negative movie review pan

On the occasion of the arrival of a lumbering load of steampunk-drenched, whimsy-drained wrongheadedness disguised as family entertainment known as “Pan”—someone is really baiting headline writers with that pun-ready title—let us ponder this conundrum: Why do filmmakers continue to feel the need to squeeze all the joy and magic out of such a remarkably enduring figure of Edwardian-era make-believe as J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan?

The whole “I won’t grow up” ethos of this aerodynamically gifted lad resonates today as proven by NBC’s live presentation of the stage musical version last year. But many current movies and TV series are already rotten with lost boys who act their shoe size instead of their age. Who needs another “ Peter Pan ” movie when you have the man-child-riddled oeuvres of Judd Apatow , Joe Swanberg and the Duplass brothers?

Then again, not even Steven Spielberg could resist squeezing Robin Williams into the role of an adult Peter in the midst of a mid-life crisis in 1991’s “ Hook .” P.J. Hogan laced his big-budget visit to Neverland in 2003’s “Peter Pan” with a dark undercurrent of Freudian sexuality, including a bombshell Tinker Bell. And, in 2004, Marc Forster’s “ Finding Neverland ” turned its sentimental spotlight on Barrie himself and his unconventional (and somewhat questionable) relationship with a sickly widow and her gaggle of sons.

But none of those efforts are quite as difficult to sit through as “Pan.” Every once in a while, a movie comes along that is so punishing to one’s mental and physical being that the narrative should be divided into rounds instead of acts. Add in dizzying 3-D effects and a booming sound system, and the pummeling can be rope-a-dope exhausting.

Granted, British director Joe Wright has shown a knack for enlivening literary classics such as “Pride & Prejudice” and “Anna Karenina” with stylish camera techniques and visual verve. But while he can do action and romance, as proven by “ Atonement ,” he has never shown an affinity for full-out fantasy despite the once-upon-a-time elements in the girl-assassin thriller “ Hanna .” And, with “Pan,” he still hasn’t.

To begin with, the very premise feels off. Peter Pan isn’t a superhero and doesn’t really need an origin story, especially one that opens at a London orphanage for boys during the Blitz and borrows heavily from the “ Oliver Twist ” handbook. Peter the chubby-cheeked foundling becomes Peter the spunky 12-year-old in quick measure, and he is played by one of the film’s few assets, Levi Miller . The Australian native, a one-time Ralph Lauren model, exhibits a flair for comic delivery and handles the derring-do rather well. But he can’t save a sinking ship—or should that be a stinking ship?—all by his lonesome.

It seems that the nuns who run this orphanage are selling off their charges to pirates—even the sisters in “ Philomena ” didn’t stoop that low—who drop down from the ceiling on bungee cords and pluck them from their beds before stowing them aboard an airborne galleon to Neverland. That is where Peter meets his main nemesis, Blackbeard, the leader of this scurvy band of buccaneers. Never has Hugh Jackman looked so wretched, not even when he first got out of jail in “Les Misérables,” than he does decked out like a seedy conquistador with ghastly makeup, bad wig and gnarly teeth that suggests Don Quixote as a meth addict. Turns out, he sort of is. Remember how Dennis Hopper inhales that mysterious gas in “ Blue Velvet ”? Jackman dons a weird mask and huffs a rejuvenating substance, mined on the island with the use of the child labor supplied by the orphanage, known as Pixum—the street name for crystalized pixie dust.

Wright is usually pretty savvy about casting. After all, he put Carey Mulligan and Rosamund Pike in “Pride & Prejudice” and basically discovered Saoirse Ronan when he gave her a major role in “Atonement.” But he makes a couple fatal errors here. Garrett Hedlund might be easy on the eyes but he is awful on the ears with a grating cowboy drawl as James Hook, who is presumably the future Capt. Hook. This dreadful amalgamation of Sawyer from “Lost,” Indiana Jones and Slim Pickens from Dr. Strangelove forms an alliance with Peter after they hijack a pirate ship and take off for the woods.

That is where they find big casting mistake No. 2: Rooney Mara as hatchet-wielding Tiger Lily, who is traditionally supposed to be a Native American princess. Remember all the fuss about a Caucasian like Emma Stone trying to pass as a half-Hawaiian, half-Chinese character in “ Aloha ”? Well, this is “Aloha” redux. There is an attempt to portray Tiger Lily’s tribe as a rebel collective of various races and nationalities. But why not hire a Native American anyway, especially considering how utterly bland Mara is in the part?

From the music (the soundtrack employs the anachronistic tunes “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Blitzkrieg Bop” for absolutely no reason, unless pirates are into grunge and punk) to the CGI tricks (to justify the 3-D, we get to follow the trajectory of a falling bomb, watch a floating chicken lay an egg and enjoy a fight conducted on a trampoline), “Pan” is a pandemic of poor choices. And no one is going to clap their hands to save it. 

Susan Wloszczyna

Susan Wloszczyna spent much of her nearly thirty years at USA TODAY as a senior entertainment reporter. Now unchained from the grind of daily journalism, she is ready to view the world of movies with fresh eyes.

• Garrett Hedlund as Hook
• Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard
• Amanda Seyfried as Mary
• Kathy Burke as Mother Barnabas
• Nonso Anozie as Bishop
• Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily
• Levi Miller as Peter Pan
• Cara Delevingne as Mermaid
• Jason Fuchs
• J.M. Barrie

Director of Photography

• John Mathieson
• Seamus McGarvey
• John Powell
• Paul Tothill
• William Hoy

Leave a comment

Now playing.

Across the River and Into the Trees

You Gotta Believe

The Becomers

The Supremes at Earl’s All-You-Can-Eat

Between the Temples

Blink Twice

Strange Darling

Latest articles

Venice Film Festival 2024: Separated, Maria, Kill the Jockey, One to One: John & Yoko

Experience the Star Trek Movies in 70mm at Out of this World L.A. Event

Home Entertainment Guide: August 2024

Netflix’s “Terminator Zero” Takes Too Long to Develop Its Own Identity

The best movie reviews, in your inbox.

Reviewed by: Jessica D. Lovett CONTRIBUTOR

a band of boys who were lost by their parents

selfishness of childhood / self-centred behaviour

boastful and careless boy

never-ending childhood

forgetfulness

fantasy adventures

“To truly understand how things end, we must know how they begin.”

