trends.

Purpose of movie review

For starters, reviews and comments about movies are usually posted on social media profiles or public pages, review sites, and blogs, among other platforms. The primary purpose of a movie review is to advise the reader about the film and its sentiments. Seems simple, right? Reporting all events that happen and stating one’s opinion about them is a common mistake that many people make. Of course, the movie review allows writers to express their opinions about some film or documentary without any restraint. But one can only strike the perfect balance when there is an unbiased unanimous critique. So the bottom line is that an ideal review will combine both – the writer’s opinions and the element of an enigma.

Be it a successful trilogy or top Netflix, ratings and reviews are the detrimental factors of  whether someone will want to see the movie or would skip it. Like an untapped portal, one should act like this is the perfect opportunity to introduce the cinematography work to its readers while writing. Always assume they haven’t seen it before. As a result, it becomes easier to analyze events that happened on the screen.

A film review should be precise enough to provide assistance in making an honest decision i.e. whether the reader wants to see it or if they’d like it. If you are a media student who is assigned the task of movie review writing, then the lecturers want to get more insight into your critical thinking skills and the ability to report events in a comprehensible manner.

In addition, the reader who taps on reading a film review wants to assess the way you analyze the plot and characters. After all, movie reviews also involve the analysis of events that happen. Reviews test writing and vocabulary skills, adapting to different genres and events they portray. That’s not all. It also weighs your capacity to sum up some significant twists and turns and report it in a cohesive, rational, and engaging fashion.

How to write a good movie review? You have to write a movie review for school and now what? Where to start, how to make it look more “academic”? Today, we have the opportunity to use numerous tools to make every part of our lives easier, and movie review writing is no exception. Throughout this tutorial, you’ll learn how to compose a report about some film and what tools to use to simplify the process.

While movie reviews entail more responsibility than initially thought, people find them fun and with this guide, you will too.

Step-by-step guide to how to write a movie review

New beginnings are always hard. This is the point where you set the pace and determine how to approach the task at hand (movie review writing) in the most efficient manner. Below, we list down some of the most useful tips to kick-start the movie review writing process:

First and foremost, watch the movie with a critical eye for the illustration and explanation in the review. The first time the film is watched you might have missed details owing to the entertainment and joy. So watch the movie or documentary twice and take notes of both major and minor events and characters. Never trust to gulp in the intricacies of the movie meaning do not rely on the power of your memory.

Carry out thorough research – It’s human nature to overlook or forget to carry out detailed research of the film and its makers. Just watching the movie with keen observation is never enough, research plays an equally noteworthy role. Look for details such as the name of the filmmaker and his/her motivation to make that film or documentary work, locations, plot, characterization, and historic events. Basically, the research phase should serve to collect information that provides more depth to the review

Analyze the movie after you watch it – Never start working on the review if you aren’t sure about all the fragments in regards to the film. Evaluate the movie from beginning to end. Re-watch it, if necessary, if you find some parts confusing. Only when you understand events that happened on the screen will you find it easier to create the review      

Draft an outline that you will follow to write the review in a concise and cohesive fashion

Include examples of claims you make about the movie. If the plot has holes, then mention an example of a situation or scene when that was evident. Also, if the character(s) is poorly developed or bad casting affects the movie quality, name examples too. Provide examples when commenting on dialogues, locations, plot, everything. If you want the reader to agree with you, it’s essential to back up your claims with evidence. You don’t want to make it seem like you’re praising or criticizing the movie without any reason whatsoever

Consider and comment on a movie’s originality and quality of scenes. Explain how the movie stands out or whether it just uses the same approach that worked for previous works in the industry

How to organize your movie review

The quality of your review depends on many things namely, structure, vocabulary, and much more. Never underestimate the importance of a well-structured outline, regardless of the genre of the movie.

Primarily, things should be organized before you start writing. It is a great way to save time later on. Apart from dabbling in points to add, have a well-structured plan to follow. Here’s how to organize your movie review:

• Introduction (This section will include the title, release date, and background information)
• Summary of the story
• Analysis of the plot elements (Explain the rising action alongside the climax)
• Creative elements (dialogues, characters, use of colors, camera techniques, mood, tone, symbols, costumes or anything that contributes or takes away from the overall plot)
• Opinion (supported with examples and facts from the story)
• Conclusion (announcing whether the filmmaker was successful in his/her purpose, re-state your evidence, explain how the motion picture was helpful for providing a deeper understanding of the course topic)

Movie review elements

Moving on, let’s discuss the movie review elements that are key features when penning the writing.

The title of the film/documentary – Mention the title of the film twice in our headline features the name of the movie or documentary. Don’t skip mentioning the headline in the text. Always name the feature you’ve watched in the introductory paragraph. This may seem like a stupid thing to point out, but it’s one of the most common mistakes that students make

Summary – The whole point of the review is to summarize the documentary or movie for people who haven’t watched it yet. To make this as effective as possible, always assume that your professor hasn’t seen it either (as mentioned above). Why is this important? You won’t leave out some important details thinking he/she watched it already so they won’t bother. As a reviewer, your job is to explain what happened in the film and express whether the filmmaker failed or succeeded. Again, saying you liked or disliked it isn’t a viable comment. Your opinion has to be supported by specific reasons and examples from the feature itself

Filmmaker – Do a little research on the person who directed the piece. Is that person a controversial figure? Is he/she known for a political stance? Does the filmmaker have a significant background? Devote a paragraph or two to the person behind the movie and their other works in order to establish the significance of the film you are reviewing for the director’s career

Significance to your class – How does the content of the documentary or film fit into your course topic? Is it important for historical accuracy? If you are watching the motion picture for history class, make note of over-dramatization. If the motion picture is based on the book you’ve analyzed in English class, you can mention similarities, differences, or some elements that the film contains, but the book doesn’t, and so on

Creative elements – Filmmakers work hard to include creative elements in their motion pictures. How are these elements important to the plot and movie in general? For example, costumes can either enhance the movie or betray its intent. Colors can be vivid and lift the atmosphere or mood in the movie or they can be dull and make it seem depressing. Good sound effects enrich the viewing experience while bad ones only destroy everything. Moreover, camera movements and angles also add elements to the story. Take notes of symbols in the story, if any.

Actors and characters – let’s not forget the casting! Were the actors realistic? Did they portray the role of a specific character successfully? Did they have good acting skills? Do you believe that some particular actor was the right fit for the role?

Movie review format

Structuring is extremely useful in any type of paper and a movie review isn’t an exception. A written outline will help you organize your thoughts properly, not to forget anything and to actually end up writing it faster. Here is an example outline you may use:

• Introduction – In this part you need to provide some general information about the picture: title, release date, main actors, filmmakers, film company and filming budget.
• Summary of the story – This is a short exposition of movie plot, characters and their interaction.
• Analysis of the plot elements – starting point, rising action, and climax.
• Analysis of creative elements – dialogues, characters, use of colors, camera techniques, mood, tone, symbols, costumes or anything that contributes or takes away from the overall plot.
• Analysis of the topic and its implementation – viewers’ understanding of the topic, relevance of the topic, and comparison with other resembling works.
• Opinion – Your point of view supported with examples and facts from the story.
• Conclusion – Announce whether the filmmaker was successful in his/her purpose. Explain how the motion picture was helpful in providing a deeper understanding of the course topic.

Movie review format for students

Feature films and documentaries may serve as primary resources for your research. As for the fiction movies, a student may use them for inspiration while writing, for instance, a compare and contrast essay on the similarities and differences of a book and film based on that piece of literature. In any case, films can be used as great supplemental learning tools.

If you look at our movie review examples available for free, you can notice that the structure of such papers is different from an ordinary essay’s outline. By their nature, film reports are also different from essays. You should not also confuse a brief summary with a detailed review, which also implies an in-depth analysis of the chosen piece.

So, in any film critique example, you can notice the following structure:

Title of the analyzed work. A writer has to specify the movie’s title in the opening part and put down the release date.

An abstract usually refers to the summary of the main points. In the case of the samples of movie reviews, that is a summary of the plot. Discuss what happened in the video and share your thoughts: was it a success or failure?

You may say that you hated the movie, or, vice versa, believe it’s the best motion picture in the world, but make sure to provide specific reasons. That is why you need to watch the full movie and pick various details like character quotes to prove your point of view.

To answer various questions that the audience may have, an author should provide replies to meaningful questions about the movie maker/director. Decide whether this person can be considered a controversial figure. Is there any sort of political stance? Finally, think about a significant background a movie creator may have (if any). Depending on the answers to these questions, the length of your paper may vary.

Relevance to your subject

Was it a good idea to assign this movie to your class? Think about whether the video content matches the topics that you study currently or have recently covered.

Perhaps, the movie has to do with historical accuracy. Include a note of embellishments or over-dramatization if you write for your history lesson. Comments and citations from credible sources can be useful.

Creative elements

You can see from any movie critique example that a list of creative tools is listed. Those could be costumes, decorations, colors, sound effects, music, and other visual and audio elements. A paper writer should discuss which of the elements add drama and which of them have comical purposes.

Mistakes to avoid while writing a movie review

Below, we list down some of the most common mistakes while writing a movie review. If you are a student who has an assignment or a movie enthusiast who wishes you pour their emotions with fellow fans, we recommend you give this section a thorough read,

Retelling the film plot in detail – The idea of a movie review is not to put the film on paper or spill the beans. Everyone abhors spoilers. So try sharing the general story by adding some spice to make your reader curious about seeing the film.

Giving a too general opinion of the film – Some writers take the generic term of general writing

Remember that things are rarely unequivocal. Even if you don’t like the content and quality of the film, don’t forget to mention if the music was actually pretty good, or if one of the actors managed to portray a believable character.

Lack of evidence – Presenting your opinion without any explanation why you think that way won’t be considered reliable. The unfounded statement isn’t a good resource for a decision, even if we are talking about a choice of which movie to watch.

Lack of film research – Don’t force your readers to conduct their own research, or to look for another review to find out the background information of a movie.

Absence of structure – If your work is not structured properly, it will be really difficult to follow your thoughts and understand your points. Reviews should be helpful to readers, and good structure helps get your message across correctly.

No conclusions and recommendations – As we mentioned above, providing recommendations regarding the film is one of the main purposes of writing a movie review. Do not deprive readers of your findings and thoughts. By recommending a good movie to watch, you may make someone’s evening.

Movie review essay

What’s your story? Any individual who has carried on with a full life has something entrancing to impart to the world. The secret to composing a life account is to deal with it like any great story: it ought to have a hero (you), a focal clash, and a cast of interesting characters to keep individuals locked in. You might need to consider a specific topic or idea that has been available in your everyday life to rotate your story around.

The wide classification of life accounts remains among the strong classes of verifiable composition. Blockbuster records show that readers love to find out about the lives of their kindred people, especially those with recognized individual stories. An account composed by its subject is known as an autobiography. As a firsthand record of the writer’s own life, an autobiography offers an unrivaled degree of closeness to perusers of the more extensive history classification. 

If you want to know more about how to write an autobiography, then you have come to the right place. We have gathered all relevant information to help you understand everything that you need to know. Read on to figure out how to make the narrative of your life and clean your composition to make it sing.

Good movies make great reviews

Words and catchlines can pave the way to describe anything including any genre of film. So

Basically, you can write a movie review on pretty much any film. However, it is advisable by the experts and there is a general debate that is careful while dabbling in tricky or multi-themed genres. Careless choices result in trouble points and confusing reviews that fall flat on the readers. Hence, it is essential that you pick a film that you will be able to analyze and evaluate. Generally, for a movie review, students choose films they either like or don’t like.

What makes a movie great?

No critics have ever described any film as the epitome of perfection. Quintessential movies are dubbed as major successes on the basis of spectacular characters or fulfilling plotlines. Other things include visual aesthetics, the quality of directing and acting, and the impression it has.

Typically, you can suggest if a characteristic movie is great when it keeps the audience engaged. A great movie also leaves the audience with a powerful impression and then something to think about once the credits roll.

