shame movie review rotten tomatoes

Cast & crew
User reviews

A sex addict's carefully cultivated private life falls apart after his sister arrives for an indefinite stay. A sex addict's carefully cultivated private life falls apart after his sister arrives for an indefinite stay. A sex addict's carefully cultivated private life falls apart after his sister arrives for an indefinite stay.

Steve McQueen
Michael Fassbender
Carey Mulligan
James Badge Dale
509 User reviews
490 Critic reviews
72 Metascore
50 wins & 94 nominations total

Woman on Subway Train

Cocktail Waitress

Live Chat Woman
(as Charisse Merman)

Hotel Lover

All cast & crew
Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

Trivia The first time Michael Fassbender saw the film was with his father Josef. Both were relieved that his mother Adele could not make the screening.
Goofs When Brandon is on the subway looking at the woman we see Fulton behind him on the wall of the subway tunnel. The train moves and a few minutes have passed. Next, when the woman exists the train and he follows her, we see that they are again at Fulton station.

Sissy Sullivan : We're not bad people. We just come from a bad place.

Crazy credits No opening credits apart from the movie's title.
Connections Featured in At the Movies: Venice Film Festival 2011 (2011)
Soundtracks Aria from the Goldberg Variations Written by Johann Sebastian Bach Performed by Glenn Gould Courtesy of Sony Masterworks and the Glenn Gould Estate Licensed by Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd

User reviews 509

freemantle_uk
Dec 2, 2011
January 13, 2012 (United Kingdom)
United Kingdom
United States
Official Facebook
Official site
28th Street Subway Station, Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA
Searchlight Pictures
UK Film Council
See more company credits at IMDbPro
$6,500,000 (estimated)
Dec 4, 2011
$19,123,767

Technical specs

Runtime 1 hour 41 minutes
Dolby Digital

More to explore

Only One Thing on His Mind

Share full article

By A.O. Scott

Dec. 1, 2011

The cruel paradox of addiction is that it transforms a source of pleasure into an inescapable, insatiable need. An abundance — an overdose — of movies and books explores the logic of this condition, mostly with respect to drugs or alcohol. “Shame,” the relentless new feature from the British artist turned filmmaker Steve McQueen , has a lot in common with films that plumb the toxic romance of the bottle or the needle. The crucial difference is that its protagonist, a handsome, youngish Manhattanite named Brandon (Michael Fassbender), is hooked on sex.

This poses a special challenge for Mr. McQueen, since there are rules, conventions and cognitive habits that limit how explicit — and how explicitly unpleasant — movie sex can be. Watching someone else take a drink or snort a line will not cause intoxication in the viewer, but watching other people get naked and squirm around together is a sure-enough turn-on to be the basis of a lucrative industry. How can visual pleasure communicate existential misery? It is a real and interesting challenge, and if “Shame” falls short of meeting it, the seriousness of its effort is hard to deny.

Mr. McQueen does not take the easy route of selecting for his case study a lonely, unattractive shut-in, but rather a very good-looking, admirably proportioned fellow with nice clothes (when he is in them), decent manners and a well-paying job. Brandon, who works at a small high-tech firm and lives in an austere apartment in a Chelsea high-rise, seems to be stuck in a sleek, downbeat 21st-century version of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 129 . That poem, as incisive an anatomy of erotic compulsion as exists in English, begins by evoking “the expense of spirit in a waste of shame” and cycles through the rages and frustrations of lust before collapsing in exhausted fatalism:

All this the world well knows; yet none knows well

to shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

“Shame,” anchored to the treadmill of Brandon’s pathology, strips this ancient, futile wisdom of its poetry. Mr. McQueen is a tenaciously literal filmmaker, mistrusting metaphor and psychological speculation and dwelling on the facts of behavior and bodily experience. His debut feature, “Hunger,” in which Mr. Fassbender played Bobby Sands, the I.R.A. militant who starved himself to death in a British-administered prison in 1981, was an unflinching look at the corporeal consequences of political zeal. It focused less on the nature of Sands’s cause than on the effects, on his own person, of his commitment to it.

And the most memorable aspect of that film may have been Mr. Fassbender’s commitment to the role, a discipline he re-enacts here in circumstances that are only superficially more pleasant. A prisoner of his own needs, Brandon — to use a curiously apt Victorian phrase — abuses himself mercilessly. When he cannot manage a casual encounter, he calls an escort service, and when that is inconvenient, there is always an Internet chat site or the men’s room at work, where he sneaks off for solitary daytime activity.

His routine is disrupted by the arrival of his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), whose neediness is the opposite of Brandon’s emotional detachment and whose sloppiness threatens his self-control. Her history of self-abuse apparently includes cutting and possible suicide attempts, and her intrusive dependency provokes Brandon to frightening and otherwise uncharacteristically violent displays of temper.

Different as they are, these siblings clearly share a self-destructive tendency, the sources of which lie somewhere in the background, beyond the reach of the film’s curiosity. “We’re not bad people,” Sissy says in a teary message she leaves on Brandon’s cellphone. “We just come from a bad place,” a place specified only as New Jersey.

The New York they find themselves in is a melancholy and seductive place, where easy money and relaxed sexual mores combine to produce an atmosphere of general anomie brightened by a few glimmers of comic possibility. In one brilliantly executed early scene, Brandon stands by as his boss (James Badge Dale), a boorish would-be ladies’ man, fails spectacularly to pick up a pretty blonde at a bar. Brandon succeeds without making an overt move or saying very much, and Mr. McQueen’s deft choreography of eye contact reveals everything we need to know about the workings of desire.

More awkward, but much funnier, is a dinner date at which Brandon and Marianne (Nicole Beharie), a co-worker, are subjected to the attentions of an aggressively incompetent waiter and also to their own uncertainty about the rules of attraction. But these moments feel less like insights into human interaction than like concessions to an idea of social life that Mr. McQueen does not quite believe in.

More problematic is his reliance on moments of showy cinematic beauty — a long nighttime tracking shot, a Hudson River sunset seen from a high window in the Standard Hotel — that serve at once to alleviate the film’s harshness and undermine its rigor. And the impulse to explore Brandon’s problem in some kind of narrative leaves “Shame” caught between therapeutic melodrama and melodramatic despair. The climax is, for Brandon, a chaotic downward slide that blends provocation with a scolding, breathless moralism. How far will he go? He’ll have sex with a man! With two women!

Is “Shame” the name of something Brandon does feel, or of something the filmmakers think he should feel? The movie, for all its displays of honesty (which is to say nudity), is also curiously coy. It presents Brandon for our titillation, our disapproval and perhaps our envy, but denies him access to our sympathy. I know, that’s the point, that Mr. McQueen wants to show how the intensity of Brandon’s need shuts him off from real intimacy, but this seems to be a foregone conclusion, the result of an elegant experiment that was rigged from the start.

“Shame” is rated NC-17 (No one 17 or under admitted). Younger viewers will have to go elsewhere to learn that sex can sometimes be fun.

Opens on Friday in Manhattan.

Directed by Steve McQueen ; written by Mr. McQueen and Abi Morgan; director of photography, Sean Bobbitt; edited by Joe Walker; music by Harry Escott; production design by Judy Becker; costumes by David Robinson; produced by Iain Canning and Emile Sherman; released by Fox Searchlight Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 39 minutes.

WITH: Michael Fassbender (Brandon), Carey Mulligan (Sissy), James Badge Dale (David) and Nicole Beharie (Marianne).

Shame: Opens on Friday in Manhattan. Directed by Steve McQueen; written by Mr. McQueen and Abi Morgan; director of photography, Sean Bobbitt; edited by Joe Walker; music by Harry Escott; production design by Judy Becker; costumes by David Robinson; produced by Iain Canning and Emile Sherman; released by Fox Searchlight Pictures. Running time: 1 hour 39 minutes. WITH: Michael Fassbender (Brandon), Carey Mulligan (Sissy), James Badge Dale (David) and Nicole Beharie (Marianne).

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

Season 49 of “Saturday Night Live” has ended. Here’s a look back at its most memorable monologues, sketches, product parodies and impressions .

“Megalopolis,” the first film from the director Francis Ford Coppola in 13 years, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. Here’s what to know .

Why is the “Planet of the Apes” franchise so gripping and effective? Because it doesn’t monkey around, our movie critic writes .

Luke Newton has been in the sexy Netflix hit “Bridgerton” from the start. But a new season will be his first as co-lead — or chief hunk .

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.

SHAME Review

Shame movie review. Matt reviews Steve McQueen's Shame starring Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, and James Badge Dale.