L ike a wild shopping spree in a candy store, “Pan” exuberantly overwhelms the senses with explosions of vivid color and sugar-rush sweetness. Those expecting a regurgitation of the classic Disney cartoon will be disappointed, as “Pan” is a prequel in the truest sense. Some of the warmly familiar imagery strike a chord—crocodiles, clocks, pirates, Indians—but with a renewed sense of how those elements fit into the new backstory. There are also plenty of literary nods to those who know Barrie’s original Peter Pan stories, like having a character run through Kensington Gardens in London.

Honestly, I was expecting an entertaining, yet slightly stale, retelling of the same ol’ tale, but I was stunned at the creativity and brilliance that this new twist brings to familiar characters, explaining how the original story came into being. “Pan” felt like an independent art film that was suddenly gifted a decent budget, causing it to blossom outward, accordingly. It skillfully mixes the fairy-flying whimsy and swashbuckling heroics of the book with a darkly modernized villain who is sharpened into a three-dimensional character, largely due to Hugh Jackman’s deep portrayal of the pirate’s twisted sense of justice .

Without adding too many spoilers, “Pan” is the story of a 12-year-old orphan named Peter who, as an infant, was left on the doorstep of an orphanage by his mysterious mother. It turns out that Mother Barnabas, the abusive, cruel head nun running the orphanage is in league with pirates, selling orphans to them in exchange for gold . In their rummaging for the truth, Peter and Nibs find a letter from Peter’s mother in his personal file. Peter’s mother had written that she will always love him and promises to be reunited with him someday, giving Peter renewed hope of escaping the harsh orphanage life. Peter and his friend Nibs try to expose Mother Barnabas’s plot, but Peter ends up being taken by the pirates and taken to Neverland where he learns his true destiny!

One amazing thing about this film is that it mixes several seemingly unrelated cultures and styles together (Steampunk, Native American, Indian, cowboy/western, Gothic, WWII era Britain, and modern rock) in an intriguing narrative collage that somehow meshes together seamlessly. There are heroic characters that are self-sacrificing, brave, kind, and loyal—including two strong female warrior characters who show their strength respectfully and with humility toward male characters. Beside the good examples of character present in the film, there are several cautions.

The pirates are painted in such a way that they could be too scary for younger viewers, so use caution before bringing young children. They are definitely nightmare fodder, but do not cross the horror film line, feeling like a sort of cross between circus freak show acts and ragged, ruffled Victorian era pirates. One pirate has three dried human hearts pinned to his vest, but this is only flashed by briefly. The pirates are sadistic and grin menacingly as they kill, but their gunshots are muted in their scariness by the fact that multicolored paint powder bursts forth when people are shot, splattering rainbows, rather than bloody gore.

Certain nuns at the orphanage are seen in a merciless light, but, in my opinion, neither Catholicism nor religion itself are demonized. Peter is seemingly abandoned by his mother, boys are physically and verbally abused by the orphanage workers, kids are abducted by pirates and enslaved in mines. There are also brief scenes with WWII bombers flying over and bombs exploding.

There is no language besides one “heck,” one “darn,” “damnation,” and a “bloody hell.” There are the obvious supernatural elements of the Peter Pan mythology and plenty of action sequences including giant crocodiles, angry natives, and such. There are also completely censored, yet still topless, mermaids and brief drug use by the pirate captain. Tiger Lily’s outfit bares her tummy and little cleavage.

The darker fairytale elements are tempered by pirate ships soaring through space, fairies fighting pirates in crystal caves, and other visual feasts of fantasy. This film is certainly no darker than the book itself or than classic Grimm fairy tales—though given the modern wings of expert CGI, please exercise caution with younger, more sensitive viewers. In short, if you are are a fantasy or classic literature enthusiast and aren’t scared by Hugh Jackman with false teeth and pale, scarred makeup or by huge toothy crocodiles leaping over and attacking ships, you may enjoy this “PG” film.

Violence: Moderate to heavy / Profanity: Minor / Sex/Nudity: Mild

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers .

PLEASE share your observations and insights to be posted here.

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

How to Help Kids Build Character Strengths with Quality Media

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

• Common Sense Says
• Parents Say 15 Reviews
• Kids Say 32 Reviews

Common Sense Media Review

Uneven origin story is disappointing; expect some violence.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that Pan is an action-fantasy retelling of the Peter Pan story, focusing on how the legendary character went from being a London orphan to the Boy Who Could Fly. Young Peter is kidnapped from an orphanage and taken to Neverland to work for the pirate Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Expect some…

Why Age 9+?

Blackbeard orders people to jump to their death. Characters are injured/killed b

Insults like "daft," "dirty old nun," "stupid," &q

Hook flirts with Tiger Lily, and they exchange several longing looks. In flashba

Any Positive Content?

Strong messages about believing in yourself and your capability for greatness. S

Hook protects and rescues Peter, even when it would be easier for him to leave.

Kids will learn about the idea of telling a familiar story in a new way, as well

Violence & Scariness

Blackbeard orders people to jump to their death. Characters are injured/killed by gunshots, swords, and explosions; some turn into colorful chalk dust as they're killed. A man recalls killing a woman in the past. A crocodile menacingly comes near Peter, Tiger Lily, and Hook's boat. Full-out brawls feature pirates and tribespeople fighting with their swords and fists. Peter fights with older men. The fairies join the battle against Blackbeard. A boy is kidnapped.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Insults like "daft," "dirty old nun," "stupid," "imbecile," "coward," "bloody hell," and "shut up."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Hook flirts with Tiger Lily, and they exchange several longing looks. In flashback, viewers see a silhouette of a couple kissing. Beautiful mermaids save Peter, who tells Hook he would definitely like them.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Sex, Romance & Nudity in your kid's entertainment guide.

Positive Messages

Strong messages about believing in yourself and your capability for greatness. Stresses the importance of friendship, alliances, and teamwork to overcome obstacles -- and, in this case, to defeat a common enemy.

Positive Role Models

Hook protects and rescues Peter, even when it would be easier for him to leave. He also defends Tiger Lily, and Tiger Lily helps Peter and Hook, too. She's a strong warrior; the best fighter in the film.

Educational Value

Kids will learn about the idea of telling a familiar story in a new way, as well as the power of friendship and self confidence.