Key pointers to remember while writing a movie review

Understand that any piece of writing is not a do-or-die job. It demands consistency and devotion. However, the key to writing an exceptional movie review is understanding your target audience. So, keep the following key pointers in your mind while writing:

• Discuss the film plot – The goal is to discuss the movie without giving away spoilers and hurling the entire plot in your article. The more the mystery, the better the movie review.
• Share some information about the characters – Thrust the film’s main lead and supporting characters in the limelight. Discuss their relations and events. Since reading the review shouldn’t replace watching the film, just touch base on the points that make the film worth watching.
• Analyze the film – In general retrospect, the star cast or their impeccable acting skills set the film apart from its contemporaries. The work of the director, theme, music, and other features become objective and detailed in your evaluations.
• Share your opinion – Describe your feelings during, and after watching the movie and specify what you liked, and what you didn’t like. Provide your general impression about the film based on examples, descriptions, and comparisons to enable readers to make their own decisions.
• Give a recommendation – A review(no matter what kind) is a recount of opinions and is influenced by the writer’s preferences. Avoid being categorical and focus on the highs and lows of the film from a general prospect.
• Entertain the reader – The target audience has to feel entertained, amused or glad by the written material. The review should pique curiosity and many people read movie reviews because it is actually kind of fun in itself. Try to make an easy-to-read review, and write in an interesting manner.

The accomplishment of a decent movie review or any book for that matter comes from the capacity of the writer to show perusers the story from “an external perspective”, and cause the reader to feel like they are in your place and understand your point of view. Everyone couldn’t care less about your troublesome youth, your parents’ separation, or the way that in school you were the nerd with glasses. However, on the off chance that the troubles experienced by you will be shown so the peruser learns a few lessons for himself – this would qualify as a decent book.

Thus, you can see that writing a movie review is not an easy task. You should design and organize your time, read and get motivated by reading other reviews, surfing online by looking for composing styles, language structure, and artistic descriptions to describe the cinematography. Remember to sort out your last objective and why you need to compose a movie review. The entirety of this time investment with end with you feeling a sense of accomplishment and success as your labor of love gets completed.

Ideally, this article will help you in this intriguing yet hard way. So you do not have to worry anymore about writing. Just pick a pen or open your PC and start your magnum opus. Just remember that honesty is the best policy and to avoid bias at every cost.

You Might Also Like

An Interesting Detailed Guide With Some Inspirational Steps On How To Become A Content Creator

When Do You Use A Semicolon For Impactful Writing?

A Complete Guide On How To Write A Vision Statement? Some Tips And Tricks To Inspire You

No comments, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Film: Movie Reviews and Film Criticism

• Movie Reviews and Film Criticism
• Articles & Databases
• DVDs, Videos, & Streaming Media
• Web Resources

Finding Movie Reviews and Film Criticism

Film criticism provides evidence for Film & Digital Arts criticism assignments. This research guide distinguishes movie reviews from film criticism and pr ovides resources that will help you find criticism and reviews. See the Articles & Databases and Web Resources sections of this research guide for a list of search tools.

Movie Reviews

The purpose of a movie review is consumer in nature. The reviewer is making a judgment about the quality of the movie with the intention of telling the reader whether or not it is worth the time, effort, and money to watch. The reviewer assumes that the reader has not seen the movie and therefore is careful to reveal no spoilers. Reviews tend to be written when the movie is released into theaters, on video or DVD, or in streaming. The quality of reviews varies greatly, ranging from a simple plot summary with a thumbs up or thumbs down to an in-depth examination informed by expertise from film schools and years of film analysis and reviews. Regardless, the purpose of a review is to make a viewing recom mendation.

Examples of movie reviews of Pulp Fiction include:

• James Berardinelli
• Roger Ebert
• Andrew Wickliffe

Film Criticism

The purpose of film criticism is scholarly in nature. The film scholar is also making a judgment of the quality, but is doing so with the intention of making an argument about the meaning of the film or films by providing reasoned consideration and evidence. The scholar assumes that the reader has seen the film in order to better engage the argument – spoilers are irrelevant.

Film scholars have a distinct lens that they use in interpreting films. Their arguments might be based on filmmaker intent with an auteur lens, a formalist analysis of style and aesthetics or visual narrative, or an examination of the biographical or historical context. Their arguments might disconnect and dismantle the meaning of the film from its author’s intent by making a poststructuralist, semiotic, psychoanalytic, or literary analysis from the perspective of the viewer and of society. Their arguments might be a means to social justice intending to challenge the dominant power structures and the status quo by applying ideological Marxist, feminist, postcolonial, or queer approaches. Regardless, the purpose of criticism is to make a scholarly argument.

Examples of film criticism of Pulp Fiction include (you will need to be on campus or logged in to view):

• Davis, Todd F., and Kenneth Womack. “Shepherding the Weak: The Ethics of Redemption in Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Pulp Fiction.’” Literature Film Quarterly , vol. 26, no. 1, Jan. 1998, p. 60-66. EBSCOhost permalink .
• Jewers, Caroline. “Heroes and Heroin: From ‘True Romance’ to ‘Pulp Fiction.’” Journal of Popular Culture , vol. 33, 2000, pp. 39-61. Link
• Kimball, A.Samuel. “‘Bad-Ass Dudes’ in Pulp Fiction: Homophobia and the Counterphobic Idealization of Women.” Quarterly Review of Film & Video , vol. 16, no. 2, Sept. 1997, pp. 171-192. Link

Criticism as Evidence

As in criticism, the purpose of film assignments tends to be making your own argument about a film or films using reasoned consideration and evidence. The nature of the evidence that will best serve your needs is criticism, not reviews. This research guide shows how to find both criticism and reviews, because the simple fact is that not all films receive critical treatment, but virtually all are reviewed. In those cases where there is no criticism available, you may use reviews as a starting point, especially if they are the more in-depth examinations informed by expertise. However, you will most likely end up making your own reasoned consideration a centerpiece of the study without providing the evidence a film criticism provides.

• << Previous: Home
• Next: Articles & Databases >>
• Last Updated: Feb 7, 2024 6:34 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unm.edu/film

Resources by format

• Audio books
• Biographies
• Book reviews
• Business, company, and industry information
• Center for Research Libraries collections
• Citation and style manuals
• Demographic visualizations
• Engineering standards
• Foreign language learning materials
• Manuscripts
• Movie reviews and criticisms
• Patents and trademarks
• Pleasure reading books
• Primary source databases
• Speeches and transcripts
• Streaming videos
• Test and measures
• Theses and dissertations
• Tutorial and educational resources

A movie review is an article that is published in a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly work that describes and evaluates a movie. Reviews are typically written by journalists giving their opinion of the movie. Some reviews include score (4 out of 5 stars) or recommendations (thumbs up). Since reviews are printed in many different kinds of publications, you may need to search several sources.

A movie criticism is written by a scholar or expert in film studies to discuss the movie within a historical, social, political, or theoretical context. It differs from the opinion or recommendation that a movie review provides in terms of length, content and focus. Criticisms can be found in cinema studies journals as well as discipline-specific sources, depending on the plot or themes of the movie.

Reviews and criticisms are produced after the release of a movie, whether that is its initial release to theatres, or a release in a home video format. Knowing the initial release date(s) will help refine your search. Also note that nationwide release of movies only started in the 1980s; earlier films were released on different dates in different parts of the country. So a movie reviewed in New York City of Los Angeles may not have been reviewed for months or years later in smaller cities. The Internet Movie Database is an excellent source for release dates. Finally, movies can be remade, so you will want to be sure you are finding reviews or criticisms for the correct film; knowing the director or major stars will help refine your search results.

Many sources will only give a citation for the review or criticism. Use that citation to track down the complete text of the article.

Movie review and critique databases

General interest databases.

Reviews and criticisms can be found in general interest databases. Note the date range covered by each database and select ones that cover the time after the release of your movie. Search the title of the movie (as a phrase when possible) and include the director's last name if more than one film by that title exists.

Print indexes

Since most databases cover only more recent years, finding reviews for older movies may require using a print index. Check the catalog record for each index to see if it covers the dates required. Use the volume corresponding to the year of publication for your book and the year or two after.. (Several of these indexes have been moved to off-campus storage; you'll have to request for them to be brought back to Newman to use them.)

Freely available movie review websites

A large number of websites provide access to movie reviews, either the full text of the review, or at least a citation you can use to track down the full text.

• Last Updated: Feb 12, 2024 9:48 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.vt.edu/find/byformat

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Arts and Entertainment
• Film Studies

How to Write a Movie Review

Last Updated: March 13, 2024 Fact Checked

wikiHow is a “wiki,” similar to Wikipedia, which means that many of our articles are co-written by multiple authors. To create this article, 179 people, some anonymous, worked to edit and improve it over time. There are 14 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 5,569,479 times. Learn more...

Whether a movie is a rotten tomato or a brilliant work of art, if people are watching it, it's worth critiquing. A decent movie review should entertain, persuade and inform, providing an original opinion without giving away too much of the plot. A great movie review can be a work of art in its own right. Read on to learn how to analyze a movie like a professional film critic, come up with an interesting thesis, and write a review as entertaining as your source material.

Sample Movie Reviews

Writing an Intro for a Movie Review

• Comparison to Relevant Event or Movie: "Every day, our leaders, politicians, and pundits call for "revenge"– against terrorist groups, against international rivals, against other political parties. But few of them understand the cold, destructive, and ultimately hollow thrill of revenge as well as the characters of Blue Ruin. "
• Review in a nutshell: "Despite a compelling lead performance by Tom Hanks and a great soundtrack, Forrest Gump never gets out of the shadow of its weak plot and questionable premise."
• Context or Background Information: " Boyhood might be the first movie made where knowing how it was produced–slowly, over 12 years, with the same actors–is just as crucial as the movie itself."

• Using stars, a score out of 10 or 100, or the simple thumbs-up and thumbs-down is a quick way to give your thoughts. You then write about why you chose that rating.
• Great Movie: ABC is the rare movie that succeeds on almost every level, where each character, scene, costume, and joke firing on all cylinders to make a film worth repeated viewings."
• Bad Movie: "It doesn't matter how much you enjoy kung-fu and karate films: with 47 Ronin, you're better off saving your money, your popcorn, and time."
• Okay Movie: "I loved the wildly uneven Interstellar far more than I should have, but that doesn't mean it is perfect. Ultimately, the utter awe and spectacle of space swept me through the admittedly heavy-handed plotting and dialogue."

• Great: "Michael B. Jordan and Octavia Spencer's chemistry would carry Fruitvale Station even if the script wasn't as good. The mid-movie prison scene in particular, where the camera never leaves their faces, shows how much they can convey with nothing but their eyelids, the flashing tension of neck muscles, and a barely cracking voice."
• Bad: " Jurassic World's biggest flaw, a complete lack of relatable female characters, is only further underscored by a laughably unrealistic shot of our heroine running away from a dinosaur – in heels."
• Okay: "At the end of the day, Snowpiercer can't decide what kind of movie it wants to be. The attention to detail in fight scenes, where every weapon, lightbulb, and slick patch of ground is accounted for, doesn't translate to an ending that seems powerful but ultimately says little of substance."

• Does the film reflect on a current event or contemporary issue? It could be the director's way of engaging in a bigger conversation. Look for ways to relate the content of the film to the "real" world.
• Does the film seem to have a message, or does it attempt to elicit a specific response or emotion from the audience? You could discuss whether or not it achieves its own goals.
• Does the film connect with you on a personal level? You could write a review stemming from your own feelings and weave in some personal stories to make it interesting for your readers.

Composing Your Review

• When you name characters in your plot summary, list the actors' names directly afterward in parenthesis.
• Find a place to mention the director's name and the full movie title.
• If you feel you must discuss information that might "spoil" things for readers, warn them first.

• Cinematography: " Her is a world drenched in color, using bright, soft reds and oranges alongside calming whites and grays that both build, and slowly strip away, the feelings of love between the protagonists. Every frame feels like a painting worth sitting in."
• Tone: "Despite the insane loneliness and high stakes of being stuck alone on Mars, The Martian's witty script keeps humor and excitement alive in every scene. Space may be dangerous and scary, but the joy of scientific discovery is intoxicating."
• Music and Sound: " No Country For Old Men's bold decision to skip music entirely pays off in spades. The eerie silence of the desert, punctuated by the brief spells of violent, up-close-and-personal sound effects of hunter and hunted, keeps you constantly on the edge of your seat."
• Acting: "While he's fantastic whenever he's on the move, using his cool stoicism to counteract the rampaging bus, Keanu Reeves can't quite match his costar in the quiet moments of Speed, which falter under his expressionless gaze."