[ This is a reprint of my review from the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival. Shame opens tomorrow in limited release. ]

Alcoholics are told they'll never find love in a bottle and drug addicts are told they'll never find happiness in a needle. But what about sex addicts whose compulsion precludes them from intimacy and love? Steve McQueen 's Shame delves deep into the life of a sex addict and with laser-like focus examines the pain and torment that can drive such a person away from heartfelt interactions and towards self-destruction. McQueen's inspired and confident direction coupled with a heart-breaking performance from star Michael Fassbender makes Shame far more than a PSA or a righteous condemnation. McQueen and Fassbender make Shame a devastating powerhouse.

Brandon (Fassbender) is a sex addict who has closed off his life from any emotional contact. He wakes up naked and strolls around his apartment because there's no one to cover up for, no one to impress. He feeds his sex addiction with hookers, random pick-ups, masturbating in the restroom at work, a steady stream of porn, and hides it all under a cool, calm veneer. His tranquil downward slide is accelerated by the arrival of his ne'er-do-well sister, Sissy ( Carey Mulligan ). Sissy is Brandon's inverse. She's overly emotional, feels everything deeply, and voices her need for comfort. They're equally messed up, share the same loneliness, but while Sissy has no problem crying for help, Fassbender runs away from any intimacy, especially from his only family and the one woman he'll never want to sleep with. As Shame unfolds, Brandon's failed attempts to connect with other people only send him deeper into his own pain and anguish.

Coupled with his debut film Hunger , McQueen demonstrates that he may be one of the smartest directors working today. He once again takes advantage of long, uninterrupted takes that provide his actors with the room to give full, rich performances, but the direction is never stage-y. McQueen always frames his shot perfectly for maximum effect. I was taken in by the subtle power of how the frame almost always keeping Brandon to the far right of the screen. This oft-repeated shot keeps the character trapped, isolated, and unable to cross over and connect with anyone else. It's a beautiful visual metaphor that never feels heavy-handed.

Just as he can create beautiful tracking shots and exquisite framing, McQueen also knows how to be unrelentingly harsh. There's a horrific claustrophobia to Brandon's world. He's cruelly taunted every time he sees a woman that he can fuck but never love. When McQueen opens the film showing Fassbender's full-frontal nudity or a nude shot of Mulligan or any of the film's countless sex acts, it's not to titillate but to drive us into Brandon's mindset. McQueen forces us to live in a world where sex is completely joyless. Any director who can take copious amounts of sex between attractive people and make it completely unappealing without being overtly disgusting is some kind of mad genius.

The other mad genius of Shame is Fassbender. He has already given three outstanding performances this year with Jane Eyre , X-Men: First Class , and A Dangerous Method , but Shame is his best. Fassbender brings ugliness to charm, anguish to intimacy, and a devastating range of emotions that show a man who clearly can't even remember the last time he was happy and is clinging to what remains of his corroded soul. On the surface, Brandon shouldn't be a pitiable character. He's handsome, wealthy, and gets to have sex with beautiful women. But through Fassbender, we feel every moment of Brandon's torment.

Fassbender and McQueen are the major stars of Shame but I would be remiss if I didn't mention Mulligan. She has to stand as Brandon's mirror, convey just as much suffering, and has less screen-time to do it. Mulligan rises to the occasion and her performance is even better than her acclaimed breakthrough role in An Education . Sissy is a singer and I don't know if its Mulligan's voice in the character's performance of "New York, New York" but it's a scene that will absolutely break your heart.

Shame is not an easy film. It's not a film you "enjoy". It puts you in a choke-hole and then forces you down further and further into the depths of one man's pain. There's no humor, no relief, and it's not a film you want to watch again immediately after seeing it. But you respect every moment.

Filmhounds Magazine

All things film – In print and online

Reclaiming the Rotten: Steve McQueen’s Shame (2011)

Each month, Paul Klein take a look at a director's back catalogue and pick their lowest rated film on Rotten Tomatoes and ask ourselves – why? Why is it their least loved among critics? Regardless, we attempt to see the good in it.

This Month: Steve McQueen's SHAME (2011)

Rating: 79%

Steve McQueen , not he of riding motorbikes away from Nazis and escaping buildings on fire, but he of Turner prize winning artist fame, is a director to be reckoned with. After creating visual art that saw him rightfully lauded as a visionary new voice, he turned his more than capable hand to writing and directing films. First with his biographical drama Hunger following hunger striker Bobby Sands, which also saw rave reviews for Michael Fassbender 's performance. His later films include Best Picture winner 12 Years a Slave, which saw him nominated for Best Director and really solidified him coming onto the world stage. He followed it with Widows, a big screen adaptation of the Lynda La Plante ITV miniseries of the same name with an all star cast. The film might have done poor business at the box office (it was the second women centric heist movie that year after Ocean's 8 and was much less silly), but it holds a strong place for its audience. Most recently he scored more rave reviews for his anthology of TV films Small Axe – comprising of Mangrove, Lovers Rock, Red White and Blue, Alex Wheatle and Education. The anthology currently holds his highest rating on Rotten Tomatoes and showed a different side of the '70s and '80s for Black Britons.

But his lowest rated – though 79% is still something to be very pleased with – is his 2011 drama Shame . The film follows frequent McQueen collaborator Michael Fassbender as Brandon Sullivan, a single man living in New York who suffers from a sexual addiction, his life is thrown into turmoil when his Lounge singer sister Sissy ( Carey Mulligan ) comes to stay and it becomes clear that she has mental health issues that Brandon cannot cope with.

There is something to be said about McQueen's affinity for physicality, be it the total destruction of the body in Hunger or even the abuse visited upon it in 12 Years a Slave. With Shame McQueen asks all of his performers to bare themselves completely – both physically and emotionally. It's easy to jest about Fassbender's full frontal nudity, or even Mulligan's, and that nearly every scene is followed by one of sexual content but the film strips away their clothes and barriers to show people's flaws and insecurities.

There is a growing sense in cinema about becoming less and less adult, rarely are films an 18 in the UK or NC17 in the US, usually to appease a mass market and that lucrative international distribution in countries that are less liberal minded about sex. What Shame aims to do is to be an adult drama about an adult subject and to not laugh at it. Unlike a film like Thanks for Sharing that looked at sexual addiction through the prism of a romcom, this is a film that shows the corrosive nature of addiction to sex and the ignoring of human connection.

The film owes a debt to Bernardo Bertolucci's Last Tango in Paris and makes it clear with naming the protagonist Brandon, referencing actor Marlon Brando. Like the earlier film, Shame is not afraid to portray sex in a frank and realistic matter as opposed to the often eroticised manner it usually is, unlike the work of Paul Verhoeven for example.

While the film has the usual artistry of which McQueen is known, long takes and scenes of intensity set to music, the film does have a surprisingly un-political bent to it. While the rest of his work is concerned with politics and the changing nature of them – even Widows referenced the gulf between the haves and have nots who live side-by-side – the film is looking at emotion and how your mental state can fracture that. In the role of Sissy, Carey Mulligan is a juxtaposition to Brandon. She is emotionally volatile, sensitive to situations and the opinions of her brother, but is at least able to express her emotions no matter how extreme. Brandon, however, is void of emotion, when faced with a co-worker he might become romantically involved with (an underused by hypnotic Nicole Beharie) he is unable to sexually perform, his connection has severed his ability to achieve an erection.

The film is also interested in the contradictions of Brandon; we meet him on a subway exchanging lustful looks at a woman who clearly wears an engagement ring, he also later offers a proposition to a woman with a boyfriend resulting in him being beaten up – yet, when his sister Sissy sleeps with his married boss David (James Badge Dale) he chastises her. He doesn't hold David to account for hitting on women in clubs, or willingly sleeping with his sister, but accuses his sister of being a burden and pathetic. It's unclear if Brandon is sexist, certainly he doesn't feel the need to connect women to anything other than sex, and so most of the women we meet in the film barely speak.

Unlike, say, Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac which looked at the life of a sex addicted woman, which in turn punished her at every turn and even ends with her almost being raped, Shame looks at the devastation of the soul. Sissy pointedly says to Brandon that they are not bad people but from a bad place. Sissy's eventual suicide attempt might sit uneasy with people, what she desires from Brandon is a closeness he cannot provide and her suicide attempt forces him to reconsider how he acts.

Perhaps the biggest issue people have with the film is its lack of resolution, how you interpret the final scene is down to your own outlook of the film. A typical film would have Brandon attend an addiction meeting or start a relationship with his colleague and find a medium between sex and emotion, but McQueen and co-writer Abi Morgan aren't interested in that and instead appear to want to leave the ending up for interpretation.