Parents need to know that Pan is an action-fantasy retelling of the Peter Pan story, focusing on how the legendary character went from being a London orphan to the Boy Who Could Fly. Young Peter is kidnapped from an orphanage and taken to Neverland to work for the pirate Blackbeard ( Hugh Jackman ). Expect some intense scenes of brawls, sword fights, shootings, and explosions -- some of which lead to off-camera/implied deaths -- as well as a menacing crocodile. The body count, while notable, may go over the head of young viewers, since at least some of the departed turn into rainbow-colored chalk dust when they're dispatched. Language includes insults and exclamations like "daft," "imbeciles," "bloody hell," etc., and the romance is limited to a kissing scene shown in silhouette and some longing looks between Hook and Tiger Lily, who's a strong female character. The movie promotes teamwork and friendship and has a strong message about believing in yourself and your capability for greatness. To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Parent and Kid Reviews

• Parents say (15)
• Kids say (32)

Based on 15 parent reviews

Mocked Nuns and Mary statue

What's the story.

PAN is a retelling of the Peter Pan story that focuses on Peter's transformation from a London orphan into the iconic savior of Neverland. Instead of the tale's traditional Edwardian, turn-of-the-century England setting, the movie takes place a few decades later, during WWII. Stuck in a strict orphanage, 12-year-old Peter (Levi Miller) is among a group of boys kidnapped in the night by a pirate's crew and taken via flying ship to a far-off land where the pirate Blackbeard ( Hugh Jackman ) forces them to mine for pixum, a magical crystal that serves as an elixir of youth. After Peter flies for the first time, Blackbeard jails both him and an American named Hook ( Garrett Hedlund ). The pair breaks out and encounters Tiger Lily ( Rooney Mara ) and her tribe, who believe Peter could be Neverland's savior from Blackbeard's tyranny. But first, Peter has to believe in himself -- a difficult feat when there are pirates out to kill him.

Is It Any Good?

Despite Jackman's expert theatricality as Blackbeard and a few thrilling 3D scenes, Joe Wright 's interpretation of how Peter becomes Pan is an uneven mess that may impress kids but not parents. Hedlund does an almost note-for-note impression of John Huston-meets- Harrison Ford (as both Indiana Jones and Han Solo) to play the reimagined Hook, an American miner with a good sense of humor. He's the cast's standout, and Jackman also looks like he's enjoying hamming it up as the Big Bad Blackbeard. So, yes, the acting is fine -- but the script and the direction are confusing and off the mark. At a few points, it seems like Wright is trying to channel Baz Luhrmann with eyebrow-raising sing-alongs to Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (which Luhrmann memorably used in Moulin Rouge ) and the Ramones' "Blitzkrieg Bop ." These songs don't fit in either thematically or plot-wise; they're simply bizarre.

At least there aren't any insensitive depictions of "Indians" in this installment; instead, Wright goes for a pan-ethnic group of indigenous people from around the globe (with Mara presumably playing Tiger Lily as an indigenous Hiberno-Saxon with a posh English accent). Mara is quite luminous, but none of the actors can save Pan from the bland characterization and occasionally boring story line that may leave audiences uninterested instead of actively engaged in what happens to Peter and his friends. That's not to say young audiences won't find it entertaining, but teens and adults will likely leave theaters underwhelmed.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about Pan 's action violence . How does it compare to what you've seen in other action/fantasy movies? Do different types of media violence have a different impact on kids?

Why do you think origin stories are so popular? How does Pan address questions about Peter and Hook that weren't answered in the original story? How does the movie make you rethink the story of Peter Pan ?

What is the film trying to say about the idea of enemies and villains? Are people all good or all evil? How does Pan explore the idea that enemies sometimes start out as friends, and friends sometimes start out as enemies?

For fans of the book and the animated movie, what do you think of this version? Do you like the changes between the source material and this story? What do you miss? Why do you think filmmakers might choose to look at a classic story in a different way, rather than make a straightforward adaptation?

Movie Details

• In theaters : October 9, 2015
• On DVD or streaming : December 22, 2015
• Cast : Hugh Jackman , Rooney Mara , Amanda Seyfried
• Director : Joe Wright
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : Warner Bros.
• Genre : Fantasy
• Topics : Magic and Fantasy , Adventures , Book Characters
• Run time : 111 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG
• MPAA explanation : fantasy action violence, language and some thematic material
• Last updated : October 23, 2023

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

What to watch next.

Peter and the Starcatchers, Book 1

Best Fantasy Movies

Fantasy books for kids, related topics.

• Magic and Fantasy
• Book Characters

Want suggestions based on your streaming services? Get personalized recommendations

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

• DVD & Streaming
• Action/Adventure , Kids , Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Content Caution

In Theaters

• October 9, 2015
• Levi Miller as Peter; Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard; Garrett Hedlund as Hook; Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily; Adeel Akhtar as Sam Smiegel

Home Release Date

• December 22, 2015

Distributor

• Warner Bros.

Movie Review

In the distant, far-away world of Neverland, there is a prophecy of a flying child who will someday save the land’s inhabitants.

Now, to listeners familiar with children’s books of yore, that line may have a familiar ring to it. “Is it the story of a gifted boy named Peter Pan, his fairy friend, Tinkerbell, and their fight against a scoundrel named Hook?” they might wonder aloud.

And the answer is … not quite. That’s actually another story altogether. A later one, if you will.

This yarn is about a magical lad who’s as yet unknown. It’s said that he’s the offspring of a human and a fairy. And in this Neverland world of marauding pirates, enslaved orphan boys and colorful-but-terrorized natives, the one they call Pan is greatly needed.

For this enchanted, would-be boy savior might just be the one to rescue one and all from the heartless, fierce—but generally well-dressed—pirate named … Blackbeard.

Yes, that Blackbeard.

Here, he’s a shudder-inspiring sea robber who’s terrorized Neverland for generations. Blackbeard commands a crew of swarthy buccaneers and drives hundreds of kidnapped boys to dig for something called pixum (also known as fairy dust) in vast underground mines. Why, you ask? Because it could keep a man alive forever if he could but find enough of it.

That very task has occupied Blackbeard and his cruel henchmen for generations. Why, some even say that the pirate has driven Neverland’s fairy population to the point of extinction pursuing this potent, immortality-granting dust.

So for those toiling and slaving under the well-coiffed despot’s ruthless reign, hope is in very short supply indeed. Until, that is, a boy plucked out of an dreary orphanage on Earth during World War II arrives in Neverland.

A boy … who can fly.

Positive Elements

Though Peter sometimes uses deceit to trick his earthly orphanage caretakers, he’s really a thoughtful, caring boy who’s willing to risk his wellbeing for the sake of others. He doesn’t necessarily believe that he’s the prophesied Pan (even if everyone else does), but he bravely stands up against Blackbeard’s tyrannical rule for the sake of the virtues his parents stood for.