• Keep your writing clear and easy to understand. Don't use too much technical filmmaking jargon, and make your language crisp and accessible.
• Present both the facts and your opinion. For example, you might state something such as, "The Baroque background music was a jarring contrast to the 20th century setting." This is a lot more informative then simply saying, "The music was a strange choice for the movie."

• Great: "In the end, even the characters of Blue Ruin know how pointless their feud is. But revenge, much like every taut minute of this thriller, is far too addictive to give up until the bitter end.""
• Bad: "Much like the oft-mentioned "box of chocolates", Forest Gump has a couple of good little morsels. But most of the scenes, too sweet by half, should have been in the trash long before this movie was put out."
• Okay: "Without the novel, even revolutionary concept, Boyhood may not be a great movie. It might not even be "good.” But the power the film finds in the beauty of passing time and little, inconsequential moments – moments that could only be captured over 12 years of shooting – make Linklater's latest an essential film for anyone interested in the art of film."

Polishing Your Piece

• Ask yourself whether your review stayed true to your thesis. Did your conclusion tie back in with the initial ideas you proposed?
• Decide whether your review contains enough details about the movie. You may need to go back and add more description here and there to give readers a better sense of what the movie's about.
• Decide whether your review is interesting enough as a stand-alone piece of writing. Did you contribute something original to this discussion? What will readers gain from reading your review that they couldn't from simply watching the movie?

Studying Your Source Material

• The title of the film, and the year it came out.
• The director's name.
• The names of the lead actors.

• Make a note every time something sticks out to you, whether it's good or bad. This could be costuming, makeup, set design, music, etc. Think about how this detail relates to the rest of the movie and what it means in the context of your review.
• Take note of patterns you begin to notice as the movie unfolds.
• Use the pause button frequently so you make sure not to miss anything, and rewind as necessary.

• Direction: Consider the director and how he or she choose to portray/explain the events in the story. If the movie was slow, or didn't include things you thought were necessary, you can attribute this to the director. If you've seen other movies directed by the same person, compare them and determine which you like the most.
• Cinematography: What techniques were used to film the movie? What setting and background elements helped to create a certain tone?
• Writing: Evaluate the script, including dialogue and characterization. Did you feel like the plot was inventive and unpredictable or boring and weak? Did the characters' words seem credible to you?
• Editing: Was the movie choppy or did it flow smoothly from scene to scene? Did they incorporate a montage to help build the story? And was this obstructive to the narrative or did it help it? Did they use long cuts to help accentuate an actor's acting ability or many reaction shots to show a group's reaction to an event or dialogue? If visual effects were used were the plates well-chosen and were the composited effects part of a seamless experience? (Whether the effects looked realistic or not is not the jurisdiction of an editor, however, they do choose the footage to be sent off to the compositors, so this could still affect the film.)
• Costume design: Did the clothing choices fit the style of the movie? Did they contribute to the overall tone, rather than digressing from it?
• Set design: Consider how the setting of the film influenced its other elements. Did it add or subtract from the experience for you? If the movie was filmed in a real place, was this location well-chosen?
• Score or soundtrack: Did it work with the scenes? Was it over/under-used? Was it suspenseful? Amusing? Irritating? A soundtrack can make or break a movie, especially if the songs have a particular message or meaning to them.

Community Q&A

• If you don't like the movie, don't be abusive and mean. If possible, avoid watching the movies that you would surely hate. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 1
• Understand that just because the movie isn't to your taste, that doesn't mean you should give it a bad review. A good reviewer helps people find movie's they will like. Since you don't have the same taste in movies as everyone else, you need to be able to tell people if they will enjoy the movie, even if you didn't. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
• Structure is very important; try categorizing the different parts of the film and commenting on each of those individually. Deciding how good each thing is will help you come to a more accurate conclusion. For example, things like acting, special effects, cinematography, think about how good each of those are. Thanks Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/writing_about_film/terminology_and_starting_prompts.html
• ↑ https://www.spiritofbaraka.com/how-write-a-movie-review
• ↑ https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/9-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/
• ↑ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/writing-help/top-tips-for-writing-a-review
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/summary-using-it-wisely/
• ↑ https://twp.duke.edu/sites/twp.duke.edu/files/file-attachments/film-review-1.original.pdf
• ↑ https://www.dailywritingtips.com/7-tips-for-writing-a-film-review/
• ↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/writing_about_film/film_writing_sample_analysis.html
• ↑ https://learning.hccs.edu/faculty/onnyx.bei/dual-credit/movie-review-writing-guide
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/conclusions/
• ↑ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/how-to-write-a-movie-review/
• ↑ https://gustavus.edu/writingcenter/handoutdocs/editing_proofreading.php
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/
• ↑ https://edusson.com/blog/how-to-write-movie-review

About This Article

To write a movie review, start with a compelling fact or opinion to hook your readers, like "Despite a great performance by Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump never overcomes its weak plot." Then, elaborate on your opinion of the movie right off the bat so readers know where you stand. Once your opinion is clear, provide examples from the movie that prove your point, like specific scenes, dialogue, songs, or camera shots. To learn how to study a film closely before you write a review, scroll down! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• 2024 election
• Kate Middleton
• TikTok’s fate
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

Does a movie’s Rotten Tomatoes score affect its box office returns? And six other questions, answered.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Rotten Tomatoes, explained

In February 2016, Rotten Tomatoes — the site that aggregates movie and TV critics’ opinions and tabulates a score that’s “fresh” or “rotten” — took on an elevated level of importance. That’s when Rotten Tomatoes (along with its parent company Flixster) was acquired by Fandango , the website that sells advance movie tickets for many major cinema chains.

People had been using Rotten Tomatoes to find movie reviews since it launched in 2000, but after Fandango acquired the site, it began posting “Tomatometer” scores next to movie ticket listings. Since then, studio execs have started to feel as if Rotten Tomatoes matters more than it used to — and in some cases, they’ve rejiggered their marketing strategies accordingly.

It’s easy to see why anyone might assume that Rotten Tomatoes scores became more tightly linked to ticket sales, with potential audiences more likely to buy tickets for a movie with a higher score, and by extension, giving critics more power over the purchase of a ticket.

But that’s not the whole story. And as most movie critics (including myself) will tell you, the correlation between Rotten Tomatoes scores, critical opinion, marketing tactics, and actual box office returns is complicated. It’s not a simple cause-and-effect situation.

My own work is included in both Rotten Tomatoes’ score and that of its more exclusive cousin, Metacritic . So I, along with many other critics , think often of the upsides and pitfalls of aggregating critical opinion and its effect on which movies people see. But for the casual moviegoer, how review aggregators work, what they measure, and how they affect ticket sales can be mysterious.

So when I got curious about how people perceive Rotten Tomatoes and its effect on ticket sales, I did what any self-respecting film critic does: I informally polled my Twitter followers to see what they wanted to know.

Here are seven questions that many people have about Rotten Tomatoes, and review aggregation more generally — and some facts to clear up the confusion.

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated?

The score that Rotten Tomatoes assigns to a film corresponds to the percentage of critics who’ve judged the film to be “fresh,” meaning their opinion of it is more positive than negative. The idea is to quickly offer moviegoers a sense of critical consensus.

“Our goal is to serve fans by giving them useful tools and one-stop access to critic reviews, user ratings, and entertainment news to help with their entertainment viewing decisions,” Jeff Voris, a vice president at Rotten Tomatoes, told me in an email.

The opinions of about 3,000 critics — a.k.a. the “Approved Tomatometer Critics” who have met a series of criteria set by Rotten Tomatoes — are included in the site’s scores, though not every critic reviews every film, so any given score is more typically derived from a few hundred critics, or even less. The scores don’t include just anyone who calls themselves a critic or has a movie blog; Rotten Tomatoes only aggregates critics who have been regularly publishing movie reviews with a reasonably widely read outlet for at least two years, and those critics must be “active,” meaning they've published at least one review in the last year. The site also deems a subset of critics to be “top critics” and calculates a separate score that only includes them.

Some critics (or staffers at their publications) upload their own reviews, choose their own pull quotes, and designate their review as “fresh” or “rotten.” Other critics (including myself) have their reviews uploaded, pull-quoted, and tagged as fresh or rotten by the Rotten Tomatoes staff. In the second case, if the staff isn't sure whether to tag a review as fresh or rotten, they reach out to the critic for clarification. And critics who don't agree with the site’s designation can request that it be changed.

As the reviews of a given film accumulate, the Rotten Tomatoes score measures the percentage that are more positive than negative, and assigns an overall fresh or rotten rating to the movie. Scores of over 60 percent are considered fresh, and scores of 59 percent and under are rotten. To earn the coveted “designated fresh” seal, a film needs at least 40 reviews, 75 percent of which are fresh, and five of which are from “top” critics.

What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean ?

A Rotten Tomatoes score represents the percentage of critics who felt mildly to wildly positively about a given film.

If I give a film a mixed review that’s generally positive (which, in Vox’s rating system, could range from a positive-skewing 3 to the rare totally enamored 5), that review receives the same weight as an all-out rave from another critic. (When I give a movie a 2.5, I consider that to be a neutral score; by Rotten Tomatoes' reckoning, it's rotten.) Theoretically, a 100 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating could be made up entirely of middling-to-positive reviews. And if half of the critics the site aggregates only sort of like a movie, and the other half sort of dislike it, the film will hover around 50 percent (which is considered “rotten” by the site).

Contrary to some people’s perceptions, Rotten Tomatoes itself maintains no opinion about a film. What Rotten Tomatoes tries to gauge is critical consensus.

Critics’ opinions do tend to cluster on most films. But there are always outliers, whether from contrarians (who sometimes seem to figure out what people will say and then take the opposite opinion), or from those who seem to love every film. And critics, like everyone, have various life experiences, aesthetic preferences, and points of view that lead them to have differing opinions on movies.

So in many (if not most) cases, a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score may not correspond to any one critic’s view. It’s more like an imprecise estimate of what would happen if you mashed together every Tomatometer critic and had the resulting super-critic flash a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Rotten Tomatoes also lets audiences rate movies, and the score is often out of step with the critical score. Sometimes, the difference is extremely significant, a fact that's noticeable because the site lists the two scores side by side.

There’s a straightforward reason the two rarely match, though: The critical score is more controlled and methodical.

Why? Most professional critics have to see and review many films, whether or not they’re inclined to like the movie. (Also, most critics don’t pay to see films, because studios hold special early screenings for them ahead of the release date, which removes the decision of whether they’re interested enough in a film to spend their hard-earned money on seeing it.)

But with Rotten Tomatoes’ audience score, the situation is different. Anyone on the internet can contribute — not just those who actually saw the film. As a result, a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score can be gamed by internet trolls seeking to sink it simply because they find its concept offensive. A concerted effort can drive down the film’s audience score before it even comes out, as was the case with the all-female reboot of Ghostbusters .

Even if Rotten Tomatoes required people to pass a quiz on the movie before they rated it, the score would still be somewhat unreliable. Why? Because ordinary audiences are more inclined to buy tickets to movies they’re predisposed to like — who wants to spend $12 to $20 on a film they’re pretty sure they’ll hate?

So audience scores at Rotten Tomatoes (and other audience-driven scores, like the ones at IMDb) naturally skew very positive, or sometimes very negative if there’s any sort of smear campaign in play. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But audience scores tend to not account for those who would never buy a ticket to the movie in the first place.

In contrast, since critics see lots of movies — some of which they would have gone to see anyhow, and some of which they would’ve never chosen to see if their editors didn’t make the assignment — their opinion distribution should theoretically be more even, and thus the critical Rotten Tomatoes score more “accurate.”

Or at least that’s what Rotten Tomatoes thinks. The site displays a movie’s critics’ scores — the official Tomatometer — at Fandango and in a more prominent spot on the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes landing page. The audience score is also displayed on the Rotten Tomatoes page, but it’s not factored into the film’s fresh or rotten rating, and doesn’t contribute to a film being labeled as “certified fresh.”

Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer?

The biggest reason many critics find Rotten Tomatoes frustrating is that most people’s opinions about movies can’t be boiled down to a simple thumbs up or down. And most critics feel that Rotten Tomatoes, in particular, oversimplifies criticism, to the detriment of critics, the audience, and the movies themselves.