Despite that, Shame is a frank and devastating portrayal of addiction to the flesh of others that doesn't offer easy answers. It might be that super hunky Michael Fassbender (and the promise of seeing his penis) along with awards darling Carey Mulligan, make the film appear to be more welcoming than it is. The film is a harder watch than the premise of “Fassy has lots of sex” would sound on paper, and the emotion, or lack thereof, sits uneasy with people who in most films are told sex is the natural end point for emotion, not just a physical act.

Though called an erotic drama, there's very little erotic about the film, it's shooting of sexual scene is very matter of fact, and not sexualised. McQueen treats Brandon's addiction as he does the abuse of slaves, he puts it on screen in unbroken shots, despite the sex not being violent in nature, the way it's shot has the feel of aggression. It might be that that people take issue with, that they aren't allowed the benefit of sexual excitement, only the mechanics of sex.

Even so, McQueen proves that he is a fearless filmmaker that continues to make work that is confrontational even when it appears to be something entirely different. A sexual film for a sexual age where sexual freedom is frowned upon.

30 Years Since Shallow Grave Made The Concept of Housemates Terrifying

Beyond the Spectacle: The Fall Guy Makes Stunt Performers More Than Daring Risk Takers

Game, set, brilliance: How Luca Guadagnino’s distinct vision dominates Challengers

You may have missed

Still image from Sting: A young girl shines a torch on her hand in a dark room, illuminating a small black spider.

Sting (Film Review)

East of Noon – Quinzaine Des Cinéastes 2024 (Film Review)

Ry Barrett as Johnny holding a logging chain in In A Violent Nature

“I wanted it to be like a slasher in every way, but from a different angle” – Director Chris Nash On In A Violent Nature

When you purchase through Movies Anywhere , we bring your favorite movies from your connected digital retailers together into one synced collection. Join Now

Shame | Full Movie | Movies Anywhere

See Retailers

Rotten Tomatoes® Score

There's no doubting that it's artfully shot, but its lack of dialogue and challengingly languorous pacing will be patience-testing for many.

Steve McQueen’s painful cinematic display of loneliness in the city features acting of the highest caliber.

Steve McQueen’s Shame takes a nonjudgmental and uncompromising view on sex addiction.

Follows an arc familiar from numerous other films that deal with the theme of addiction — an accelerated freefall towards rock bottom followed by self-awareness and a hint of redemption.

Destined to cause debate, Shame is a film that will stay with you long after...

A reflective/introspective look at society's ills in the time of economic crisis and the world in turmoil is perhaps not very well timed. And Brandon's sexual escapades in the last act reach almost a comedic level.

I''ll be honest, it's an exciting film, in that rare way few other films can be. It's tackling subject matter that is rarely addressed but critical to delve into in our culture.

Wonderfully shot and performed, this is a total must-see...

A mesmerizing, unforgettable film.

An intense portrait of a man in the throws of an addiction that he can't control, of a spiral of self-hatred and self-abuse.

Additional Info

Genre : Drama
Release Date : December 2, 2011
Languages : English
Captions : English, Spanish
Audio Format : 5.1

New Releases

Hard-hitting drama from director Steve McQueen ( Hunger ). Brandon's (Michael Fassbender) carefully cultivated sex addiction is interrupted by the unannounced arrival of his sister (Carey Mulligan).

"Brandon is a New Yorker who shuns intimacy with women but feeds his desires with a compulsive addiction to sex. When his wayward younger sister (Carey Mulligan) moves into his apartment stirring memories of their shared painful past, Brandon's insular life spirals out of control." (Official Synopsis)

Where to watch Shame

Times & tickets.

Apple TV Store

Get 20% off your next two orders with Delivereasy

Or, search for your location...

Nope didn’t find anything. Try again.
Leicestershire
Lincolnshire
Northamptonshire
Nottinghamshire
Bedfordshire
Cambridgeshire
Hertfordshire
Isle of Man
London Central
London East
London North
London North West
London South East
London South West
London West
Outer London - North
Outer London - North East
Outer London - South
Outer London - West
County Durham
Northumberland
Tyne and Wear
Londonderry
Aberdeenshire
Ayrshire and Arran
Central Scotland
Dumfries and Galloway
Dunbartonshire and Argyll & Bute
Edinburgh & Lothians
Highlands and Islands
Lanarkshire
Renfrewshire
Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale
Buckinghamshire
East Sussex
Isle of Wight
Oxfordshire
West Sussex
Gloucestershire
Herefordshire
Staffordshire
Warwickshire
Worcestershire
East Yorkshire
North Yorkshire
South Yorkshire
West Yorkshire

Shame | Ratings & Reviews

Rotten tomatoes® rating, audience score rating.

"Certain to arouse critical acclaim and smart-audience interest wherever it's shown."

"With its focus on relentless sexual craving the movie is superficially bold, but lacks the bravery to go all the way."

"Not for the faint-hearted, prudish or impatient, Shame is as complex and ambiguous as its characters."

"In a movie era remarkable for its reluctance to dramatize erotic intimacy, Shame merits praise for the dark energy of its sexual encounters."

"Pure and pitiless and oddly disapproving."

"The seriousness of its effort is hard to deny."

"Shame is a disturbing film that penetrates our minds and gets beneath our skins as we try to understand its characters."

"This is fluid, rigorous, serious cinema; the best kind of adult movie."

"There's no easy way to shake off Shame. It gets in your head."

"This is a great act of filmmaking and acting. I don't believe I would be able to see it twice."

"A grim and arty drama."

"This is a psychologically claustrophobic film that strips its characters bare literally and figuratively, leaving them, and us, nowhere to hide."

"Its dramatic and stylistic prowess provides a cinematic jolt that is bracing to experience."

"The biggest surprise in Shame is how distanced, passionless, and merely skin-deep the director's attention is - how little he cares about the subject of his own movie."

"Brave, beautifully acted and emotionally revealing — an early strong contender for the most provocative and compelling film of the year."

"Shame is packed with scenes which are both immaculately composed and seething with meaning."

"A moody, textured piece."

Shame | Details

Shame | Trailers

Big on Streaming

Bridgerton: Season 3

Atlas (2024)

Back to Black

Insomnia: Season 1

Outer Range: Season 2

The Big Cigar: Miniseries

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

The Beach Boys

Clarkson's Farm: Season 3

Maxton Hall: The World Between Us - Season 1

Search suggestions

Movies in Cinemas
Movies & Shows Streaming
Coming Soon
News & Opinion

Get to your watchlist.

Or sign in with your email

Don’t have a Flicks account? Sign Up.

I forgot my damn password.

Keep track of the movies and show you want to see + get Flicks email updates.

Or sign up with your email

By signing up, you agree to our terms & conditions and privacy policy .

Already have a Flicks account? Sign in

Password reset

Don’t have a Flicks account? Sign Up

Remembered your password? Sign In

To post ratings/reviews we need a username. This is what will appear next to your ratings and reviews.

I don't know, create one for me

SORRY TO SAY, FLICKS NO LONGER SUPPORTS IE9

Please update to Microsoft Edge , or another browser.

Or, if you want to stick it out with Internet Explorer, please update your browser to the latest version ( IE 11 )

Shame (1968)

Liv Ullman and Gunnar Bjornstrand in <i>Shame</i>. (Courtesy Criterion Collection)

T he fictional civil war at the heart of Ingmar Bergman’s beautiful, somber masterpiece has no name, but it does have faces: those of Liv Ullman’s Eva, fresh as a haystack in sunshine, and Max von Sydow’s Jan, sturdy and thoughtful but with a twinge of scholarly absentmindedness. These two are a married couple living on a farm, scrounging to get by and doing their best to avoid the war raging around them—until avoidance becomes impossible. They’re captured, turned into pawns, but they’re also offered choices, and the moral compromises they make tear at the already frayed fabric of their marriage. Shame arrived as the world was fixated on the Vietnam War, and although Bergman claimed it wasn’t political, it’s a movie that fits easily into its time. But it’s also timeless, less an overt statement about events of the 1960s than an exploration of what can happen to humans when the dishonesty and brutality around them becomes too much to bear. The trick is that Bergman refuses to judge these characters. His tenderness toward them is infinite and resonant, like a caressing wind.

Javier Milei’s Radical Plan to Transform Argentina
The New Face of Doctor Who
How Private Donors Shape Birth-Control Choices
What Happens if Trump Is Convicted ? Your Questions, Answered
The Deadly Digital Frontiers at the Border
Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
The 31 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2024
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Robert De Niro in The Godfather Part II.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Jaws (1975), e.t. the extra-terrestrial (1982), the empire strikes back (1980), little women (2019).