“Sometimes friends begin as enemies and enemies begin as friends,” the movie says in its opening moments. Thus it imagines Hook in his early years being a trusted friend and ally to Peter, as well as a romantic interest for Tiger Lilly. All three of these friends take great risks in their collective efforts to save one another and to rid Neverland of Blackbeard’s enslaving scourge.

Before leaving him at the orphanage, Peter’s mother tells her baby boy that she loves him and whispers, “I promise that you will see me again, in this world or another.”

Spiritual Elements

Neverland, obviously, is a magical realm. In it, there are flying fairies and soaring galleons, not to mention the pixum that keeps Blackbeard perpetually young. It’s also a realm where people cling to their faith in the eventual appearance of a young messiah of sorts whom they hope will deliver them from bondage. Later in the story, the magic of the fairies allows Peter to speak briefly with the spirit of his dead mother. In addition to the fairies, we see other mythical creatures as well, such as mermaids, for instance.

Back on Earth before Peter is kidnapped, the orphanage’s Catholic nuns are anything but positive role models. In fact, they’re just the opposite: women who regularly torment their young charges. You would think that among those supposedly God-fearing women there might be at least one good one. But, alas, such a kind nun is nowhere to be found in this story. Instead, these wicked nuns actually sell children to the pirates.

Peter finds a nearly life-sized statue of Mary in a nun’s office.

Sexual & romantic Content

We see Peter’s human mother and his fairy father (who has taken human form) embrace. Though nothing further is shown, we’re told that Peter was the “child of their love.” Hook openly flirts with and pursues a romantic relationship with Tiger Lilly, who throughout the film wears outfits revealing a bit of bra and midriff. Other ancillary women also show some skin, and men go shirtless. Mermaids are very briefly seen underwater with long, covering hair. (We see a bit of bare shoulder and torso that implies they’re not wearing clothes.)

Violent Content

We never glimpse gore, but quite a few folks perish in the course of this conflict-heavy fantasy flick. For instance, German fighter planes drop bombs on English homes and buildings. They crash and burn in battle. Children and pirates tumble to their implied deaths in rocky chasms. Scores of Tiger Lilly’s tribesmen puff into clouds of colored dust when run through by pirate blades and axes.

Flying pirate ships clash and crash, blazing away with roaring cannons. World War II fighter planes strafe ship decks with gunfire. Pirates get thumped with shovels and buckets. Ferocious skeletal birds attack children and adults. Gigantic crocodiles snap at people and leap out of the water. A boy almost drowns when being dragged under water by one of those beasts before being rescued by a trio of mermaids. Children are snatched up into the air by kidnapping pirates. Those same children are forced to toil mercilessly in large mines, resulting in blistered hands.

Tiger Lilly is an athletic, spirited gal who never backs down from a fight. We see her smashing male opponents full in the face and watch as those foes manhandle, pummel and slam her to the ground in return. Blackbeard’s crew shoots flames into swirling, burning swarms of tiny fairies.

Young Peter gets thumped around quite a bit too, including hitting his crotch on a large plank.

Crude or Profane Language

One use of “d–nation,” and a couple of uses each of “darn” and “heck” (as in, “What the heck?” and “I’ll be darned”). We hear “h—” and “bloody h—” once each.

Drug and Alcohol Content

Blackbeard uses a rejuvenation device to inhale pixie dust and restore his youth.

Other noteworthy Elements

Peter lies to nuns. He and a friend break into someone’s office to steal money and food. Like Peter, Hook is also one to dabble in untruths when it suits his needs. “I lied, I do that sometimes,” Hook rationalizes. “It’s called being a grown up.” The soundtrack introduces Blackbeard with the chorus of Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit.”

Since Scottish author J.M. Barrie first dreamed up his stories of a flying boy who would never grow up more than a hundred years ago, his imaginary realm of Neverland has been a busy place. Peter Pan and his magical universe have inspired scores of books, TV shows, movies, plays—even video games.

Director Joe Wright’s latest addition to that picaresque panoply of all things Pan could be seen as a pseudo-superhero-style origin story (in this age of superhero everything). It gives us the low down on a boy named Peter before he was soaring about with raucous glee and brandishing his dagger. Here, he’s just an orphan kid, longing for his mum, when he’s yanked unexpectedly into the fantastic—and the heroic.

This is a prequel, however, where the pirates are more coarse and gritty than colorful and goony. And where Tiger Lilly’s tribe is, well, more trans-globalish than we’ve seen before. Hook is something of an Indiana Jones romantic hero rather than a hook-handed rake with a ticking-clock phobia. Toss in epic battles between flying ships and WWII fighter planes, as well as bim-bam-booms involving waves of tiny fairies and a prancing baddy named Blackbeard, and what we’ve got here is something fairly entertaining … but barely identifiable for those expecting a more traditional take on the Peter Pan canon.

Purists will likely balk. The family’s youngest will likely duck for cover. And the rest of us will likely wonder where this would-be franchise reboot goes from here. Because this sweeping, swirling, twinkling explosion of CGI color is a long way from that beloved story about a boy in green tights who never wants to grow up—even if it’s got some charms of its own.

After spending more than two decades touring, directing, writing and producing for Christian theater and radio (most recently for Adventures in Odyssey, which he still contributes to), Bob joined the Plugged In staff to help us focus more heavily on video games. He is also one of our primary movie reviewers.

Latest Reviews

You Gotta Believe

Harold and the Purple Crayon

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

Want to stay Plugged In?

Our weekly newsletter will keep you in the loop on the biggest things happening in entertainment and technology. Sign up today, and we’ll send you a chapter from the new Plugged In book, Becoming a Screen-Savvy Family , that focuses on how to implement a “screentime reset” in your family!

Surprising no one, audiences are ripping Disney’s controversial Peter Pan remake to shreds online

If you buy through a BGR link, we may earn an affiliate commission, helping support our expert product labs.

Disney’s new live-action Peter Pan remake, titled Peter Pan & Wendy , has been the focus of pretty relentless review-bombing on Rotten Tomatoes following the movie’s decision to change the race of some characters and to introduce girls into the gang of “Lost Boys.” So many viewers are slamming the movie, in fact, that the flood of negative reviews not only sent the movie’s Rotten Tomatoes audience score plummeting to 13% (which may be the worst ever for a Disney live-action remake).

On Friday afternoon, the review aggregation site also took the unusual step of just removing the low audience score altogether, as you can see below. Again, it had previously stood at 13% when I last checked. [Update: Shortly after this piece was published, the 13% Rotten Tomatoes audience score was restored.]