In some cases, a film really is almost universally considered to be excellent, or to be a complete catastrophe. But critics usually come away from a movie with a mixed view. Some things work, and others don’t. The actors are great, but the screenplay is lacking. The filmmaking is subpar, but the story is imaginative. Some critics use a four- or five-star rating, sometimes with half-stars included, to help quantify mixed opinions as mostly negative or mostly positive.

The important point here is that no critic who takes their job seriously is going to have a simple yes-or-no system for most movies. Critics watch a film, think about it, and write a review that doesn't just judge the movie but analyzes, contextualizes, and ruminates over it. The fear among many critics (including myself) is that people who rely largely on Rotten Tomatoes aren't interested in the nuances of a film, and aren't particularly interested in reading criticism, either.

But maybe the bigger reason critics are worried about the influence of review aggregators is that they seem to imply there's a “right” way to evaluate a movie, based on most people's opinions. We worry that audience members who have different reactions will feel as if their opinion is somehow wrong, rather than seeing the diversity of opinions as an invitation to read and understand how and why people react to art differently.

Plenty of movies — from Psycho to Fight Club to Alien — would have earned a rotten rating from Rotten Tomatoes upon their original release, only to be reconsidered and deemed classics years later as tastes, preferences, and ideas about films changed. Sometimes being an outlier can just mean you're forward-thinking.

Voris, the Rotten Tomatoes vice president, told me that the site is always trying to grapple with this quandary. “The Rotten Tomatoes curation team is constantly adding and updating reviews for films — both past and present,” he told me. “If there’s a review available from an approved critic or outlet, it will be added.”

What critics are worried about is a tendency toward groupthink, and toward scapegoating people who deviate from the “accepted” analysis. You can easily see this in the hordes of fans that sometimes come after a critic who dares to “ruin” a film's perfect score . But critics (at least serious ones) don't write their reviews to fit the Tomatometer, nor are they out to “get” DC Comics movies or religious movies or political movies or any other movies. Critics love movies and want them to be good, and we try to be honest when we see one that we don't measures up.

That doesn't mean the audience can't like a movie with a rotten rating, or hate a movie with a fresh rating. It's no insult to critics when audience opinion diverges. In fact, it makes talking and thinking about movies more interesting.

If critics are ambivalent about Rotten Tomatoes scores, why do moviegoers use the scores to decide whether to see a movie?

Mainly, it’s easy. You’re buying movie tickets on Fandango, or you’re trying to figure out what to watch on Netflix, so you check the Rotten Tomatoes score to decide. It’s simple. That’s the point.

And that’s not a bad thing. It's helpful to get a quick sense of critical consensus, even if it's somewhat imprecise. Many people use Rotten Tomatoes to get a rough idea of whether critics generally liked a film.

The flip side, though, is that some people, whether they’re critics or audience members, will inevitably have opinions that don't track with the Rotten Tomatoes score at all. Just because an individual's opinion is out of step with the Tomatometer doesn't mean the person is “wrong” — it just means they're an outlier.

And that, frankly, is what makes art, entertainment, and the world at large interesting: Not everyone has the same opinion about everything, because people are not exact replicas of one another. Most critics love arguing about movies, because they often find that disagreeing with their colleagues is what makes their job fun. It's fine to disagree with others about a movie, and it doesn't mean you're “wrong.”

(For what it’s worth, another review aggregation site, Metacritic, maintains an even smaller and more exclusive group of critics than Rotten Tomatoes — its aggregated scores cap out around 50 reviews per movie, instead of the hundreds that can make up a Tomatometer score. Metacritic’s score for a film is different from Rotten Tomatoes’ insofar as each individual review is assigned a rating on a scale of 100 and the overall Metacritic score is a weighted average, the mechanics of which Metacritic absolutely refuses to divulge . But because the site’s ratings are even more carefully controlled to include only experienced professional critics — and because the reviews it aggregates are given a higher level of granularity, and presumably weighted by the perceived influence of the critic’s publication — most critics consider Metacritic a better gauge of critical opinion.)

Does a movie’s Rotten Tomatoes score affect its box office earnings?

The short version: It can, but not necessarily in the ways you might think.

A good Rotten Tomatoes score indicates strong critical consensus, and that can be good for smaller films in particular. It’s common for distributors to roll out such films slowly, opening them in a few key cities (usually New York and Los Angeles, and maybe a few others) to generate good buzz — not just from critics, but also on social media and through word of mouth. The result, they hope, is increased interest and ticket sales when the movie opens in other cities.

Get Out , for example, certainly profited from the 99 percent “fresh” score it earned since its limited opening. And the more recent The Big Sick became one of last summer's most beloved films, helped along by its 98 percent rating. But a bad score for a small film can help ensure that it will close quickly, or play in fewer cities overall. Its potential box office earnings, in turn, will inevitably take a hit.

Yet when it comes to blockbusters, franchises, and other big studio films (which usually open in many cities at once), it’s much less clear how much a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score affects its box office tally. A good Rotten Tomatoes score, for example, doesn't necessarily guarantee a film will be a hit. Atomic Blonde is “guaranteed fresh,” with a 77 percent rating, but it didn‘t do very well at the box office despite being an action film starring Charlize Theron.

Still, studios certainly seem to believe the score makes a difference . Last summer, studios blamed Rotten Tomatoes scores (and by extension, critics) when poorly reviewed movies like Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales , Baywatch , and The Mummy performed below expectations at the box office. ( Pirates still went on to be the year’s 19th highest-grossing film.)

2017’s highest grossing movies in the US

But that correlation doesn’t really hold up. The Emoji Movie , for example, was critically panned, garnering an abysmal 6 percent Rotten Tomatoes score. But it still opened to $25 million in the US, which put it just behind the acclaimed Christopher Nolan film Dunkirk . And the more you think about it, the less surprising it is that plenty of people bought tickets to The Emoji Movie in spite of its bad press: It's an animated movie aimed at children that faced virtually no theatrical competition, and it opened during the summer, when kids are out of school. Great reviews might have inflated its numbers, but almost universally negative ones didn't seem to hurt it much.

It's also worth noting that many films with low Rotten Tomatoes scores that also perform poorly in the US (like The Mummy or The Great Wall ) do just fine overseas, particularly in China. The Mummy gave Tom Cruise his biggest global opening ever . If there is a Rotten Tomatoes effect, it seems to only extend to the American market.

Without any consistent proof, why do people still maintain that a bad Rotten Tomatoes score actively hurts a movie at the box office?

While it’s clear that a film’s Rotten Tomatoes score and box office earnings aren't correlated as strongly as movie studios might like you to think, blaming bad ticket sales on critics is low-hanging fruit.

Plenty of people would like you to believe that the weak link between box office earnings and critical opinion proves that critics are at fault for not liking the film, and that audiences are a better gauge of its quality. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, co-star of Baywatch , certainly took that position when reviews of the 2017 bomb Baywatch came out:

Oh boy, critics had their venom & knives ready . Fans LOVE the movie. Huge positive scores. Big disconnect w/ critics & people. #Baywatch https://t.co/K0AQPf6F0S — Dwayne Johnson (@TheRock) May 26, 2017

Baywatch ended up with a very comfortably rotten 19 percent Tomatometer score , compared to a just barely fresh 62 percent audience score. But with apologies to The Rock, who I’m sure is a very nice man, critics aren't weather forecasters or pundits, and they’re not particularly interested in predicting how audiences will respond to a movie. (We are also a rather reserved and nerdy bunch, not regularly armed with venom and knives.) Critics show up where they’re told to show up and watch a film, then go home and evaluate it to the best of their abilities.

The obvious rejoinder, at least from a critic’s point of view, is that if Baywatch was a better movie, there wouldn’t be such a disconnect. But somehow, I suspect that younger ticket buyers — an all-important demographic — lacked nostalgia for 25-year-old lifeguard TV show, and thus weren't so sure about seeing Baywatch in the first place. Likewise, I doubt that a majority of Americans were ever going to be terribly interested in the fifth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (which notched a 30 percent Tomatometer score and a 64 percent audience score), especially when they could just watch some other movie.

A pile-up of raves for either of these films might have resulted in stronger sales, because people could have been surprised to learn that a film they didn’t think they were interested in was actually great. But with lackluster reviews, the average moviegoer just had no reason to give them a chance.

Big studio publicists, however, are paid to convince people to see their films, not to candidly discuss the quality of the films themselves. So when a film with bad reviews flops at the box office, it’s not shocking that studios are quick to suggest that critics killed it.

How do movie studios try to blunt the perceived impact when they’re expecting a bad Rotten Tomatoes score?

Of late, some studios — prompted by the idea that critics can kill a film’s buzz before it even comes out — have taken to “ fighting back ” when they’re expecting a rotten Tomatometer score.

Their biggest strategy isn’t super obvious to the average moviegoer, but very clear to critics. When a studio suspects it has a lemon on its hands, it typically hosts the press screening only a day or two ahead of the film's release, and then sets a review “embargo” that lifts a few hours before the film hits theaters.

Consider, for example, the case of the aforementioned Emoji Movie . I and most other critics hoped the movie would be good, as is the case with all movies see. But once the screening invitations arrived in our inboxes, we pretty much knew, with a sinking feeling, that it wouldn’t be. The tell was pretty straightforward: The film’s only critics' screening in New York was scheduled for the day before it opened. It screened for press on Wednesday night at 5 pm, and then the review embargo lifted at 3 pm the next day — mere hours before the first public showtimes.

Late critics’ screenings for any given film mean that reviews of the film will necessarily come out very close to its release, and as a result, people purchasing advance tickets might buy them before there are any reviews or Tomatometer score to speak of. Thus, in spite of there being no strong correlation between negative reviews and a low box office, its first-weekend box returns might be less susceptible to any potential harm as a result of bad press. (Such close timing can also backfire; critics liked this summer's Captain Underpants , for example, but the film was screened too late for the positive reviews to measurably boost its opening box office.)

That first-weekend number is important, because if a movie is the top performer at the box office (or if it simply exceeds expectations, like Dunkirk and Wonder Woman did this summer), its success can function as good advertising for the film, which means its second weekend sales may also be stronger. And that matters , particularly when it means a movie is outperforming its expectations, because it can actually shift the way industry executives think about what kinds of movies people want to watch. Studios do keep an eye on critics’ opinions, but they’re much more interested in ticket sales — which makes it easy to see why they don’t want risk having their opening weekend box office affected by bad reviews, whether there’s a proven correlation or not.

The downside of this strategy, however, is that it encourages critics to instinctively gauge a studio’s level of confidence in a film based on when the press screening takes place. 20th Century Fox, for instance, screened War for the Planet of the Apes weeks ahead of its theatrical release, and lifted the review embargo with plenty of time to spare before the movie came out. The implication was that Fox believed the movie would be a critical success, and indeed, it was — the movie has a 97 percent Tomatometer score and an 86 percent audience score.

And still, late press screenings fail to account for the fact that, while a low Rotten Tomatoes score doesn’t necessarily hurt a film’s total returns, aggregate review scores in general do have a distinct effect on second-weekend sales. In 2016, Metacritic conducted a study of the correlation between its scores and second weekend sales , and found — not surprisingly — that well-reviewed movies dip much less in the second weekend than poorly reviewed movies. This is particularly true of movies with a strong built-in fan base, like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice , which enjoyed inflated box office returns in the first weekend because fans came out to see it, but dropped sharply in its second weekend, at least partly due to extremely negative press .

Most critics who are serious about their work make a good-faith effort to approach each film they see with as few expectations as possible. But it's hard to have much hope about a movie when it seems obvious that a studio is trying to play keep-away with it. And the more studios try to game the system by withholding their films from critics, the less critics are inclined to enter a screening devoid of expectations, however subconscious.

If you ask critics what studios ought to do to minimize the potential impact of a low Rotten Tomatoes score, their answer is simple: Make better movies. But of course, it’s not that easy; some movies with bad scores do well, while some with good scores still flop. Hiding a film from critics might artificially inflate first-weekend box office returns, but plenty of people are going to go see a franchise film, or a superhero movie, or a family movie, no matter what critics say.

The truth is that neither Rotten Tomatoes nor the critics whose evaluations make up its scores are really at fault here, and it’s silly to act like that’s the case. The website is just one piece of the sprawling and often bewildering film landscape.