Movie Reviews

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

Now streaming on:

In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam war, Ingmar Bergman made this angry and bleak film that was against all war, and argued that it didn't matter which side you were on. In 1966, in his " Persona ," he had used the famous televised footage of a Vietnamese monk burning himself alive to shock an actress into ceasing all forms of speech. In the two years between, what had changed, so that he no longer took sides?

It is a question without an answer in "Shame," which does not deliver a message in any formal way, but simply offers people and their lives and leaves us to conclude what we choose. Both films star Liv Ullmann , his actress in nine films starting with "Persona." Her co-star is Max von Sydow, who had worked with Bergman since " The Seventh Seal " (1957). Ullmann and Bergman play a tortured couple, as they also do in " Hour of the Wolf " and "The Passion of Anna." In a strange sense, all three films are about the same couple; only their narrative changes.

They were once symphonic musicians. Now they live in a weathered house on an island, growing fruits and vegetables. Nothing in their house seems to work, including the radio, so they hear only distant rumors of a war that has been waged seemingly forever. Eva Rosenberg (Ullmann) is concerned with the danger to their lives and to her desire to bear children. Her husband Jan (von Sydow) believes the war will pass them by. Their serenity is interrupted by jet planes flying low over their house, the killing of a parachuting airman, the arrival of troops, their inquisition, and eventually their incarceration by the other side (which seems to be the local side, but loyalties are divided).

They are questioned harshly. A falsely doctored video of Eva is used against her. They are sent back to their home, only to witness its wanton destruction. Eva has sex with the colonel in charge ( Gunnar Bjornstrand , who first worked with Bergman in a 1944 film he wrote, "Torment"). Does she do it to save them? Probably, but hard to say. Her own marriage is painfully uncertain. Later, Jan conceals money that could have bought the colonel's freedom from the other side. Does he do it to punish their adultery? Hard to say if he has actually witnessed it.

All of this (I have left out many details) paints a portrait of a couple torn from their secure lives and forced into a horrifying new world of despair, testing them both to discover who they really are what they really feel. The overwhelming concluding passages, interrupted by shots of the sky, are among the most desolate Bergman ever filmed.

"Shame" was named best film of the year by the National Society of Film Critics, but is not much talked about 40 years later--certainly not in comparison with "Persona." It might have made a greater impact if he'd made it specifically about Vietnam, but I believe he was unhappy that "Persona" had been decoded by critics as being against that war, all because of one image; it was about, and against, a great deal more. In this film you can see him shifting away from message and toward the close regard of human behavior and personality (as in his "Silence of God" trilogy). That did not turn him into a realist or a conventional storyteller, but it freed him from ideology.

Ideology is one of the enemies in "Shame." Jan and Eva are punished because they are suspected of being "sympathizers," but the film lacks any information about where it takes place, who the two sides are, and what they stand for. To a civilian caught in the middle, there is no way out. Jan and Eva are not sympathizers for the other side, but neither are they patriots for this side. In a sense, the film could be about the ordinary non-combatant people of Iraq--or, pick your war.

"Shame" is available on DVD, alone or packaged with "Hour of the Wolf" and "The Passion of Anna."

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

The Beach Boys

Brian tallerico.

Gasoline Rainbow

Peyton robinson.

Under the Bridge

Cristina escobar.

Nothing Can't Be Undone by a HotPot

Simon abrams, film credits.

Shame (1968)

103 minutes

Liv Ullmann as Eva Rosenberg

Max von Sydow as Jan Rosenberg

Sigge Furst as Filip

Written and directed by

Ingmar Bergman

Latest blog posts

Killer Klowns from Outer Space Is a Total Blast

Cannes 2024: It's Not Me, Filmlovers!, Misericordia

The World's Biggest Jewelry Box: Kristin Joseff on Hollywood's Favorite Jeweler, Joseff of Hollywood

Cannes 2024 Video #6: Ben Kenigsberg on The Substance, Anora, Emilia Perez, and Napoleon

an image, when javascript is unavailable

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

‘the apprentice’ review: sebastian stan and jeremy strong are superb in chilling account of the unholy alliance that birthed donald trump.

Maria Bakalova and Martin Donovan also star in Ali Abbasi’s detailed chronicle of the future U.S. president’s rise in the 1970s and ‘80s under the tutelage of cutthroat lawyer Roy Cohn.

By David Rooney

David Rooney

Chief Film Critic

Share on Facebook
Share to Flipboard
Send an Email
Show additional share options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Share on Whats App
Print the Article
Post a Comment

To clear any confusion up front, The Apprentice has nothing to do with the NBC reality competition of that name, in which Donald Trump sifted through a field of aspiring businesspeople to identify the most promising of them, sending an eliminated contestant home each week with the brutal dismissal, “You’re fired!” On the other hand, you could say that Ali Abbasi’s biographical drama has everything to do with the television series.

Full credits

Thr newsletters.

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Inaugural prix luciole awards honor poster art at cannes, box office meltdown: ‘garfield’ claims victory over ‘furiosa’ with worst no. 1 memorial day opening in three decades, glen powell on why he feared he “ruined” ‘hidden figures’, lily gladstone says “it’s irrelevant whether or not” she won the oscar for ‘killers of the flower moon’, richard sherman, oscar-winning songwriter on ‘mary poppins,’ dies at 95, kim kardashian and ye’s daughter north west performs ‘lion king’ song at disney celebration.

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

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

by Alissa Wilkinson

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.

Why people are freaking out over Wonder Woman’s stellar Rotten Tomatoes score

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.”

A screenshot of the Rotten Tomatoes page for Wonder Woman

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.

A screenshot of the Rotten Tomatoes score for Fight Club.

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:

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.

The Emoji Movie’s terrible RT score doesn’t seem to have affected its box office returns.

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.

Most Popular

Red lobster’s mistakes go beyond endless shrimp, cholera is making a comeback — and the world doesn’t have enough vaccines, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, 20 years of bennifer, explained, the air quality index and how to use it, explained, today, explained.

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

More in Culture

Hacks shows cancel culture is a joke

What the Biden administration is doing about ludicrously expensive concert tickets

Why AI art will always kind of suck

The real reason it costs so much to go to a concert

Vanderpump Rules shows the limits of making money on reality TV

Bridgerton’s third season is more diverse — and even shallower — than ever

The Comstock Act, the long-dead law Trump could use to ban abortion, explained

Red Lobster’s mistakes go beyond endless shrimp Audio

The sundress discourse, explained

The science of near-death experiences Audio

People bet on sports. Why not on anything else?

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

Fandango at Home
Netflix streaming
Prime Video
Most popular streaming movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga Link to Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
Hit Man Link to Hit Man
Babes Link to Babes

New TV Tonight

Eric: Season 1
We Are Lady Parts: Season 2
Geek Girl: Season 1
The Outlaws: Season 3
Gordon Ramsay: Uncharted: Season 4
America's Got Talent: Season 19
Fiennes: Return to the Wild: Season 1
The Famous Five: Season 1
Couples Therapy: Season 4
Celebrity Family Food Battle: Season 1

Shame Reviews

Bergman has made a film that will command your complete attention with its consummate skill, power and concern.

Full Review | Aug 19, 2021

If we move on to judge Bergman not just for how he says it but for what he says, and to this judgment every really great artist must finally be subjected, then we cannot escape the feeling that something very important is missing.

Full Review | Jan 7, 2021

A collection of scenes that are sometimes great and sometimes merely good, but often disconnected from each other.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/5 | Nov 4, 2020

One of Bergman's most underrated titles, Shame is a compelling and contentious example of the anti-war film as a pared down portrait of human nature.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Aug 14, 2020

It is a masterpiece of war and art.

Full Review | Jan 25, 2020

The Bergman stock company of Max Von Sydow, Liv Ullmann and Gunnar Björnstrand perform ably, and the Bergman devices are effective; but somehow the effect is quite numbing.

Full Review | Jul 10, 2019

Shame is a complicated, crazily plotted film that loses most of its development...

Full Review | Jun 19, 2019

exists in a strange netherworld between political reality and vague allegory

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/4 | Apr 8, 2019

...one of [Bergman's] most unfairly overlooked films of the 1960s.

Full Review | Original Score: 8/10 | Mar 11, 2019

The film is bare and ravaged, and its most haunting moments look casual as well as ominous.

Full Review | Jul 11, 2018

Yes, life is hell. We have seen it and it is true. Why, then, am I not moved?

Full Review | Mar 14, 2018

Ingmar Bergman stretches a classic Bergman couple on the tightening rack of war.