Rotten Tomatoes owner Fandango has not yet responded to a request I sent seeking comment on this move, which also comes ahead of the release later this month of Disney’s live-action remake of The Little Mermaid — another Disney remake that is contending with similar criticism already, ahead of its own release.

Let me make a brief prediction, by the way, about the latter before continuing about the Peter Pan remake. I’m definitely not in the core demographic or who the upcoming remake of The Little Mermaid is aimed at, but I just want to say that Halle Bailey seems like a great choice to play the iconic role of Ariel. As far as I can tell, she brings the same amount of beauty, sweetness, and charm to the character that was present in the animated classic, and she also certainly has a great singing voice.

Tech. Entertainment. Science. Your inbox.

Sign up for the most interesting tech & entertainment news out there.

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use and have reviewed the Privacy Notice.

Which, come to think of it, is sort of what’s happening with the Peter Pan remake (currently also streaming on Disney+ ).

From Disney’s official description of the remake:

“Wendy Darling, a young girl afraid to leave her childhood home behind, meets Peter Pan, a boy who refuses to grow up. Alongside her brothers and a tiny fairy, Tinker Bell, she travels with Peter to the magical world of Never Land. There, she encounters an evil pirate captain, Captain Hook, and embarks on a thrilling adventure that will change her life forever.”

Yara Shahidi, one of the stars of Black-ish , plays Tinker Bell here, while Jude Law plays Captain Hook. The original 1953 version of Peter Pan , by the way, is also available to stream right now on Disney+, though it includes a content advisory that warns the movie “includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people and cultures.”

• New York Magazine/Vulture : “It’s a familiar story, but in its details, the film suffers from an odd mix of overcorrection and halfheartedness.”
• Mashable : “When detractors decry Disney for cannibalizing IP for profit, they could point to Peter Pan & Wendy , a live-action recreation of a classic movie that mercilessly bleeds life out of its iconic characters and passion out of its heralded helmer.”
• 1-star review : “Yes it’s that bad. Disney really enjoys shooting itself in the foot it would seem.”
• 5-star review : “I loved it. I think that some people writing reviews here seem to have forgotten that the “source material” for this movie (and animated movie too) started with a *book*. Not Disney. I love how there were more things incorporated in this movie that weren’t part of the animated one… they were from the book. Of course the backstory with Hook changed, but okay. I’m really pleased with the actors and how everything wasn’t overly Disney-ized. Thank you!!!”
• 1-star review : “Did someone in Hollywood set out to absolutely ruin everything worthwhile? Every other live action remake is worse than the last. The old fairy tales carried the charm of childishness, innocence, while remaining open and accessible to all ages. I couldn’t say more nice things about this monstrosity masquerading as a work of art than about the stinking remains of a cat’s nocturnal visit to our backyard.”

To my point above, about it being an unusual move for Rotten Tomatoes to just pull a score down from its site, consider:

Dr. Anthony Fauci remains an intensely polarizing figure among the general public, for reasons that I don’t need to get into all over again here. There’s a 2021 National Geographic documentary about him (available to stream, like the new Peter Pan movie, on Disney+ ), and its Rotten Tomatoes audience score is so much worse — currently standing at 2%. The review site, however, has let that one stand.

This article talks about:

Andy Meek is a reporter based in Memphis who has covered media, entertainment, and culture for over 20 years. His work has appeared in outlets including The Guardian, Forbes, and The Financial Times, and he’s written for BGR since 2015. Andy's coverage includes technology and entertainment, and he has a particular interest in all things streaming.

Over the years, he’s interviewed legendary figures in entertainment and tech that range from Stan Lee to John McAfee, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings.

• Netflix just released some exciting new details about Outer Banks Season 4
• Netflix's new surprisingly thoughtful Terminator anime debuts with a 100% critics' score
• 7 of the most exciting streaming TV shows still to come this year

More Entertainment

Pluto TV: 20 free movies you should stream in September 2024

Fantastic Four’s The Thing appears in leaked set video and photos

Epic Games Store free games: What’s free this week?

PS5 Pro design revealed in extensive leak

Latest news.

Could iPhone 16 preorders start earlier than usual?

Apple is reportedly considering a major investment in OpenAI

watchOS 11: Features, download, release date, beta, Apple Watch compatibility, and more

Apple Sports app to add Live Activities as football season kicks off

Sign up for the most interesting tech & entertainment news out there.

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Peter Pan and Wendy’ — A Very Different Story

Joe Hogarty

April 30, 2023

After watching “Peter Pan and Wendy,” I finally get why Disney is making live action remakes of their animated classics. It’s not to honor the original, but to correct the problems that some people have with the original. And by doing so, they show it is Disney who has the biggest problem with the original narrative, depiction of characters, or societal views.

When you watch the original Disney animated classic on Disney+, you will be greeted with a warning that states: “This program contains negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people or cultures. They were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove the content, we want to acknowledge the harmful impact, learn from it, and spark conversation to create a more inclusive future together,” before the film starts. There is no such warning before “Peter Pan and Wendy,” implying that, theoretically, everyone should be happy with the newer version because it corrects everything that was wrong with the original.

But is it a better film? The simple answer is no. It’s a typical Disney live action remake.

What surprised me about “Peter Pan and Wendy” is how radically different it is from the original Disney animated film. Walt Disney took liberties with the original, too, so you can’t totally fault the new version for all the changes. In fact, some of the changes are more faithful to the original story written by J.M. Barrie. My problem is that Peter is not the central character in his own story — it’s Wendy. (Though, perhaps our expectations should have been different, given that they added Wendy’s name to the title.)

Wendy, played by Ever Anderson, is more of a leader in this version, though she comes off as tough and uncaring at times. She rarely smiles and is troubled by the era-appropriate expectations of becoming a lady.

In this version, she’s bothered that her parents are sending her to boarding school and expect her to be on the path to adulthood. I don’t think Wendy comes across as likable; instead, she’s mad that the whole world is seemingly against her. That is a mistake; in my eyes, Wendy was the mother figure and voice of reason in the original. Here, she becomes the hero.

Then there is Peter. Alexander Molony plays him, and there is no sugarcoating his performance — awful. His portrayal is emotionless, boring, and often robotic like he’s reading lines off of cue cards. He has no real presence or impact with his performance. If the director instructed Molony to play the character like Mr. Spock, then mission accomplished. But that is not Peter Pan to so many.