As box office analyst Scott Mendelson wrote at Forbes :

[Rotten Tomatoes] is an aggregate website, one with increased power because the media now uses the fresh ranking as a catch-all for critical consensus, with said percentage score popping up when you buy tickets from Fandango or rent the title on Google Market. But it is not magic. At worst, the increased visibility of the site is being used as an excuse by ever-pickier moviegoers to stay in with Netflix or VOD.

For audience members who want to make good moviegoing decisions, the best approach is a two-pronged one. First, check Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to get a sense of critical consensus. But second, find a few critics — two or three will do — whose taste aligns with (or challenges) your own, and whose insights help you enjoy a movie even more. Read them and rely on them.

And know that it’s okay to form your own opinions, too. After all, in the bigger sense, everyone’s a critic.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Next Up In Culture

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Lead pollution anywhere is a public health threat everywhere

Multigenerational housing is coming back in a big way

Biden wants to campaign on housing. He also sort of has to.

Want a 32-hour workweek? Give workers more power.

The harrowing “Quiet on Set” allegations, explained

The chaplain who doesn’t believe in God

Things you buy through our links may earn  Vox Media  a commission.

Revisiting the Ending of Denis Villeneuve’s Enemy , Spiders and All

Ever watched the end of a movie and thought, “I have no idea what I just watched?” Vulture is here for you! We’ll be going back and taking a look at some notable endings in film, trying to explain what happened, why, and what it all really means. Previously in this series, we covered the ending of Donnie Darko .

When Enemy came out in 2014, Denis Villeneuve was in between phases. He’d just done Prisoners , the project that marked his transition from the critically revered Canadian films Polytechnique and Incendies into Hollywood proper, but he had yet to make Sicario and Arrival , the two movies that would solidify him as one of the best directors currently working.

In a certain sense, Enemy , a loose adaptation of José Saramago’s The Double , is an excellent harbinger of what Villeneuve had on deck. Like Sicario and Arrival , Enemy is a saturated film, every moment practically dripping with suggestion; in the case of Enemy , that suggestion is of menace, danger, and calamity inching ever closer, frame by frame. Villeneuve is a master of mise-en-scène, and in Enemy , just as much as the two later movies he’d be lauded for, there’s an incredible consistency and intensity to his vision. From the brutalist architecture of the University of Toronto Scarsborough campus to the crisscrossing wires of the streetcars to the sepia-heavy color schemes to the camera, which dollies beautifully through the entire film, every element in front of Villeneuve’s lens helps build a sense of dread and foreboding.

By this point, if you know anything about Enemy , you’re like, “Cool, we get it, Villeneuve’s good — but what about the spiders?” We’ll get there. But it’s important to establish the context for this incredibly bizarre movie, a movie that would be strange had it been made by the most Lynchian of independent filmmakers, but is even stranger coming from a guy who’s since been entrusted with the reins of a franchise .

Enemy is about a man, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. His name is Adam Bell, and he teaches history, and he looks really bummed out. Something isn’t sitting right with this guy. He moves through the world like it’s about to eat him, shoulders hunched and face hangdog, and even the fact that he has a beautiful sorta-girlfriend, Mary, played by Melanie Laurent, seems more like a burden than a source of joy. Maybe it’s what he’s teaching — dense theory, Hegel and Marx, the patterns of history and the relationship of dictators to control; maybe it’s the weird spider-party we see him at in the first scene, filled with a bunch of guys who look like they’re enjoying the entertainment way too much. What are they watching? Well, it appears to be a woman masturbating, and then another woman stepping on a tarantula with a high heel. You could see how that would take a toll on even the most cheerful of men, and something about Adam’s vibe gives the sense that he’s never been Mr. Sunshine.

But wait: Is it Adam at the spider party? Because soon after we meet him, a colleague suggests he watch a film called Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way . (Adam’s first response is, “I don’t really like movies.” Fun guy!) When Adam checks it out, he discovers that there’s an actor in it who looks exactly like him. And by exactly like him, I don’t mean they look exactly alike like your mom thinks you look exactly like Tom Cruise: I mean they both have the good fortune to be played by Jake Gyllenhaal. A little sleuthing by Adam reveals that this guy is an actor who goes by the alias Daniel Saint-Clare but is in fact named Anthony Clare, and he has a very pregnant wife, Helen, played by the superb Sarah Gadon.

The rest of the film unfolds as follows: Adam introduces himself to Anthony; Anthony tells him to fuck off, then decides that, actually, they should meet; Anthony blackmails Adam into letting him take Mary on a romantic getaway, where he has sex with her in a motel; Adam goes to Anthony’s apartment, where he pretends to be Anthony and has sex with his wife, only, in this case, it’s Helen who initiates it, knowing that he isn’t her husband; Mary then realizes that Anthony isn’t Adam, demands that they leave, and on the way home, they get in a car crash and die; and then Adam walks into Anthony’s bedroom to find that Helen has transformed into a giant spider. Fin .

So! This terrific, elliptical film, one of the best and most underrated of the last few years, leaves us with two fundamental mysteries: Who are Adam and Anthony? And what’s the deal with all the spiders?

Who are Adam and Anthony?

Let’s start with what we do know: Adam and Anthony are two different people, at least to some extent. At multiple points, the film just avoids confirming this for us. When Helen calls Anthony after encountering Adam at the his work, he picks up just as Adam disappears into a building. Adam and Anthony appear together twice, but only by themselves, with no witnesses. When Anthony talks to Helen on the phone, Adam isn’t home. (Adam talks to Anthony again when Helen is around, but that time, she doesn’t speak to him — and moreover, she accuses Anthony of lying about whom he was talking to.) Because of all this, there’s the slightest possibility that somehow, one man could be living a bifurcated life. We don’t really know how Anthony spends his days while Adam’s at school, and Adam’s relationship with Mary seems to be somehow irregular or inconsistent, dovetailing with the general sense that Anthony’s had an affair before.

But the major sign that the two men exist separately comes when Mary notices a mark on Anthony’s finger from his wedding ring, which he’d taken off before going to see her. That mark is significant: It’s what leads to the fight with Mary that culminates in their deaths, an event that also appears to be confirmed as real based on a report on the radio the next morning. (Although apart from the ring thing, you could make a strong argument that Adam could’ve projected his own vision onto that event, turning it into the death of Anthony, a creation of his psyche.) If Anthony’s finger bears that mark, and she’s just noticing it for the first time, that means Anthony and Adam are different people. However, it’s hard to tell just when they became separate people. Both share the same scar on their chest; short of the two of them having been identically maimed early in their lives, that scar indicates some kind of shared life.

Here’s where things get weird. Adam’s name is noteworthy; you might remember that, in the Book of Genesis, Adam, the first man, was created in the likeness of God. God then took a rib from Adam and using it made Eve. Adam and Anthony’s scars are on their rib cage.

Following this train of thought, we might hypothesize that at some point, Anthony was made from Adam, fully formed but subtly different, and the two then went about separate lives: one meek and self-conscious, the other cocky and volatile. While this is, obviously, not a scientific or verifiable explanation, art doesn’t have to be scientific or verifiable, thank God. This interpretation gains some added credibility from the sense that they seem to share a mother. When Adam goes to see his mother, she believes he likes blueberries, which he denies; meanwhile, Anthony gives Helen an entire lecture on blueberries, particularly organic ones, and the importance of having them around for his smoothies. (That also gives a pretty good sense of what Anthony’s like as a dude.) His mother references his “nice apartment,” a term that could not in good conscience be applied to the place where Adam lives — Anthony confirms as much when he visits, calling it, if I remember correctly, “a shithole” — but would accurately describe Anthony’s place. She also mentions that he can’t commit to one woman, even though both Adam and Anthony appear to be in relationships, and references his acting career, which she wouldn’t know about unless she was just really into local Canadian cinema — or he, Anthony, told her.

In conclusion: Adam and Anthony are different, but seem to have sprung from the same being. Based on the names and the movie’s point of view, Adam would be the best guess for who came first, but hey: Only Isabella Rossellini knows for sure.

What’s the deal with all the spiders?

Oh, man. This nut’s a little harder to crack, but let’s give it a try. Spiders, namely tarantulas, appear in a few different scenes. In the opening, either Adam or Anthony (more on that in a sec) visits the aforementioned sex dungeon/zoological society, where a woman in a high heel is poised to crush a tarantula while Adam/Anthony looks on through his fingers. Two more dreamlike images follow. In one, a naked woman walks down a hallway past Adam/Anthony, her head replaced by an arachnoid head; and in the other, enormous spiders straddle Toronto, looking like a Canadian War of the Worlds . Both of these could be explained away as dreams, but then in the final shot, Adam walks into the room Helen just entered to find an enormous tarantula huddled in the corner.

The spiders, then, feel less like a literal function of the plot and more like an overarching metaphor. In an interview with Gyllenhaal and Villeneuve that plays after the credits on Amazon Prime, the director said this about the spiders:

“To be honest with you, it’s not in the book, it’s not in the novel, and I’m not sure if Saramago would’ve been happy with the idea of having something that is so surrealistic in his naturalistic environment that he created in the novel. It’s an image that I found that was a pretty hypnotic and profound [way] to express something about femininity that I was looking to express in one image. Because in the book you can use chapters to express something, but in cinema you have one shot, and the spider was exactly the perfect image. There’s movies that I saw in my life that propose images that were not explained, but were provocative, that were opening doors from a subconscious point of view — images that are frightening and oppressive, but at the same time, you feel the image. It prints itself in your brain, but you feel uncomfortable with it. But there’s a strong meaning in it, and I think that if you think just a little bit you will find it quite quickly.”

If you found it quickly, then good for you: You are Jake Gyllenhaal. If not, don’t feel too bad. My instinct is to approach it surrealistically, as Villeneuve suggests. In Enemy , the spiders mostly appear in dreams, or in dreamlike scenarios, suggesting a Jungian approach to their interpretation. On the one hand, spiders are frightening and dangerous; on the other, they have a direct connection to femininity. In the Arachne myth, which Ovid recounts in Metamorphoses , Arachne beats Athena in a weaving contest, but doesn’t acknowledge that she was able to win thanks to the gift of weaving that Athena gave her in the first place. (One of the many lessons of Greek mythology: Be grateful to the gods, or they will mess you up.) Athena strikes Arachne with intense guilt, which causes her to hang herself. When Athena sees her dead body, she feels a little bad about causing the girl’s suicide just because she lost a weaving contest, so she turns Arachne into a spider, allowing her to weave for all eternity — just not as a human.

Helen’s transformation into a spider, then, has precedent. But Enemy doesn’t contain any weaving contests, unless the DVD’s got some deleted scenes. Instead, the spider connection seems to stem from a different system of thought: the Freudian Madonna-whore complex, in which men see women as either saintly mothers or worthless sex objects. The spiders are implicated early on in the film in some sort of sexual rite, and when Helen, a pregnant woman, turns into the spider after having sex with Adam — shortly after Anthony cheats on his pregnant wife with Mary — it could be seen as a literalization of Adam’s disturbed psyche, which can’t handle intimate relationships. Enemy appears to say that even though Adam has done away with Anthony — and Mary, an innocent bystander who represents some sort of purely sexual relationship, in the process — he still has a ways to go before he can reconcile these two facets of womanhood. And note the names: Mary, the mother of Christ; and Helen, the catalyst for the Trojan War. There’s also a motif around high heels, an obvious feminine symbol: Adam and Anthony each notice Helen and Mary’s heels at separate points in the film, and the platform heels used to crush the spider at the beginning are, uh, hard to miss.

A film that handles ambiguity and symbolism so deftly, while still providing the more concrete thrills of watching a great actor and great director do adventurous, striking work, is a rare and special thing, and that’s why Enemy ’s so brilliant: It can support these readings while still not giving itself away. Although arachnophobes might want to sit this one out.

• vulture homepage lede
• denis villeneuve
• jake gyllenhaal

Most Viewed Stories

• What’s Next for 3 Body Problem ?
• Cinematrix No. 26: April 1, 2024
• Saturday Night Live Recap: Ramy Youssef Makes It Personal
• Walking Dead: The Ones Who Live Finale Recap: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
• A Guide to the Many Lawsuits Against Diddy
• Cassie’s Lawsuit Against Diddy, Explained
• 3 Body Problem ’s Imagination Problem

Editor’s Picks

Most Popular

What is your email.

This email will be used to sign into all New York sites. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy and to receive email correspondence from us.