Full Review | Dec 3, 2012

It is a question without an answer in Shame, which does not deliver a message in any formal way, but simply offers people and their lives and leaves us to conclude what we choose.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/4 | Oct 18, 2008

"What a wonder is a gun," opined one-time Bergman adapter Stephen Sondheim.

Full Review | Apr 19, 2008

It's pretty harrowing and depressing.

Full Review | Dec 28, 2007

A bleak parable.

Full Review | Original Score: C+ | Sep 17, 2007

Despite its evident sincerity, the film seems less like an indictment of intellectual and artistic irresponsibility than a quiet mea culpa.

Full Review | Aug 1, 2007

A tremendously profound and unsettling film about the indignities of war.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 29, 2006

Shame draws the rutted map of war's psychology, in bold and grievous strokes recognizable to any audience, and liable to frighten and humble them all.

Full Review | Original Score: A | Aug 6, 2006

It ends with one of the cinema's most awesomely apocalyptic visions: not the cheeriest of films, but a masterpiece.

Full Review | Jun 24, 2006

32 Movies With A 0% Score On Rotten Tomatoes

C ritics. You can't live with them, and we will survive and share our thoughts even if the masses band together in an attempt to crush us. Jokes aside, critics get a bad rep, but in reality when it comes to movies that absolutely bombed in the eyes of critics, very few movies in cinematic history have hit that mark. Forty-three movies in the Rotten Tomatoes database have gotten a solid 0% rating since the 1980s, and we've gotten thirty-two of the worst.

These movies have the rarefied air of being the worst of the worst, and most of them readers will remember or recognize. Let's dive in, and remember some of the worst movies and why critics rightfully tore them to shreds in reviews.

Staying Alive (1983)

It took six years for the sequel to Saturday Night Fever to finally get John Travolta on board, and while Staying Alive was a commercial success, the movie was universally panned. The movie's biggest problem was taking away all the realism and grittiness of living in Brooklyn during the disco era and made it all about dancing. Critics were not impressed, to say the least.

Simon Sez (1999)

It's well known that Dennis Rodman changed his image after seeing Demolition Man , so I think it's a bit funny he plays a character in Simon Sez with the same first name as Wesley Snipes' character. I also find it funny this movie features Dane Cook before his real big break, as well as another notable comedian, John Pinette. All the potential for laughs, and it's an action movie that failed to resonate with anyone upon release.

The Ridiculous 6 (2015)

Critics have never been too kind to a majority of Adam Sandler's comedy work, but The Ridiculous 6 remains his worst-reviewed movie. The movie was dropped by Warner Bros. only to be picked up on Sandler's big deal with Netflix.

Highlander 2: The Quickening (1991)

Highlander is such an iconic movie, it's a shame that Highlander 2: The Quickening is one of the worst sequels ever . If there's any consolation, the failure has little to do with the cast and crew but was rather the result of the economy collapsing in Argentina, where the movie was shot. Even if you're a big fan of the original movie, I'd suggest going directly to the TV series and skipping the second movie entirely.

The Nutcracker In 3D (2010)

The bar is often low for movies deliberately made to release on the holidays, and if The Nutcracker In 3D was just a carbon copy of the iconic ballet show it would've been fine. Unfortunately, this star-studded affair was panned for lacking ballet, adding lyrics to the iconic songs, and drenching the movie in heavy World War II symbolism that was borderline too frightening for children. It was, surprisingly, a movie that made a bad decision on every level.

Left Behind (2014)

Nicolas Cage has some unique choices for the best movies he ever made , but thankfully Left Behind is not one of them. The second attempt to bring the popular Christian apocalyptic books to theaters resulted in a movie that received as many negative reviews from critics as religious organizations. Its biggest sin, according to many, was being terrible.

Look Who’s Talking Now? (1993)

They say the third time's a charm, but that was certainly not the case with Look Who's Talking Now? . It's not exactly uncommon for an audience to realize the premise for a movie is thin when the sequel comes out, but I would say it is uncommon to see producers then push for a third movie knowing that's the case. Not even John Travolta and the late Kirstie Alley could save this one from flopping.

Killing Me Softly (2002)

Reading the description for Killing Me Softly makes it sound like a solid thriller, but the plot itself is not the issue. The issue in this Heather Graham and Joseph Fiennes movie is the choppy dialogue and over the top plot twists that just make an interesting premise turn pretty ridiculous fairly quickly.

Pinocchio (2002)

What happens when you try to shop a Pinocchio adaptation in which a 50-year-old Italian actor plays the lead character and then the American dub enlists Breckin Meyer to make him sound like a younger boy? Well, the movie is a disaster panned by critics for a weird movie made even weirder by being poorly dubbed.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

Jaws: The Revenge was born partly out of a want to promote Universal Studios' now-retired Jaws ride , which is never a solid basis for justifying a movie. That, in addition to a rushed production schedule, is also noted to compromise the quality of the movie. The one positive is that it led to the now-famous movie tagline, "This time, it's personal," which makes it all worth it.

A Thousand Words (2012)

As CinemaBlend's review of A Thousand Words points out, this movie's failure is more because of a terrible plot centered around a solid premise and cast. A magic tree that will kill a man if he speaks too much sounds simple enough, but then it spirals out of control, and the rules of the movie are never clear. Eddie Murphy does his best to save it, but it's not enough.

Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol (1987)

Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol is the result of a franchise that some would say exhausted its potential in the first movie. By the time they reached the fourth installment, the result was a movie desperately trying to be funny, but just wasn't unless you're of a vastly younger audience than what it was possibly made for.

Gotti (2018)

Gotti might be the first movie in Hollywood history to call critics "trolls" to combat the negative reception to the film. What John Travolta would believe to be an awards contender ended up being called a dud of a movie accused of glorifying a crime boss and painting him in a favorable light.

The Disappointments Room (2016)

Making a horror movie based on an HGTV home-buying episode is probably not the way to make a quality movie, but that's not the worst offending part of the movie. Calling the movie The Disappointments Room really teed it up for critics in their reviews, which were scathing.

National Lampoon's Gold Diggers (2003)

The 2000s were far removed from the prime era of National Lampoon movies, and Gold Diggers is evidence of that. Two young men set out to try and get rich quickly via small crimes and end up marrying two old women they intended to mug. Critics indicated the movie was painfully unfunny, and crass to the point it made other less acclaimed shows and movies look better in comparison.

Redline (2007)

Redline is a bad movie, but that's because the premise for making it was questionable. Per Autoblog , millionaire Daniel Sadek funded the movie and featured his own auto collection for the movie. Sadek even had greenlit, allowing his expensive Porsche Carrera GTs to be totaled, which may not have been worth it in hindsight, given the audience's reception.

Stolen (2009)

Josh Lucas and Jon Hamm are, unfortunately, put to waste in Stolen , a drama about a cop looking to solve his son's murder and ends up getting involved in the murder of another child that took place decades prior. It sounds interesting, but critics said the movie is weighed down by tired tropes of genres and lacks the amount of thrills one might expect from a story.

Bolero (1984)

Bolero is a movie whose premise might cause a reader to shudder in the modern day. A young woman looking to find an ideal first lover to take her virginity after her sexual awakening is the plot. Critics likened it to a mainstream version of an adult movie, with the dialogue being just as painful as one might think.

Hard Kill (2020)

Hard Kill is a bad action movie from an actor with a supremely solid body of work in the genre, Bruce Willis. The movie was panned for being bad, but also because many were confused as to why Willis signed onto it. Of course, the movie may get a pass in the modern day, with the knowledge the actor worked on this and others in light of his aphasia diagnosis .

Problem Child (1990)

I think what readers most need to know about Problem Child is that it was originally pitched as a horror movie similar to The Omen , and then turned into a comedy. Critics really laid into this movie with a solid cast, and it was so poorly received the television version removed references to adoption that seemed too harsh. Strangely enough, it still spawned two sequels, despite panning from critics.

John Henry (2020)

The Terry Crews-led John Henry follows a reformed man who takes justice to gang members with a sledgehammer, with the imagery clearly meant to draw to the American folk hero of the same name. Unfortunately, the movie itself borders between cartoonish and incredibly serious, without ever really picking a lane the entire time.

Return To The Blue Lagoon (1991)

The Blue Lagoon didn't necessarily get glowing reviews, but it was well-received enough as a movie some might view as a guilty pleasure. Whatever audiences saw in that movie was not present in the sequel, as the movie was torn to shreds by critics.