Peter should be the child that never grew up, but in this version, Peter seems more like he is miserable, never smiles, and doesn’t know how to have fun. He also comes off as though he wishes he was anywhere else but in this movie.

The one standout for me was Tinker Bell, played by Yara Shahidi. She seemed like the only character having fun and genuinely expressing joy. They radically changed Tink’s character, too, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse.

In this version, she’s not jealous of Wendy — they’re best friends. In fact, she’s seemingly even better friends with Wendy than she is with Peter, because Wendy wants to know more about Tink and to hear her speak. When Wendy finally says goodbye to Neverland, she cries more that she will miss Tink, not Peter. This underscores the impression that Peter and Wendy had no real relationship (and definitely no chemistry).

And then there is Captain Hook, played by Jude Law. I am not the biggest fan of Jude Law’s acting. He usually comes off as bored and doesn’t really push himself. And big surprise: that’s how he plays Hook.

The character is also radically changed here. This goes back to Disney’s more recent trope that there are no real villains, just misunderstood people. Some may like the change, and others may think it doesn’t work. For me, if you don’t have a strong, evil villain, you aren’t going to have a good movie.

(It should be noted that Walt Disney felt the animated version of Hook was not all bad, stating that “The audience will get to liking Hook, and they don’t want to see him killed,” as cited in “The Disney Villain” by Ollie Johnston.)

Another shocking change was the crocodile chasing after Captain Hook. First, I am shocked that no one at Disney thought to refer to the character by his name, Tick-Tock. They essentially turned the crocodile into Jaws. This is not a lovable, goofy looking crocodile to add some comic relief. This is a giant monster showing no mercy to its victims as he eats them and rips them apart. For some kids, this will be pretty scary, so exercise caution.

As I had mentioned, many characters and storylines have been radically changed from the original. Check below for a full list.

SPOILERS BEGIN

• Tiger Lily, in this version, is never a damsel in distress. She is basically Rambo-lina. In fact, it’s John and Michael that are kidnapped by Hook, not Tiger Lily. Peter does not save Tiger Lily. Tiger Lily saves Peter.
• To be more inclusive, The Lost Boys are both boys and girls.
• Tinker Bell does not betray Peter and The Lost Boys by leading Hook to their hideout. Wendy sings a song, and Hook hears it from miles away. Tink is nothing but good in this version.
• James Hook was once a Lost Boy and Peter’s best friend. He started missing his mother, and Peter banished him from the Lost Boys and Neverland forever.
• Wendy does walk the plank in this version, but she is not saved by Peter. She is saved by Tinker Bell. Tink gives Wendy pixie dust that makes her fly, and Wendy basically becomes Peter Pan for the rest of the movie. According to Hook, “She has the boy’s magic.” Wendy replies, “This magic belongs to no boy,” given that both Peter and Wendy need the pixie dust from Tink to fly.
• At one point, Peter can’t fly and is falling to his death, and Wendy saves him. Peter never saves Wendy.
• Peter once lived in The Darling’s home before they lived in it. That’s why he visits so often.
• Peter apologizes to James (Hook) for treating him so poorly. Soon after, it appears James falls to his death, and he is presumably eaten by the crocodile. Just before the movie ends, you see James and Smee floating on some of the ship’s debris. Peter comes back to rescue James, and they become friends again.

SPOILERS END

Overall, “Peter Pan and Wendy” has very little going for it, and it’s not very good.

It’s patently obvious that Disney would prefer that you watch this over the original animated “Peter Pan.” Disney wants to correct some of their former choices, and it sometimes comes off as preachy. Rafiki once said, “The past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it or learn from it.”

I’ll add another thing: you can’t change the past. You learn from the mistakes of the past, and you try not to repeat those same mistakes going forward. I feel that If Disney wants to promote evolved and current values, then they should write new stories and make movies that reflect positive changes.

I give “Peter Pan and Wendy” a 4/10.

For the latest Disney Parks news and info, follow WDW News Today on  Twitter ,  Facebook , and  Instagram .

Related posts:

Photos: yellow sheathing added to communicore hall, paving underway at communicore plaza, merchandise for the live action ‘the little mermaid’ now available at disneyland resort.

© 2024 WDW News today

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
• 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!

• About Rotten Tomatoes®
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening This Week
• Top Box Office
• Coming Soon to Theaters
• Certified Fresh Movies

Movies at Home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most Popular Streaming Movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 74% Blink Twice Link to Blink Twice
• 96% Strange Darling Link to Strange Darling
• 85% Between the Temples Link to Between the Temples

New TV Tonight

• 96% Only Murders in the Building: Season 4
• 100% Terminator Zero: Season 1
• 92% The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: Season 2
• 83% City of God: The Fight Rages On: Season 1
• 78% Kaos: Season 1
• -- Here Come the Irish: Season 1
• -- K-Pop Idols: Season 1
• -- Horror's Greatest: Season 1
• -- After Baywatch: Moment in the Sun: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 92% Bad Monkey: Season 1
• 100% Dark Winds: Season 2
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 100% Pachinko: Season 2
• 33% The Accident: Season 1
• 96% Industry: Season 3
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV

Certified fresh pick

• 92% The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: Season 2 Link to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power: Season 2
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

The Best Shows on Amazon Prime Video to Watch Right Now (August 2024)

100 Best Netflix Series To Watch Right Now (August 2024)

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Your Full List of All Upcoming Marvel Movies — With Key Details!

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Cast on What They Fear Most About Sauron

• Trending on RT
• Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
• Rings of Power S2 First Reviews
• Venice Film Festival
• Fall Horror Movie Preview

Where to Watch

Rent Negative on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV, or buy it on Fandango at Home, Prime Video, Apple TV.

Critics Reviews

Audience reviews, cast & crew.

Joshua Caldwell

Simon Quarterman

Sebastian Roché

Katia Winter

Joanna Sotomura

Josh Randall

Advertisement

The Instafamous Always Pan Is Not Worth the Hype

By Elissa Sanci

Elissa Sanci is a writer on the discovery team. She has found that clear ice makes carbonated drinks taste better, and citronella candles don’t work.

The Always Pan feels inescapable. Many of us at Wirecutter have been bombarded by a nonstop stream of ads for the pastel-colored cookware that claims to do it all. (If you haven’t had the pan take over your Instagram feed yet, you will now. Sorry!)

The staffers on our kitchen team, who have been testing cookware for seven years and have decades of collective experience in professional kitchens, have been putting the Our Place Always Pan , as well as two similarly marketed direct-order pans (the Caraway Sauté Pan and the Equal Parts Essential Pan ) through their paces to see if they live up to the hype. Below, we list the most common reasons we hear for buying such a pan—and why they might not hold true.