Sign In To Continue Reading

Create your free account.

Password must be at least 8 characters and contain:

• Lower case letters (a-z)
• Upper case letters (A-Z)
• Numbers (0-9)
• Special Characters (!@#$%^&*)

As part of your account, you’ll receive occasional updates and offers from New York , which you can opt out of anytime.

‘Dogman’ Gives a Whole New Meaning to the Word ‘Absurd’

You’ll be shocked how literal this movie’s title is.

Nick Schager

Entertainment Critic

Briarcliff Entertainment

Dogman is Joker by way of Robin Hood , Air Bud, and RuPaul's Drag Race , and arguably the most absurd film of this, or any recent, year. Whether it’s offensive is also certainly up for debate. Yet the prime calling card of The Fifth Element director Luc Besson ’s latest, which premieres March 29 in theaters following its debut at last year’s Venice International Film Festival , is its unabashed and laugh-out-loud goofiness, which is amplified by the seriousness with which it takes itself. Part superhero villain origin story, part religiously minded character study, and part The Professional­ -esque action thriller, it appears destined for the unintentional comedy hall of fame.

On a rainy highway near Trenton, New Jersey, a truck is forced to stop at a police checkpoint. In the driver’s seat, an officer discovers Douglas (Caleb Landry Jones), a man who’s dolled up like Marilyn Monroe in her “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend” outfit, complete with a pink dress and matching sleeves, sparkling jewelry around his neck and wrists, and a platinum blonde wig atop his head. This naturally surprises the cop, as does Douglas’ cargo: an enormous pack of dogs, who “won’t hurt you so long as you don’t hurt me.” Taking his advice, law enforcement chooses to simply arrest the mystery man, and at a detention center, he’s questioned by Dr. Evelyn Decker (Jojo T. Gibbs), a thoroughly bland psychiatrist and single mother who’s presently dealing with an out-of-control ex.

Douglas has bandaged wounds on his back and his brow, and in his first sit-down with Evelyn, he discusses his fondness for disguises (which fostered his process of “becoming” someone else), his love of dogs (“my babies”), and his canine friends’ sole flaw (“they trust humans”). There isn’t a line spoken during this exchange that doesn’t sound written—and tailor-made for a theatrical trailer—and that phoniness infects the remainder of Besson’s original script. In the duo’s ensuing conversations, Douglas recounts his path to this present moment with a smirking, eye-twinkling smugness that’s meant to be at once charmingly playful and imposingly (if not dementedly) confident.

While Jones has a history of dialing things up to 11, he lets loose like never before in Dogman , delivering a raft of quasi-feminine affectations (be it eye rolls, hand gestures, or soft vocal intonations) that are exacerbated by his Joker-ish complexion (pale skin contrasted with cropped red hair) and his physical disability, since chain-smoking Douglas is generally confined to a wheelchair and can only temporarily walk courtesy of Forrest Gump -style leg braces.

Dogman is allergic to subtlety, and if that isn’t apparent from its initial dialogue, it’s made abundantly clear by its flashbacks to teen Douglas’ (Lincoln Powell) upbringing with a monstrous father who earned a living via dog fighting, and who—upon discovering that his son was sneaking the abused pooches food from the dinner table—permanently locked his son in the dogs’ cage.

“This is your family now!” screams Douglas’ dad, and yet they quickly become something even more than that, given that Douglas and his dogs share love as well as a means of intelligently communicating with each other. Douglas’ psycho brother rants at him about Jesus and salvation while hanging a banner outside his cage that reads “In the Name of God,” and because he’s on the other side of it, Douglas reads “God” as “Dog”—a conflation that Besson treats with a gravity that inspires disbelieving chuckles.

During his imprisonment, Douglas discovers a stack of his “weak” mom’s ladies’ magazines, and his feminization continues when—after being shot by his dad (thus crippling him) and successfully ordering his dogs to track down the police—he’s sent to a boarding school where he flourishes under the guidance of drama teacher Salma (Grace Palma), who has him play every role in the Shakespearean canon. Though his creepy stalker love for Salma goes unrequited, the adult Douglas finds a new home, and calling, at a Jersey drag cabaret where he becomes an instant star by performing as Edith Piaf. This showstopper, as well as everything else about Dogman , is staged and shot with maximum over-the-top flair, and the incongruity of Besson’s blockbuster aesthetics and tone, and the sheer silliness of the action at hand, is so profound that it’s difficult to comprehend how no one noticed, in real time, what a fiasco they were fashioning.

Dogman never stops with the lunacy, so Douglas is soon shacking up in an abandoned school that he outfits with an assortment of clever booby traps and where he perpetually sits at a makeshift vanity (modeled distinctively after Joker ) donning his make-up as his dogs patiently sit by his side awaiting his next command, such as fetching ingredients for a cake (because, you see, his mom also loved to cook). By day, he works as a de facto savior for the powerless, as when he employs his pets to menace a scary Latino gang. At night, he sends his companions out on covert missions to rob the wealthy, which he validates to Evelyn by stating, “I believe in the redistribution of wealth.” On and on the inanity goes, with Douglas using his dogs to protect the innocent, punish the wicked (like his brother), and bring about some sort of (preposterous, and hypocritical) justice for the marginalized and downtrodden.

Late conflicts with both an insurance agent (Christopher Denham) who’s on to his illicit enterprise (“This is the work of an artist,” he marvels) and the aforementioned Hispanic baddies allow for much talk about right and wrong, God and the Devil. And to its credit, Dogman makes it all equally, deliriously daft. "Dog eat dog—it's just a simple law of nature, isn't it?" remarks Douglas as his canines feast upon a victim, and by the time he’s breaking out of jail thanks to Beethoven -grade hijinks and emerging from the station in a knock-off Clown Prince of Crime tuxedo, the film has devolved into abject ridiculousness. It’s as big a swing as any in Besson’s career, and consequently, when it wholly and embarrassingly misses, the blow back is borderline overpowering.

Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast  here .

READ THIS LIST

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire’ Review: Running Out of Steam

The latest in the Warner Bros. Monsterverse franchise shows signs of an anemic imagination.

• Share full article

By Alissa Wilkinson

Nothing about “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” makes sense, which is not, on the face of it, a problem. We have not settled into cushy cinema seats with our comfortingly stale popcorn to engage in discourse about metaphors and science; we are here for the stars in the title. About that title: “Godzilla x Kong” (meant to echo various other titles in other, non-Hollywood Godzilla movies) could mean Godzilla times Kong, or Godzilla crossed with Kong, or Godzilla against Kong — some permutation of titans. Whatever it is, there will be punching. We are here for the punching.

What we’re not here for is the humans, which is lucky, because they’ve been dropping like flies. Most of the characters from the last few films — including the 2021 “Godzilla vs. Kong” (also directed by Adam Wingard) — have disappeared, largely without explanation. Our main character now is Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall), adoptive mother to a tween, Jia (Kaylee Hottle), a member of the Iwi tribe, who communicates with Kong directly via sign language. I particularly missed Alexander Skarsgard’s Dr. Nathan Lind, whose absence is sort of explained but not mourned, and who has been replaced, for narrative reasons, by a kooky veterinarian to the titans played by Dan Stevens. (For some reason, I assume to signal the kookiness, Stevens sports an exaggerated Australian accent.)

They’re joined once again by Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry), the conspiracy podcaster-blogger-documentarian-weirdo from the last film. For some reason, he’s convinced that nobody believes his stories about the titans, even though actual Godzilla is roaming the Earth and shown on the nightly news. (I’m more stuck on the strangely fantastical idea that he’s a popular blogger. Wouldn’t he have a Substack by now?)

5 Films Our Critics Are Talking About

On the Adamant

Not rated | Documentary

This documentary by Nicolas Philibert drifts along, with unnamed patients and their caretakers, on a large houseboat in Paris.

Read our full review.

Lousy Carter

Not rated | Comedy

A college professor gets a grim diagnosis in this comedy from Bob Byington.

The Beautiful Game

PG-13 | Drama, Sport

This heart-string-tugging Netflix movie about a homeless soccer team, featuring Bill Nighy and Micheal Ward, puts the emphasis on play and uplift.

Asphalt City

R | Drama, Thriller

Sean Penn plays a flinty paramedic showing a rookie the ropes in this maddening drama about emergency medical workers in New York.

The Listener

Not rated | Drama

Tessa Thompson’s still and luminous performance makes this post-Covid drama about loneliness, directed by Steve Buscemi, worth watching.

These humans are pretty boring, more anemic than they were in the last movie. They’re there purely for narrative propulsion through this story, which begins with Kong living in the Hollow Earth (exactly what it sounds like) and Godzilla up on the surface. As long as the twain never meet, we’re good — and by we, I mean humankind.

Which means, of course, they’ll meet. The scientists spot Godzilla napping in the Colosseum, then stomping his way through Europe and northern Africa, seemingly absorbing as much nuclear power as he can because he senses some confrontation coming. At the same time, something is very wrong in Kong’s world down below. And Jia is having strange dreams, too — dreams that lead to an expedition into the Hollow Earth.

What follows is an attempt to establish a whole lot of mythology for the Monsterverse franchise. (Their term, not mine.) This is a big mistake. You can tell it’s a mistake, because all of that mythology has to be revealed in tedious expositional dialogue. More important, once you know what happened in the past, you know precisely what will happen in the present, which rips any remaining suspense out of the film, leaving only the punching. (So much punching.)

Besides: Does this series need a mythology? Both Godzilla and Kong have a rich screen history to draw on — this is the 38th movie for Godzilla and the 13th for Kong, and though they haven’t shared the screen until recently, they bring all of their baggage and back story with them. It feels like a desperate attempt for the crossover franchise to justify both its existence and its continuation.

Which is not surprising. This series’ track record induces whiplash. The 2014 film “Godzilla,” a kind of reboot of the original Toho series featuring the character, was a legitimately excellent film, balancing spectacle and human pathos. But then came “Kong: Skull Island” and “Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” both meant to build toward a shared universe, both of which were not just bad but real bummers. Next was “Godzilla vs. Kong” which wasn’t, technically speaking, good — but it promised confrontation and delivered it, with a late-breaking coda of unwilling and visually spectacular cooperation between massive ape and nuclear lizard. It was a blast to watch, not least because the climax happened: The two monsters finally had their long-teased meeting.

But with that zenith in the rearview mirror, “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” has very little road left to cruise, and it shows. The best stretches involve Kong lumbering through the landscape, Godzilla stomping around crushing things, and of course the inevitable final confrontation, which has a few surprises up its proverbial sleeves. Kong in particular seems to have no problem communicating without human language, and those extended scenes are so fun to watch that it’s disappointing to swing back to the humans.

Certainly, humans can be a fruitful part of these monster movies. The recent Japanese film “Godzilla Minus One,” produced for a fraction of the “Godzilla x Kong” budget and recipient of the Oscar for best visual effects this year, manages to combine the creature with true pathos and a focus on the human cost of war, guilt and trauma. It’s more in line with the origin of Godzilla, too, as a metaphor for Japanese generational trauma related to the atomic bomb. In 2004, writing for The New York Times , Terrence Rafferty succinctly described the monster as embodying “a society’s desire to claim its deepest tragedies for itself, to assimilate them as elements of its historical identity.”

None of that is here. In fact, “Godzilla x Kong” is evidence the original thread has been lost entirely — a shame, in an era haunted by monsters the movies can only hint at, from climate catastrophe, destructive weaponry and geopolitical strife to power-hungry, brutal authoritarianism. There’s no reflection here at all, not even space to contemplate what might lie beyond the literal. Beyond the main cast, the humans in this movie exist only to get squashed like ants by falling debris and mangled buildings. They are expendable, but it doesn’t matter. The meaning of these films isn’t in metaphor at all. It’s in punching.

Be warned: There’s a lot of guts in “Godzilla x Kong,” guts from mammals and reptiles ripped in half, guts from sea monsters, Technicolor guts, way more than I expected. They feel appropriate, for a monster movie, and aren’t quite gross enough to merit an R rating. But as I pondered the guts, I found myself wondering one thing: When will someone have the bravery — the guts, you might say — to make a movie with Kong, and Godzilla, and various other titans and monsters, and no humans at all?

Or maybe there’s a greater question at stake: When will Hollywood have the guts to make a fun blockbuster like this that dares to acknowledge the real menacing monsters?