Beneath The Darkness (2011)

It seems the biggest sin any horror movie can commit is taking itself too seriously, and that seems to be the issue with Beneath The Darkness . Sometimes a horror movie can be so scary and ridiculous that it teeters into something comical, and despite a big performance from Dennis Quaid, this movie about a man dancing with his dead wife who he murdered is just that.

Wagons East (1994)

Wagons East might be known as a poor attempt to make a western comedy in 1995, had it not been made infamous by a much darker headline. Comedy actor John Candy died on the set in the final days of filming, forcing the movie to finish with re-writes and CGI. The movie was panned upon release, with some expressing displeasure that it was the final movie of Candy's career.

London Fields (2018)

Amber Heard plays a clairvoyant who knows one man will end her life, so naturally, she begins an affair with three to try and figure out which it will be. Critics noted the movie was exceptionally hard to follow, even when reading the book it was adapted from. If that's not a sign this movie is a dud, I'm not sure what is.

Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002)

Believe it or not, there is a worst of the worst even when it comes to 0% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever holds the title for the worst-reviewed movie in the history of the site, with over 119 reviews panning this movie. There's no shortage of bad things to say about this action thriller, though it's humorously pointed out that Ecks and Sever actually work together to fight a common enemy in the movie and are not opposed to each other as well. Perhaps that tells you all you need to know.

Precious Cargo (2016)

Precious Cargo is another Bruce Willis-led action film from his latter years that, I would imagine many now view in a different light given is aphasia diagnosis. The movie was ripped apart by critics for its "direct to video" type of vibe, and for just overall being an action film that's fairly light on thrills.

Cabin Fever (2016)

Horror movies seem to get dumped on by critics more than other genres, but it's warranted in the case of Cabin Fever . This movie contains a scene in which a child yells "pancakes," proceeds to do a well-choreographed karate segment, and then bites a lead character on the hand. It's not done for laughs, and it doesn't really make sense even in the context of seeing the movie. To this day, I wonder if the whole movie was a joke setup for that scene.

Derailed (2002)

Jean-Claude Van Damme had a magnificent run of mainstream success as an action star in Hollywood, but by the year 2002, it felt as though he had overstayed his welcome. Enter the movie Derailed , which is broadly considered one of the worst of the actor's career. Fortunately, he was able to bounce back years later with JCVD , which had high marks all around.

Homecoming (2009)

There's definitely a type of movie that ends up on this list merely because critics seem worn out by the premise. Such is the case with Homecoming , an obsession-thriller type movie that seems to have a big problem of not being original to previous entries in any way.

Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (2004)

You know Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2 has to be bad when critics are calling out the acting in a movie that primarily stars babies. The sequel didn't have a high bar to surpass the first movie, and it didn't clear it. There are some movies that are so bad they're good, but this is not it.

Max Steel (2016)

Before there was Barbie , Mattel tried to make a franchise with a male action figure, Max Steel . Unfortunately, the character wasn't nearly as popular as the doll played by Margot Robbie and others, and neither was the movie. The movie was labeled as "bland" and certainly not something that would drive kids to run to toy stores.

Check out these movies at your own risk, though I'd imagine those who made it this far and are still interested will not heed my warning.

32 Movies With A 0% Score On Rotten Tomatoes

We earn a commission for products purchased through some links in this article.

Atlas lands one of Jennifer Lopez's lowest-ever Rotten Tomatoes ratings

"Like putting together every cliché in the sci-fi book."

preview for Atlas - Official Trailer (Netflix)

The new Netflix sci-fi focuses on the actor's titular character, a brilliant but misanthropic data analyst who joins a mission to capture a renegade robot with whom she shares a mysterious past.

However, it seems Atlas hasn't impressed critics, earning only 8% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes (at the time of writing) – only marginally ahead of her infamously panned 2003 movie Gigli (which sits at 6%).

Related: Jennifer Lopez shuts down Ben Affleck question in awkward interview moment

Among criticisms, many reviews have pointed towards Atlas ' "predictable" and "embarrassing" plot.

Here's what critics have been saying:

Digital Spy

"Netflix's new epic Atlas is like putting together every cliché in the sci-fi book (including Hollywood's obsession with apocalyptic AI) without a clue of how to mash them into something worth viewers' time."

" Atlas is far from the 'Justice for AI!' disaster its premise implies, and while it’s not the next groundbreaking sci-fi epic, it earns points for building an entertaining, adequately executed movie around a hot-button topic."

" Atlas is predictable, overlong and bland – the kind of experience it’s hard to get excited about when the star player seems to be perfunctorily running the bases."

"Hidden somewhere beneath all the generic dialogue, embarrassing plot, mediocre action and oddly ineffective performances, there’s a good idea in Brad Peyton’s Atlas . It’s a shame the filmmakers never found it."

"With some solid combat mechanics, Atlas might have been a lot of fun to play. As a movie, it’s simply watchable without ever achieving – or seemingly even really trying to achieve – more than that."

" Atlas struggles with a weak script and underutilized performances, leaving it an entertaining yet ultimately unfulfilling experience."

Atlas is now available to watch on Netflix.

May 2024 gift ideas and deals

Amazon Music Unlimited – 30-day free trial

Marquee TV streaming service - 3 months for 99p

Digital Spy Holidays - trips with TV experts

Buy Zendaya's 'I Told Ya' Challengers t-shirt

Audible, 50% off for 4 months

Watch the Fallout TV show for free

Buy Alison Hammond's outfits

Apple TV+ 7-day free trial

Sign up for Disney+

Buy Cat Deeley's This Morning outfits

Crunchyroll 14-day free trial

Shop Sky TV, broadband and mobile

Sam is a freelance reporter and sub-editor who has a particular interest in movies , TV and music. After completing a journalism Masters at City University, London, Sam joined Digital Spy as a reporter, and has also freelanced for publications such as NME and Screen International . Sam, who also has a degree in Film, can wax lyrical about everything from Lord of the Rings to Love Is Blind , and is equally in his element crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i' as a sub-editor.

.css-15yqwdi:before{top:0;width:100%;height:0.25rem;content:'';position:absolute;background-image:linear-gradient(to right,#51B3E0,#51B3E0 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 2.5rem,#E5ADAE 5rem,#E5E54F 5rem,#E5E54F 7.5rem,black 7.5rem,black);} Netflix

Netflix details One Piece's huge accomplishment

New on Netflix this week: TV shows to binge now

ruby stokes and hannah dodd as francesca, bridgerton

Why they recast Francesca Bridgerton in season 3

14 best sex movies on Netflix

Best movies on Netflix to watch now

Is J.Lo's new Netflix movie Atlas worth watching?

The Witcher season 4: Everything you need to know

Netflix responds as show called "most hateable TV"

luke newton as colin, nicola coughlan as penelope, bridgerton season 3

Bridgerton star on how relationship mirrors Polin

You season 5: Everything you need to know

Netflix's first look at The Crown star's new show

Critics Aren't Holding Back On Jennifer Lopez's Netflix Movie Atlas

Jennifer Lopez is back on the block with a brand new sci-fi flick that critics are tearing to shreds. Earlier this year, Lopez starred in a controversial Super Bowl 2024 commercial with her beau Ben Affleck , released a bold vanity documentary in the form of "This Is Me ... Now: A Love Story," and now she has Netflix's "Atlas." The film, which was released on May 24, is nothing short of a critical bomb, boasting a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics aren't holding back on this one, with The Hollywood Reporter 's Angie Han bolding calling it "another Netflix movie made to half-watch while doing laundry." Ouch!

The overall consensus seems to be that the film doesn't have much of a soul, nor does it know what to do with its ambitious sci-fi themes. "Hidden somewhere beneath all the generic dialogue, embarrassing plot, mediocre action and oddly ineffective performances, there's a good idea in Brad Peyton's 'Atlas.' It's a shame the filmmakers never found it," wrote William Bibbiani for The Wrap .

Some critics are notably disappointed with Lopez's performance, with Variety's Todd Gilchrist expecting more from the multi-hyphenate creative. "One might think that would lead her to take more risks — strike-outs are more respectable when they follow big swings. But 'Atlas' is predictable, overlong and bland, the kind of experience it's hard to get excited about when the star player seems to be perfunctorily running the bases," Gilchrist wrote.

Atlas is a sci-fi flick that tackles AI

It's not quite fair to say that Jennifer Lopez is a bad actress. In fact, the superstar has starred in tons of amazing movies (albeit alongside her fair share of duds) , with many of her fans pointing out her versatility. Lopez has done rom-coms, dramas, biopics, thrillers — you name it. Which is why it's so disappointing that "Atlas" is another misfire. Jennifer Lopez stars as Atlas, a data analyst who goes on a mission to capture an out-of-control robot, with Simu Liu and Sterling K. Brown rounding out the supporting cast. Most critics are mixed on "Atlas," praising some of its ideas and themes, but mainly pointing out how it doesn't amount to much.