You might think ...

It’s pretty, it’s built to last, the manufacturing is environmentally friendly, it’s great for small kitchens, you can cook anything in it, it’s popular, so it has to be good, this cookware is unique.

All three pans—Our Place’s Always Pan, Caraway’s Sauté Pan, and Equal Parts’s Essential Pan—are available in muted, soothing colors with names like “spice,” “ perracotta ,” and “char,” the kind most often seen on an influencer’s vision board. But they don’t stay that way for long. Cooking is messy, and many Always Pan owners have reported online that oil splatters and pan drippings stain the pan’s colorful exterior. Wirecutter senior staff writer Lesley Stockton, who cooked in the Always Pan almost exclusively for months, agrees that it takes more scrubbing to release greasy stains from the colorful enamel than it does from her stainless steel cookware. But Lesley’s main cleaning gripe concerns the triangular gap where the handle attaches to the pan: This nook collects a lot of food splatters, yet it’s too small to easily scrub clean with a sponge or dish brush.

Wirecutter supervising editor Marilyn Ong, who has been testing the cream-colored Caraway Sauté Pan over the past few months and hand-washing it after each use, says her cookware is already spotted with stains. The Equal Parts Essential Pan that senior editor Marguerite Preston is using has fared similarly. That’s not unusual: All cookware stains when you use it. Stains don’t show on darker-colored nonstick pans or cast iron, but you can see them on a stainless steel skillet or a nice Le Creuset Dutch oven, as well. And usually you can scrub stains off with a slurry of baking soda and water or Bar Keepers Friend. Caraway and Equal Parts recommend a similar technique (with either baking soda and water or baking soda and vinegar, and never with an abrasive sponge). You could probably try it on the Always Pan, too, although Our Place offers no advice for dealing with stains. But all of that takes work, which may be more than you bargained for. Marguerite tried cleaning the stains from her Equal Parts pan with a paste of baking soda and water, letting it sit for a few minutes and then scrubbing with a soft sponge. She found that the technique was effective on darker stains but took a lot of elbow grease, and it still left behind some lightly discolored spots on the pan’s pale blue exterior.

Perhaps more of an issue is the chance that the colorful coating may chip off your pan over time. That started to happen with Marilyn’s Caraway pan after only a month of use, and we’ve also seen Always Pan owners complain about chipping in the company’s Instagram comments. (That said, after two months of continuous use, the Always Pan we’re testing has remained chip-free.) If these pans are designed to complement your kitchen decor, of course you’d want them to retain the picture-perfect qualities that convinced you to buy one in the first place.

Our Place’s Always Pan, which comes with a lid, a steaming basket, and a wooden spatula, retails for $145; Caraway’s Sauté Pan and Equal Parts’s Essential Pan, which come with lids but no accessories, cost $135 and $95, respectively, as of this writing. Expensive cookware can be a worthwhile investment if it lasts long enough to justify the cost. Spend some time scrolling through the comments on Our Place’s Instagram account, though, and you’ll quickly notice a pattern of unhappy customers complaining that the slippery, nonstick coating has worn off after just a few months. Both the Caraway pan and the Equal Parts pan have some buyers commenting about similar experiences.

According to Wirecutter’s kitchen team, wear is a common issue with ceramic nonstick coatings (which, by the way, aren’t actually made of ceramic but of a ceramic-like coating called sol-gel). “The biggest complaint about ‘ceramic’ pans is that their nonstick properties don’t last as long,” Lesley writes in our guide to the best nonstick pans . “We asked friends and family how long their sol-gel cookware lasted, and they all said about one year—and that they’d never buy it again.”

In general, we don’t recommend spending a lot on a nonstick pan, because even the most durable nonstick coatings eventually wear out. We expect a good nonstick pan to last about three to five years, and that’s with the best care (never using it over high heat or with metal utensils). If you want something that will last that long, you’re better off with a Tramontina nonstick fry pan . A quality option with a comfortable handle and a flared lip to easily flip food, this $30 pan is a much more reasonable—and likely more reliable—investment, especially if you care for it correctly (video) . And if you really want a pan that will last a lifetime, you’re better off with a good cast-iron skillet (which becomes nonstick over time) or a quality tri-ply stainless steel skillet .

This one is tricky. Ceramic pans are generally considered to be a greener option since they’re PTFE- and PFOA-free.

However, for our guide to nonstick pans, we limited our testing to pans with PTFE-based nonstick coatings, as they tend to last longer. As Lesley writes in that guide, PTFE, a synthetic polymer that repels water and reduces friction, has come under scrutiny because companies for many years produced it using PFOA, a manmade chemical that is environmentally damaging and potentially carcinogenic. Manufacturers have recently phased out PFOA and now use other, similar substances (PFAS) to produce PTFE. There’s not enough research yet on the environmental and health impacts of PFAS. However, as Lesley reports, “[t]here was no proven risk in cooking with nonstick surfaces made with PFOA—little or no PFOA was present in the pans themselves.” The same should be true for other types of PFAS.

Though the ceramic-pan manufacturing process has less of an environmental impact than that of other types of nonstick pans, such pans don’t retain their nonstick coating as long, so you have to replace them more often than you do other nonstick pans. Unless your city includes cookware in its recycling program, your Always Pan will likely end up in the landfill once it loses its slick coating—making it less green than you might have thought originally.

If you’re looking for something that works almost like a nonstick pan, doesn’t have a PTFE coating, and will last for generations, a well-seasoned cast-iron skillet is a far better choice.

Our Place describes the Always Pan as a “do-it-all wonder” designed to replace your fry pan, sauté pan, steamer, skillet, saucier, saucepan, nonstick pan, spatula, and spoon rest. Though this apparently versatile pan seems advantageous for anyone with a tiny kitchen, in actuality it can’t adequately replace your other tools. For starters, many of the listed items are synonyms of one another (generally a skillet has flared sides and a sauté pan has straight sides, but the terms sometimes get used interchangeably, and a fry pan can be either). “They’re really stretching how many things this pan can replace,” Marguerite says.

Also consider the way you cook. Unless you’re making a one-pan dinner , you likely need multiple pots and pans. If you pare down your cookware because the Always Pan claims to have eight-in-one functionality, you will be unequipped when you’re making pasta and have to, say, boil spaghetti and simmer a marinara at the same time. And you can’t finish a frittata in the oven because the Always Pan isn’t oven safe (though the Caraway and Equal Parts pans are). Instead, you should have a range of cookware that works in different situations. Our recommendations for cast-iron pans , skillets , saucepans , Dutch ovens , and braisers are a good place to start.