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Rated PG-13 for destruction, some mild profanities and so, so many guts. Running time: 1 hour 55 minutes. In theaters.

Alissa Wilkinson is a Times movie critic. She’s been writing about movies since 2005. More about Alissa Wilkinson

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

“X-Men ’97,” a revival on Disney+ that picks up where the ’90s animated series left off, has faced questions after the firing of its showrunner  ahead of the premiere.

“3 Body Problem,” a science fiction epic from the creators of “Game of Thrones,” has arrived on Netflix. We spoke with them about their latest project .

For the past two decades, female presidential candidates on TV have been made in Hillary Clinton’s image. With “The Girls on the Bus,” that’s beginning to change .

“Freaknik,” a new Hulu documentary, delves into the rowdy ’80s and ’90s-era spring festival  that drew hundreds of thousands of Black college students to Atlanta.

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

Filed under:

• 2024 Spring Entertainment Preview

Deep Sky is an IMAX adventure that should unite humanity

I’ve got 344 single points of failure but a launch ain’t one

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Deep Sky is an IMAX adventure that should unite humanity

When you check into a hotel room, what do you do? You immediately poke around. You scope out the outlets, pull back the curtain, open the closet, see what’s in the minibar, make sure there’s nothing gross in the bathroom. Only when you have a full sense of what’s around you do you sit down and think about unpacking.

We — as in those of us who exist as sentient corporeal beings in four dimensions — have yet to really do this with much effectiveness in the cosmos. But lord knows we’re trying.

Polygon is looking ahead to the movies, shows, and books coming soon in our Spring 2024 entertainment preview package, a weeklong special issue.

On Dec. 25, 2021, NASA, with aid from the European and Canadian Space Agencies, launched the James Webb Space Telescope, the most high-tech piece of surveillance equipment in the galaxy ( at least that we’re aware of ). If there’s anything better, JWST will find it.

Hardcore NASA nerds, or at least those that visit r/spaceporn , are already well aware of the incredible hurdles it took to get JWST off the ground and sending back remarkable images. But for those that have been a little more earthbound, the new IMAX documentary Deep Sky is just the thing.

While the 40-minute film is already playing at nearly 30 North American planetariums, air and space museums, and science centers (plus two in Australia), Deep Sky is getting a full release at over 300 traditional theater IMAX locations for one week beginning April 19. (This is pegged to Earth Day, which is nice and all, but Deep Sky is actually the least Earth movie ever made. It’s about everything but Earth!)

The film, which rules, is directed by Nathaniel Kahn, who burst on the documentary scene in 2003 with My Architect , a clue-hunting biography about his father, Louis Kahn . From a structure and screenplay point of view, Kahn isn’t reinventing anything with Deep Sky . He’s got the talking-head interviews (tech dorks with varying degrees of media readiness), a celebrity narrator (in this case, Michelle Williams), and computer-simulated visualizations to use as a crutch (they’ve already been battle-tested by NASA, so they look good.) The ace up his sleeve? The enormity of this project itself, and the truly awe-inspiring images from JWST.

The story begins — as all stories do! — with the Big Bang. Williams’ dulcet tones offer a fine counterpoint to the chaotic origins of all existence (or, at least, all existence in this universe). We’re then reminded that the simple act of looking at the sky is also looking back in time. The light we see from a distant star isn’t shining now , it is shining then . And the deeper we look, the closer we get to the confounding birth of time and space itself.

This is basic middle school science, but when the eggheads that built JWST start talking about the implications of their work, it gets the blood moving. We will never know the answers to life, the universe, and everything unless we ask the questions as loudly as possible. And an enormous telescope outside of Earth’s atmosphere (outside of Earth’s orbit!) is a needed early step.

So you might think, Yeah, fly a telescope into space, how hard could that be? Rockets launch stuff into space all the time, right? When Kahn brings IMAX cameras into Northrop Grumman’s Redondo Beach, California, manufacturing facilities and you see its construction, you begin to recognize how complex this operation truly was.

Humans look puny next to the telescope, but it needs to do several Optimus Prime-like moves to fit onto a rocket’s delivery system. Then there’s the problem of keeping the equipment cool enough in the face of solar blasts, so a thin heat shield needs to get built. To me it looked thinner than the aluminum foil used to cover last night’s meatloaf, and, indeed, tears in this material are a frequent setback. It took about 14 years to build and cost — well, who cares what it cost? Northrup Grumman’s other gig, manufacturing weapons that kill civilians , cost a lot, too.

(Fun factoid: The lens on JWST was made by Ball, the same company behind the mason jars your grandmother uses for raspberry preserves. This organization’s two core businesses are engineering the most complex lenses for bleeding-edge space projects and making vessels for peach tea .)

After a trip through the Panama Canal and the French Guiana-based launch, Deep Sky introduces the terrifying concept of the “single-point failure.” To properly deploy JWST, there were a gobsmacking 344 highly detailed maneuvers it needed to make, and if just one of them did not go as planned, that was it. All that time, all that money, all those hopes and dreams would go straight down NASA’s zero-gravity toilet. I don’t know about you, but I can barely stream a movie off my friend’s Plex without at least one hiccup, but somehow the team pulled this off.

Once everything snaps into place, we wait — and Michelle Williams explains a little more about what to expect. In 1990, NASA launched the Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits Earth and has the same basic job as JWST: shoot pictures of the distant past. The images have delighted space nerds for decades (especially aging Pearl Jam fans ), but Deep Sky does a solid job of showing how limited it is.

Time and again, we see JWST’s version of the same deep-space spots where Hubble once impressed us. One can’t help but shout “Hubble got cucked !” after the fifth example, or maybe that was just me. All I can say is that the new clarity and precision is remarkable when placed side by side.

Apart from just looking awesome, Deep Sky takes a detour to explain what these luscious images mean. The Tarantula Nebula offers insight into the birth of stars and Stephan’s Quintet shows how galaxies can merge with one another. (Something we may someday need to do here in the Milky Way, who knows?)

Naturally, exoplanet specialists are keen to find places that may be conducive to hosting life. (Or, at least, life as we understand it .) For a hot minute it looked like WASP-17 b over 1,300 light-years from us might have been the spot, but JWST has proven it not to be the case. No matter: With upward of a trillion galaxies, each with billions of stars, and each with several planets in orbit (and moons around those planets), something’s gonna be a match. And there are many who think it could be one of the seven planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 , which is a mere 40 light-years away. Deep Sky shows the team getting ready to do the full probe. Suddenly a conversation with another life-form doesn’t sound quite so crazy.

As a film, Deep Sky makes incredible use of IMAX. Anything with a combination of a rocket launch, gigantic scientific equipment, and detailed space porn imagery would, but Kahn’s smart use of emotional interviewees and cool music by Paul Leonard-Morgan puts it over the top. (Leonard-Morgan has been documentarian Errol Morris’ guy for several years, and also composed the score to the little-seen but pretty neat Amazon series Tales from the Loop .)

But my favorite part of Deep Sky has nothing to do with the overwhelming majesty of its format. In fact, it’s the only moment in the movie that looks like junk. In an unimpressive room somewhere in Maryland are a bunch of cubicles and standard-looking computers. There you’ll meet Joseph DePasquale, as wonderful of a random sample of humanity as ever there was. This blisteringly normal-seeming dude with a Jason Mantzoukas-like beard who maybe drives a Toyota Camry and gets a turkey sandwich and Diet Coke for lunch at the cafeteria was the first earthling to receive data from the James Webb Space Telescope. At first it was just a black square on his monitor. But with the right filter, more was revealed. And with the right understanding, it could lead to everything.

Deep Sky opens in IMAX theaters for one week starting April 19.

Spring 2024 entertainment preview

Loading comments...

Pirates of the Caribbean Producer Confirms Franchise Is Getting a 'Reboot' With Sixth Movie

Meaning they "don't have to wait for certain actors.".

Pirates of the Caribbean producer Jerry Bruckheimer has confirmed that the franchise is getting a "reboot" with the long-in-development sixth movie.

ComicBook.com recently quizzed Bruckheimer about both Top Gun and Pirates of the Caribbean, to which the producer hinted that the latter might have a better chance of returning to the big screen first because they are planning on rebooting the franchise, which makes it logistically more straightforward to work out a schedule.

"You don't know, you really don't know," Bruckheimer initially said. "Because with Top Gun, you have an actor who is iconic and brilliant. And how many movies he does before he does Top Gun, I can't tell you. But we're gonna reboot Pirates, so that is easier to put together because you don't have to wait for certain actors."

Bruckheimer confirmed back in 2022 that Johnny Depp, who starred as Captain Jack Sparrow in all five previous Pirates of the Caribbean entries, wasn't on board for a sixth voyage . There were, however, rumblings of a female-led Pirates movie starring Margot Robbie , with two scripts in development - one with her and one without.

Pirates of the Caribbean Movies in Order

Last year, Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production president Sean Bailey asserted after a period of uncertainty that the franchise still has wind in its sails. He insisted that rebooting Pirates of the Caribbean is a priority for the company on top of reworking many of its animated classics into live-action retellings .

"We think we have a really good, exciting story that honors the films that have come before but also has something new to say," Bailey told The New York Times in June.

Deadpool screenwriters Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick were initially attached to write the script for the sixth installment of the swashbuckling series, but they walked the plank and exited the project in 2019 . The Last of Us creator Craig Mazin then took over scriptwriting duties alongside original screenwriter Ted Elliot.

Mazin told the LA Times that he thought their pitch was "too weird," but Disney seemed to like it. He said they wrote a "fantastic script" before having to down tools due to the writers' strike . However, there has been no word on whether any progress has happened since the writers returned to work at the end of September.

Adele Ankers-Range is a freelance entertainment writer for IGN. You can follow her on X/Twitter @AdeleAnkers.

In This Article

IGN Recommends

Screen Rant

You might be missing the rock's best work in years after multiple movie disappointments.

Despite Dwayne Johnson's recent disappointments in Hollywood, he's also produced some of his best work in one of the least likely, yet exciting ways.

• The Rock's return to WWE is a refreshing change from his recent movies, showcasing charisma and humor often missing from his film roles.
• With an intriguing heel persona, The Rock's wrestling comeback provides an edge his movie characters have been lacking, showing potential for growth.
• The duration of The Rock's WWE tenure remains uncertain, but with big events like SummerSlam and WrestleMania 40 on the horizon, he could stay longer.

Although Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson 's recent string of movies have seen mixed reviews from critics at best, his recent career move is easily the most exciting thing he's done in years. Although Dwayne Johnson's action movies have legitimized him as one of Hollywood's leading tough guys, his career has grown stale. Whether because many of his characters feel the same, or due to his movies suffering from a lack of originality, it feels as though Johnson is perfectly content with playing it safe. However, despite his recent career shortcomings, The Rock's upcoming A24 movie sounds exciting already.

Johnson's upcoming A24 movie, The Smashing Mashing , under Benny Safdie's direction is interesting because it might be the project that could demonstrate the actor's range . While Johnson is one of the best wrestlers turned actors , and is no doubt fun in his more action-driven vehicles, it's difficult to fully engage with his projects, since they generally follow the same formula. Nevertheless, another development in Johnson's career aside from The Smashing Machine perfectly demonstrates that he's found another successful avenue to truly demonstrate what he's capable of when given the right kind of material.

The Rock’s 8 Funniest Movie Scenes, Ranked

While Johnson has returned to wrestling in the past, he's done it in smaller capacities, while choosing to lean more heavily into his good guy persona from the '90s.

The Rock's Current WWE Run Is Better Than Any Of His Recent Movies

The rock's recent movies have all seen diminishing returns at the box-office..

The Rock recently returned to the WWE , which not only surprised audiences familiar with his professional wrestling career, but also enticed audiences unfamiliar with his wrestling background as well. While Johnson has returned to wrestling in the past, he's done it in smaller capacities, while choosing to lean more heavily into his good guy persona from the '90s . Additionally, Johnson also infused elements from some of his more recent acting career, which ultimately made previous reappearances in the WWE feel more like promotion for upcoming movies than a genuine return to the sport.

However, The Rock's more recent return to professional wrestling is genuinely interesting, since he's playing more into his heel persona - that is, he's ostensibly a bad guy this time around, and The Rock's WWE return comes at a time when many of his recent movies haven't done so well . While reviews between critics and audiences are divided, an undeniable fact about Johnson's acting career is that many of his more recently released projects haven't performed as well at the box-office as they used to. However, Johnson's WWE return was largely met with a near-unanimous positive reception from wrestling audiences.