IndieWire critic Kate Erbland thinks "Atlas" is disposable entertainment with not much to say. "Mostly, it all looks like a video game cut scene, which isn't just a ding on its overall aesthetics (cheap), but its general narrative thrust (weak, silly). The closer you pay attention to those elements, the harder they are to ignore, and the less even vaguely entertaining this all is," Erbland wrote.

Audiences aren't fans of Netflix's "Atlas" either. "JLo was horrible as expected, but the robot AI was fun. This should be a video game, but I guess Netflix decided to make it a mildly entertaining action movie," wrote user Parzi Pan in a two-star review on Letterboxd.

Based on how mediocre "Atlas" seems to be, audiences are far better off checking out Lopez's rom-com that's currently blowing up the charts on Netflix .

Screen Rant

Eric review: a fierce benedict cumberbatch & stellar supporting cast narrowly save overstuffed show.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Station 19 Series Finale' Subtle Grey's Anatomy Callback Made It Even Better

Star trek’s next series must explain discovery’s spore drive replacement, knight’s exit starts ncis' unavoidable gibbs erasure (3 years after mark harmon left).

The engaging missing persons story Eric struggles to balance its surreal puppet concept with its intertwining storylines.
Stellar performances by Benedict Cumberbatch, Gaby Hoffman and McKinley Belcher III only somewhat keep the show's overstuffed plot afloat.
The show addresses timely social issues like the rise in homelessness and police corruption, but much of it feels like a distraction from the central mystery driving the plot.

Crafting an engaging missing persons story is no easy feat, particularly one meant to extend across six hour-long episodes, as is the case with Netflix's Eric . That said, while the show seeks to subvert expectations of its central concept with a surreal manifestation of the titular puppet monster and an ensemble of intriguing characters, it finds itself a little too weighed down by these competing elements to make for a fully engrossing watch.

Eric follows Vincent, a talented puppeteer whose life is shattered by the mysterious disappearance of his son, Edgar. As Vincent spirals into a world of despair and obsession, he channels his anguish into his puppet, Eric.

Benedict Cumberbatch delivers a superb manic performance.
The supporting cast are just as engrossing in their roles, namely Gaby Hoffman and McKinley Belcher III.
The show meaningfully parallels the modern rise in homelessness and troublesome police.
The focus is too low on its central catalyst of the missing child.
Some characters feel underdeveloped with unresolved arcs.
The attempts to veer into levity feel out of place.

Hailing from Shame co-writer Abi Morgan, Eric primarily revolves around Benedict Cumberbatch's Vincent , the co-creator and star of a children's puppet TV show in the '80s. Vincent's home life is anything but bright as his narcissistic personality frequently conflicts with his wife, Cassie (Gaby Hoffman), and young son, Edgar (Ivan Morris Howe), as well as his coworkers.

When his son goes missing, Vincent's worst traits become all the more prevalent, eventually manifesting into a delusional hallucination of the titular monster puppet created by his son whom he tries to get onto the show in the hopes of convincing him to come home. But with so many other characters and storylines happening, the show ultimately feels overstuffed.

Eric Never Finds The Right Balance Between Its Central Story & Characters

Despite having a roster of well-rounded characters, the focus feels too sporadic..

Beyond Vincent, Eric utilizes its six-episode story to explore a large roster of characters with their own individual narratives. Cassie only stays married to Cumberbatch's volatile character for her son; McKinley Belcher III's Detective Ledroit struggles between his reassignment to the Missing Persons unit and caring for his partner dying of AIDS; and Dan Fogler's Lennie is stuck between a rock and a hard place as he tries to comfort his best friend amid his son's disappearance, while also grappling with his endlessly toxic behavior and the strain it's putting on their show.

Though these intertwining plots do come to a head in the later chapters of the show, the overall build-up feels a little too sporadic for its pacing.

But even as Eric looks to explore these characters, it finds itself grappling with a variety of intertwining stories, including a rise in homelessness in New York at the time, political corruption masquerading as healthy growth for the city and the police sweeping some cases under the rug in favor of others. While these are all certainly compelling, they ultimately feel both out of place and a distraction from the main crux of the show.

Where shows like True Detective have thrived in slowly meting out answers to their central mystery while focusing on character development, Eric can't find the right rhythm to do that. In some episodes, the focus on other characters and stories is so prominent that the desire to find Edgar, or tell us who or what is behind his disappearance, is practically non-existent. Though these intertwining plots do come to a head in the later chapters of the show, the overall build-up feels a little too sporadic for its pacing.

Eric's Puppet-Based Concept Does Provide Some Unique (If Uneven) Twists

The cumberbatch-voiced monster works well for vincent's growth, but leads to odd tonal jumbles..

The biggest selling point for Eric — beyond Cumberbatch in the lead role — is that of the titular monster puppet, whom Vincent begins hallucinating as his desperation to find Edgar increases. In any other show, this concept would be utilized for a more comedic effect, leaning into surreal situations and awkward conversations of the human character having to explain away his seemingly unhinged conversations with a non-existent figure to those around him.

With the Netflix show , Morgan attempts to not only lean into the humorous possibilities of such a dynamic, but also uses Eric as a parallel for Vincent's overall growth. Though she certainly succeeds in both parts, it ultimately feels a bit too jumbled when it comes to Eric 's overall tonal balance. The majority of the series takes a definitively dark path with its story, showing the traumatic impact Vincent's behavior has left on his family and friends, as well as himself, as he deals with alcoholism and various drug addictions.

While the inclusion of Eric could be seen as a welcome reprieve from this darkness, and it offers moments of levity, it ultimately makes parts of the show feel a bit too uneven in their tone. Moments in which we want to feel energized by Vincent's steady change into a determined father searching for his son, or even a man nearing rock bottom with his vices, are more undermined than engaging as his goofy antics and foul-mouthed quips cut through these potentially moving moments rather than adding to them.

Eric (2024)

Eric's stellar cast & fierce timely themes narrowly save the show, it's one of cumberbatch's best performances to date and modern social parallels keep everything afloat..

In spite of some of its shortcomings, there are a few key factors that keep Eric from being a complete disappointment, with the cast being the biggest one. In his central turns as both Vincent and the titular monster puppet, Cumberbatch absolutely dominates his performance , believably tapping into the former's darker tendencies, while also making Eric feel like both a completely separate character and extension of his flawed protagonist. Hoffman and Belcher III similarly shine in their respective roles, layering them with their own unique emotional arcs that make them fascinating to watch.

Eric is a show with a lot to say and many characters it wants to explore, but lacks the benefit of time.

Another major benefit is the timely social commentary Morgan explores throughout the show's interweaving storylines. The government's shady handling of an increasing homeless population feels ripped right out of current headlines from major US cities, with local governments similarly struggling to find a meaningful solution, albeit the corrupt route the show takes is a little less reported on. Similarly, the show's frequent highlighting of news coverage for a missing white child being greater than that of one of color rings true as the Black Lives Matter movement remains just as prevalent as ever.

Ultimately, Eric is a show with a lot to say and many characters it wants to explore, but lacks the benefit of time. Though it could be argued that spreading a missing persons story across multiple seasons could lead to even further issues regarding proper narrative focus, it would have at least allowed Morgan more room to better explore the various themes and well-rounded characters. That said, thanks to the stellar performances of her incredible cast and some very powerful moments, the show does just narrowly avoid crumbling under the weight of its various plots.

Eric begins streaming on Netflix on May 30.