Although Johnson has worked hard to cultivate a believable acting career, his return to wrestling shows what his movies should do.

The Rock's WWE Return Does What His Movies Haven't

The rock's heel turn in wwe gives him an edge that's rarely been seen in his movies..

Johnson's return to the WWE is great because it demonstrates more charisma and edge than what's been seen in his recent movies . Even though he's now a heel, The Rock's WWE return proves what his movies need more of in order to resonate with audiences again. Furthermore, The Rock's turn as a heel in his WWE return demonstrates his acute sense of humor, since his return features him cutting some of the funniest promos of his career. Although Johnson has worked hard to cultivate a believable acting career, his return to wrestling shows what his movies should do.

Many of Johnson's characters in Hollywood all have a noticeable lack of flaws, edge, or other endearing qualities that ultimately makes them feel dangerously safe. Whether it be his Luke Hobbs character or any of his recent outings alongside Kevin Hart or Ryan Reynolds, Johnson's characters all blend together. If his WWE return proves anything, it's that Johnson should consider taking on roles where he's either deeply flawed, or outright the movie's villain . Although Johnson is back in the WWE, it compels one to ponder for how long.

How Long Will The Rock Stay With WWE?

The rock could wrestle at summerslam or even at wrestlemania 40..

With The Rock's WWE return being so recent, it remains to be seen just exactly how long he'll stick around . Furthermore, The Rock has already demonstrated in the past that he isn't opposed to returning intermittently in between filming movies, so it isn't a stretch to assume he's doing the same thing while his upcoming movie projects are still in development. However, with his turn as a heel, his feud with Cody Rhodes, and big events like Wrestlemania and SummerSlam on the way, he could be with the WWE much longer.

With WrestleMania 40 around the corner and stars like The Rock, Roman Reigns, Cody Rhodes, and Logan Paul set to be among the featuring acts, The Rock could be a part of the WWE for more than just a brief moment. Furthermore, it's possible that The Rock could once again make an appearance at SummerSlam later this August, and possibly even face off against Roman Reigns. Furthermore, with Netflix and the WWE's new deal , and The Rock sitting on the WWE's board of directors, it's entirely possible that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson 's involvement could extend far beyond small appearances.

Subscribe Now! Get features like

• Latest News
• Entertainment
• Real Estate
• MI vs RR Live Score
• Election Schedule 2024
• IPL 2024 Schedule
• IPL Points Table
• IPL Purple Cap
• IPL Orange Cap
• Bihar Board Results
• The Interview
• Web Stories
• Virat Kohli
• Mumbai News
• Bengaluru News
• Daily Digest

The Goat Life movie review: Prithviraj Sukumaran delivers extraordinary performance in Blessy directorial

The goat life movie review: the prithviraj sukumaran film must be watched on the big screen for a wholesome experience; no other actor could have done the role..

Survival dramas always find resonance with the audience and the recent super hit Malayalam film, Manjummel Boys , also proved this. Right on its heels comes another Malayalam survival drama, Aadujeevitham or The Goat Life , starring Prithviraj Sukumaran . Interestingly, while both these films are based on real life, they are different in almost every other aspect. The Goat Life, directed by Blessy , is adapted from writer Benyamin’s novel The Goat Days, which narrates the story of Malayali immigrant Najeeb Muhammed. Also read: Prithviraj Sukumaran exclusive interview

The premise

Najeeb (Prithviraj Sukumaran) is living happily with his wife Saini ( Amala Paul ) in Kerala, when he decides to get a job in the Gulf to give his family a better life. He lands up with his friend, Hakim, in Saudi Arabia and ends up with a local man, who they think is their boss and get taken to an unknown destination. Najeeb is dropped off in the middle of the desert with a local farmer and has no connection to the outside world. He only speaks Malayalam and his desperate attempts to communicate with Kafeel, the boss, go nowhere. 

He finds himself as a slave herding goats in the middle of the desert, given little food and practically no water, and desperately wants to escape and go back home. As days roll into weeks and months and even years, how does Najeeb survive this horrendous life of torture and slavery and get back home? This is where Ibrahim Khadiri ( Jimmy Jean-Louis ) and Hakim come in. What follows is the rest of what The Goat Life is about.

Director Blessy has chosen a tough story to bring alive on screen but has done a commendable job of it. He is not in a rush to tell Najeeb’s story and you see every step of how Najeeb changes and adapts to this new life. The transformation of a happy and healthy Najeeb swimming freely in the Kerala backwaters to a starving, desperately thin and unkempt one in the desert among rugged goats, is captured beautifully through the stunning visuals.

Every feeling that Najeeb has is brought out through small details, like the moment between him and the young goat or when he says goodbye to the goats. There is just the vast expanse of the desert, the goat herd and a suffering Najeeb through most of the first half and Blessy brings out the relationship between the three poignantly – one just cannot imagine what the real Najeeb must have gone through. In the second half, Blessy moves towards the arduous and a near-impossible journey to freedom which Najeeb and Hakim face.

There are many scenes that stand out

Prithviraj Sukumaran has delivered an extraordinary performance as Najeeb. He has gotten into the skin of the character - literally - to play Najeeb and his commitment must be applauded. Right from losing weight to his shaggy beard, black teeth and dirty nails, the Malayalam star has shown that he has given it all for this role.

There are many scenes, which stand out and show that no other actor could have done this role. The scene, for instance, where he’s reed-thin and walks naked to the water tank to take a bath after years really hits you emotionally. Jimmy Jean-Louis, Talib (Kafeel) and KR Gokul (Hakim) also stand out with their performances while Amala Paul, who just has a few scenes, delivers what’s required.

Technically, Sunil KS has done stellar work as the cinematographer as his visuals are very vivid and capture and convey the mood of every aspect of Najeeb’s journey compellingly. For instance, you can visually see the thirst that Najeeb feels and as he quenches his parched lips, you feel like drinking water too.

AR Rahman’s music makes you connect with film

Music maestro AR Rahman has elevated the film to another level with background score. In all of director Blessy’s films, the music plays a very important role in conveying the tone and emotions of the film and The Goat Life’s score is no exception. The BGM is a combination of numerous musical styles (Arabic, Indian, Islamic, etc) and captures the life of these men in the Gulf and in India. In effect, Rahman’s background music makes you connect emotionally with this hard-hitting survival drama, right from the Kerala backwaters to the fierce desert sandstorms and the loud winds, to the grief and loss Najeeb experiences.

Final thoughts

At nearly three hours, Blessy’s film is a tad long as it tends to drag in some parts, especially in the second half. The Goat Life must be watched on the big screen for a truly wholesome experience.

Entertainment! Entertainment! Entertainment! 🎞️🍿💃 Click to follow our Whatsapp Channel 📲 Your daily dose of gossip, films, shows, celebrities updates all in one place

• Prithviraj Sukumaran

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like.

• Terms of use
• Privacy policy
• Weather Today
• HT Newsletters
• Subscription
• Print Ad Rates
• Code of Ethics

• Elections 2024
• GT vs SRH Live Score
• India vs England
• T20 World Cup 2024 Schedule
• IPL 2024 Auctions
• T20 World Cup 2024
• Cricket Players
• ICC Rankings
• Cricket Schedule
• Other Cities
• Income Tax Calculator
• Budget 2024
• Petrol Prices
• Diesel Prices
• Silver Rate
• Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Telugu Cinema
• Tamil Cinema
• Exam Results
• Competitive Exams
• Board Exams
• BBA Colleges
• Engineering Colleges
• Medical Colleges
• BCA Colleges
• Medical Exams
• Engineering Exams
• Horoscope 2024
• Festive Calendar 2024
• Compatibility Calculator
• The Economist Articles
• Explainer Video
• On The Record
• Vikram Chandra Daily Wrap
• PBKS vs DC Live Score
• KKR vs SRH Live Score
• EPL 2023-24
• ISL 2023-24
• Asian Games 2023
• Public Health
• Economic Policy
• International Affairs
• Climate Change
• Gender Equality
• future tech
• Daily Sudoku
• Daily Crossword
• Daily Word Jumble
• HT Friday Finance
• Explore Hindustan Times
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Subscription - Terms of Use

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, the swimmer.

Now streaming on:

"The Swimmer" is the story of a man who begins at the dawn of a new day to swim in the backyard pool of some friends. The water is cool and fresh, and the day is beautiful.

As he has a drink with his friends, it occurs to him that a string of other backyard pools reaches all the way across the valley to his own home. Why not swim every one -- swim all the way home, as it were? This sounds like a glorious adventure, and indeed it starts but that way. He even meets a lovely girl who agrees to come along on the journey.

Some of the pool owners are happy to see him. Others hate him. One is a bitter young woman who loved him once. We learn something about this man's life at every poolside, until finally we are able to piece together a story of his disgrace and failure.

"The Swimmer" begins as a perfectly realistic film. But somewhere along the way we realize it is an allegory, and the ending makes that clear. It is also a very stylized film. As the swimmer ( Burt Lancaster ) pauses beside each pool, his conversations with the owners sound real enough, and yet somehow they are very stiff, very correct, as if everybody were reading lines or this were a dream.

The photography contributes to this feeling. It is beautiful, but not joyful. It has the same nostalgia as " Elvira Madigan " or the snapshots in an old photo album. At every moment, we have the feeling that something tragic has already happened to these people we see smiling. And, of course, something has.

"The Swimmer" is based on a John Cheever story from the New Yorker, and it's the sort of allegory the New Yorker favors. Like assorted characters by John Updike and J.D. Salinger, Cheever's swimmer is a tragic hero disguised as an upper-class suburbanite. There are a lot of tragic heroes hidden in suburbia, I guess, perhaps because so many of them subscribe to the New Yorker. You are what you read.

One interesting thing about "The Swimmer" is that it manages so successfully to reproduce the feeling of a short story in the medium of film. It is a very literary movie, and by that I don't mean the characters stand around talking to each other a lot. The film episodes are put together in a rather formal way, like a well-made short story, and there is none of the fluid movement between scenes that you usually expect in movies.

The movement of the film is from morning to dusk, from sunshine to rain, from youth to age and from fantasy to truth. It would also appear that the swimmer's experiences are not meant to represent a single day, but a man's life.

What we really have here, then, is a sophisticated retelling of the oldest literary form of all: the epic. A hero sets off on a journey. He has many strange adventures along the way, during which he learns the tragic nature of life. At last he arrives at his goal, older and wiser and with many a tale to tell. The journey Cheever's swimmer makes has been made before in other times and lands by Ulysses, Don Quixote, Huckleberry Finn and Augie March.

Burt Lancaster is superb in his finest performance. In addition to being a fine actor, he is a plausible hero of the Charlton Heston and Kirk Douglas type. And a hero is needed here. We must believe in the swimmer's greatness if we are to find his fate tragic.

There are also fine performances by Janice Rule (previously buried in Matt Helms and Westerns) as the mistress, by Janet Landgard , as the young girl, and by a host of character actors. The screenplay and direction are by Eleanor and Frank Perry , respectively, and they are the same couple who made "David and Lisa." Like that film, "The Swimmer," is a strange, stylized work, a brilliant and disturbing one.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Now playing

Love Lies Bleeding

Brian tallerico.

The Truth vs. Alex Jones

Peyton Robinson

Kung Fu Panda 4

Christy lemire.

Steve! (Martin): A Documentary in Two Pieces

Ryuichi Sakamoto | Opus

Glenn kenny, film credits.

The Swimmer (1968)

Kim Hunter as Barry Graham

Burt Lancaster as Ned Merrill

Janet Landgard as Julie Hooper

Marge Champion as Peggy Forsburgh

Janice Rule as Shirley Abbott

Tony Bickley as Westerhazy

Nancy Cushman as Mrs. Halloran

Based on the story by

• John Cheever

From a screenplay by

• Eleanor Perry

Photographed by

• David L. Quaid

Directed by

• Frank Perry

Latest blog posts

Beyoncé and My Daughter Love Country Music

A Poet of an Actor: Louis Gossett, Jr. (1936-2024)

Why I Love Ebertfest: A Movie Lover's Dream

Adam Wingard Focuses on the Monsters