IMAGES

Movie Review: 'Shame' Starring Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan
Shame Movie Review
Shame Pictures
Shame Pictures
Shame
Shame (1968)

VIDEO

Blassic
Shame Movie Review In Hindi #shorts
SHame Movie Explained in Manipuri
Shame Trailer [HD]
A Rotten Shame PT5
A Rotten Shame PT4

COMMENTS

Shame (2011)
Upcoming Movies and TV shows; Trivia & Rotten Tomatoes Podcast; ... Rated 5/5 Stars • Rated 5 out of 5 stars 01/19/24 Full Review David W Shame does well by tackling a racy subject artistically ...
Shame (2011 film)
On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 79% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 230 reviews, with an average rating of 7.5/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "Boasting stellar performances by Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, Shame is a powerful plunge into the mania of addiction affliction."
Shame: Film Review
September 4, 2011 10:31am. Driven by a brilliant, ferocious performance by Michael Fassbender, Shame is a real walk on the wild side, a scorching look at a case of sexual addiction that's as all ...
Shame (2011)
Shame: Directed by Steve McQueen. With Michael Fassbender, Lucy Walters, Mari-Ange Ramirez, James Badge Dale. A sex addict's carefully cultivated private life falls apart after his sister arrives for an indefinite stay.
'Shame,' Directed by Steve McQueen
to shun the heaven that leads men to this hell. "Shame," anchored to the treadmill of Brandon's pathology, strips this ancient, futile wisdom of its poetry. Mr. McQueen is a tenaciously ...
SHAME Movie Review
Shame movie review. Matt reviews Steve McQueen's Shame starring Michael Fassbender, Carey Mulligan, and James Badge Dale. [ This is a reprint of my review from the 2011 Toronto International Film ...
Shame (2011) Movie Reviews
Shame (2011) Critic Reviews and Ratings Powered by Rotten Tomatoes Rate Movie. Close Audience Score. The percentage of users who made a verified movie ticket purchase and rated this 3.5 stars or higher. Learn more. Review Submitted. GOT IT. Offers SEE ALL OFFERS. SEE KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES IN IMAX image link ...
Reclaiming the Rotten: Steve McQueen's Shame (2011)
The anthology currently holds his highest rating on Rotten Tomatoes and showed a different side of the '70s and '80s for Black Britons. But his lowest rated - though 79% is still something to be very pleased with - is his 2011 drama Shame .
Shame
Purchase Shame on digital and stream instantly or download offline. Driven by a brilliant and ferocious performance by Michael Fassbender, Shame tells the riveting story of Brandon; a handsome New York businessman with a dark and destructive secret. His solitary existence is shaken by the unexpected arrival of his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan, An Education), another damaged soul who brings ...
Rotten Tomatoes Critics Shred Jennifer Lopez Netflix Movie ...
Getty Images. Jennifer Lopez's new Netflix sci-fi thriller Atlas is being smashed by Rotten Tomatoes critics. The official logline for Atlas reads, "Atlas Shepherd (Jennifer Lopez), a ...
Shame
How to watch online, stream, rent or buy Shame in the UK + release dates, reviews and trailers. Hard-hitting drama from director Steve McQueen (Hunger).
A Dirty Shame
After premiering at the 2004 Toronto International Film Festival, A Dirty Shame was released in the United States on September 17, 2004. The film received mixed reviews from critics. ... On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 53% based on 117 reviews, with an average rating of 5.6/10.
Rotten Tomatoes
Rotten Tomatoes, the Tomatometer, and Audience scores are the world's most trusted recommendation resources for quality entertainment. As the leading online aggregator of movie and TV show ...
Shame (1968): 100 Best Movies of the Past 10 Decades
Shame (1968) Liv Ullman and Gunnar Bjornstrand in Shame. The fictional civil war at the heart of Ingmar Bergman's beautiful, somber masterpiece has no name, but it does have faces: those of Liv ...
Netflix's latest $100m sci-fi movie scores just 14% on Rotten Tomatoes
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes shows that just 13% of 16 critics gave the film anything like a slightly positive review, with an average rating of 4/10 (meaning it's landed the ...
Rotten Tomatoes
Rotten Tomatoes is an American review-aggregation website for film and television.The company was launched in August 1998 by three undergraduate students at the University of California, Berkeley: Senh Duong, Patrick Y. Lee, and Stephen Wang. Although the name "Rotten Tomatoes" connects to the practice of audiences throwing rotten tomatoes in disapproval of a poor stage performance, the direct ...
Shame movie review & film summary (1968)
To a civilian caught in the middle, there is no way out. Jan and Eva are not sympathizers for the other side, but neither are they patriots for this side. In a sense, the film could be about the ordinary non-combatant people of Iraq--or, pick your war. "Shame" is available on DVD, alone or packaged with "Hour of the Wolf" and "The Passion of Anna."
'The Apprentice' Review: Sebastian Stan and Jeremy Strong in Trump Bio
The latter's airline pilot job is a source of shame to his father, who calls him "a flying bus driver." Donald seizes an opportunity to win parental approval after a chance meeting with Cohn ...
'Atlas' has finally landed on Netflix
The movie currently sits at around 14% on Rotten Tomatoes, obviously very low for a big-budget Netflix original. However, keep in mind this score can change the more reviews it generates over time.
Rotten Tomatoes, explained
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.
Shame
A tremendously profound and unsettling film about the indignities of war. Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Aug 29, 2006. Shame draws the rutted map of war's psychology, in bold and grievous ...
32 Movies With A 0% Score On Rotten Tomatoes
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002) Believe it or not, there is a worst of the worst even when it comes to 0% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever holds the title for the worst ...
Atlas lands one of Jennifer Lopez's lowest-ever Rotten Tomatoes ratings
Atlas has debuted as one of Jennifer Lopez 's lowest-rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes. The new Netflix sci-fi focuses on the actor's titular character, a brilliant but misanthropic data analyst who ...
Critics Aren't Holding Back On Jennifer Lopez's Netflix Movie Atlas
Now: A Love Story," and now she has Netflix's "Atlas." The film, which was released on May 24, is nothing short of a critical bomb, boasting a 14% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics aren't holding back ...
Walk of Shame (film)
Walk of Shame is a 2014 American comedy film written and directed by Steven Brill and starring Elizabeth Banks, James Marsden, ... Walk of Shame received negative reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a 15% approval rating based on 26 reviews, with an average score of 3.9/10.
Eric Review: A Fierce Benedict Cumberbatch & Stellar Supporting Cast
Hailing from Shame co-writer Abi Morgan, Eric primarily revolves around Benedict Cumberbatch's Vincent, the co-creator and star of a children's puppet TV show in the '80s.Vincent's home life is anything but bright as his narcissistic personality frequently conflicts with his wife, Cassie (Gaby Hoffman), and young son, Edgar (Ivan Morris Howe), as well as his coworkers.
Mix 'The Jinx' and 'Sesame Street,' and you get Benedict ...
A member of the Critics Choice Association and GALECA as well as a Top Critic on Rotten Tomatoes, Kristy's primary focus is movies. However, she's also been known to gush over television, podcasts ...

More like this

Did you know

User reviews 509

Technical specs

Related news

More to explore

Recently viewed

Only One Thing on His Mind

Explore More in TV and Movies

SHAME Review

Reclaiming the Rotten: Steve McQueen’s Shame (2011)

This Month: Steve McQueen's SHAME (2011)

More Stories

30 Years Since Shallow Grave Made The Concept of Housemates Terrifying

Beyond the Spectacle: The Fall Guy Makes Stunt Performers More Than Daring Risk Takers

Game, set, brilliance: How Luca Guadagnino’s distinct vision dominates Challengers

You may have missed

Sting (Film Review)

East of Noon – Quinzaine Des Cinéastes 2024 (Film Review)

“I wanted it to be like a slasher in every way, but from a different angle” – Director Chris Nash On In A Violent Nature

Shame | Full Movie | Movies Anywhere

Rotten Tomatoes® Score

Additional Info

New Releases

Where to watch Shame

Apple TV Store

Or, search for your location...

Shame | Ratings & Reviews

Shame | Details

Shame | Trailers

Big on Streaming

Bridgerton: Season 3

Atlas (2024)

Back to Black

Insomnia: Season 1

Outer Range: Season 2

The Big Cigar: Miniseries

Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

The Beach Boys

Clarkson's Farm: Season 3

Maxton Hall: The World Between Us - Season 1

Password reset

SORRY TO SAY, FLICKS NO LONGER SUPPORTS IE9

Shame (1968)

The Godfather Part II (1974)

Movie Reviews

Roger Ebert

Now playing

The Beach Boys

Gasoline Rainbow

Under the Bridge

Nothing Can't Be Undone by a HotPot

Shame (1968)

Written and directed by

Latest blog posts

Killer Klowns from Outer Space Is a Total Blast

Cannes 2024: It's Not Me, Filmlovers!, Misericordia

The World's Biggest Jewelry Box: Kristin Joseff on Hollywood's Favorite Jeweler, Joseff of Hollywood

Cannes 2024 Video #6: Ben Kenigsberg on The Substance, Anora, Emilia Perez, and Napoleon

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

site categories

David Rooney

Related Stories

Full credits

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated?

What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean ?

Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer?

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

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

2017’s highest grossing movies in the US

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

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

Most Popular

More in Culture

Hacks shows cancel culture is a joke

What the Biden administration is doing about ludicrously expensive concert tickets

Why AI art will always kind of suck

The real reason it costs so much to go to a concert

Red Lobster’s mistakes go beyond endless shrimp Audio

The science of near-death experiences Audio