We hate to break it to you, but this notion isn’t exactly true. There are many things you can do with the Always Pan—fry an egg, sauté vegetables, boil pasta—but like any nonstick pan, it has its limitations. Because high heat destroys the nonstick coating, you can’t sear a steak or crisp fish skin. And again, the Always Pan can’t go in the oven.

Some folks are specifically drawn to the Always Pan because it comes with a stainless steel steamer basket. This is a nice perk, but both metal and bamboo steaming inserts are fairly inexpensive—and you can buy a steamer that fits multiple pieces of cookware rather than one designed for a specific pan. (Wirecutter’s kitchen team also worries that the metal steamer basket may scratch the nonstick coating on the Always Pan—if metal utensils can damage the coating, why not the metal legs of a steamer?)

Lesley often used the Always Pan to steam frozen dumplings for dinner. She noticed that the short feet on the basket forced her to make a compromise: Refill the water halfway through cooking or let her dumplings boil instead of steam. Neither scenario is ideal; the former temporarily halts the cooking process, and the latter makes the dumpling skins split open.

These pans aren’t necessarily the easiest to use, either. All three pans have domed bottoms, so oil and sauces have a frustrating habit of pooling to the edges. The 10-inch Always Pan, though lightweight, has a boxy handle that’s uncomfortable to grip. The 12-inch Caraway Sauté Pan is pretty heavy—it weighs almost 7 pounds with the lid on—though it has a helper handle to make lifting it easier. The 10-inch Equal Parts Essential Pan might be the best of the three in this regard, as Marguerite finds it comfortable to hold and not too heavy at 4.2 pounds with the lid on. (The 12-inch All-Clad skillet we recommend weighs about 4.5 pounds with the lid.)

Maybe images of these pans artfully arranged on stove tops dominate your social media; maybe you’ve watched a fair share of influencers rave about their cookware on Instagram. Whatever the reason, you’re intrigued—which is exactly the marketers’ intention. But that stylized fantasy doesn’t play out in real life.

After six months of having the Caraway Pan in her home, Marilyn admits that she doesn’t use it much unless she’s trying to fulfill her long-term testing duties. “Since the Caraway isn’t really reliably nonstick anymore, it’s tricky to cook eggs or other delicate items on it,” Marilyn says. “And even then, I still feel like I should baby it a little, to prevent further wear.” Lesley hung up her Always Pan after two months of near-daily use. “It’s not for me,” Lesley notes. “I need a pan that can go from stove top to oven and tolerate high-heat cooking. This ain’t it.”

Even though we aren’t recommending these pans, we understand that the heart wants what it wants. And if yours is begging for lightweight nonstick cookware that compliments your decor, we won’t stop you. “You can love this pan,” Marilyn says. “Like a piece of beautiful jewelry, it can make you happy. But if you’re looking for cookware that will last—that’s high quality—this isn’t going to be it.” And, as Lesley adds with a sigh, “It’s not going to stay this pretty forever.”

Not quite: According to our kitchen team, cookware brands such as Anolon , Calphalon , and T-fal have sold similar types of deeper, nonstick, lidded pans for years. If you strip away the soothing colors and influencer taglines—like being called the “kitchen magician” by Oprah—the Always Pan and its counterparts are fairly standard nonstick cookware. Many cookware options minus the social media sheen cost less, offer just as much versatility (if not more), are likely to last longer, and may even better suit your personal cooking needs than the Always Pan.

Here are some of our suggestions:

Nonstick skillet

As we mentioned above, a good nonstick skillet can cook everything these trendy pans can. If you’re looking for a good slick pan for eggs, pancakes, or low-fat sautéing, an inexpensive nonstick skillet is the best choice (once again, because even good nonstick coatings don’t last forever). And unlike the Always Pan, our top-pick nonstick skillet is also oven safe. (The Caraway and Equal Parts pans can go in the oven.) Alternatively, you can find deeper nonstick sauté pans with lids that are a closer match to the Always, Caraway, and Equal Parts pans but cost way less, such as this one from T-fal (though we haven’t tested it).

Nonstick wok-style pan

If you do a lot of sautéing and steaming, nothing beats a wok-shaped pan. The tapered design allows you to nest bamboo steaming baskets inside with plenty of room for water to bubble beneath. Plus, the wide flared side is ideal for sautéing vegetables because it allows moisture to evaporate quickly. And if you think a wok isn’t an egg pan, this Kylie Kwong recipe will probably change your mind. We haven’t tested wok-shaped pans at Wirecutter yet, but if you’re interested in a nonstick one and want a place to start your search, this Anolon pan , with a grippy silicone handle and a domed lid, looks like a solid deal at less than $60 at this writing. For about $40 more, the All-Clad HA1 Hard Anodized Nonstick Weeknight Pan features two cast stainless steel handles that offer a more secure grip. Depending on these pans’ size, and the thickness of their metal, they’re probably heftier than the lightweight Always Pan. If heavy pans are an issue for you, consider testing a few different brands’ pans in a store before you buy.

Enameled braiser with lid

These pieces are by far the heaviest and potentially the most expensive alternative to the Always Pan and its counterparts. But lidded braising pans like these Le Creuset and Lodge models are durable, versatile, and beautiful. And they’re not just for low-and-slow braising. You can sear meat, shallow-fry, sauté, roast—even bake desserts and casseroles—in a shallow braiser. (However, since it doesn’t have nonstick coating, we don’t recommend that you attempt to cook eggs or other delicate dishes in a braiser. Save those for a true nonstick skillet.)

These braisers also come in a rainbow of color choices, if you’re especially committed to finding cookware that doubles as decor. Keep in mind that because they’re made from thick cast iron, these pans are heavy: Lesley’s 5-quart Le Creuset braiser and lid weigh a total of over 12 pounds. But if you want an attractive and brightly hued pan, one that can serve you for a lifetime and be passed down through generations, an enameled braiser might be a better splurge for you than the Always Pan.

Meet your guide

Elissa Sanci

Senior Staff Writer

Elissa Sanci is a senior staff writer for Wirecutter’s discovery team based in Denver. Her byline has appeared in The New York Times, Woman’s Day, Marie Claire, and Good Housekeeping. When she’s not testing TikTok-famous products or writing about car garbage cans, you can find her hiking somewhere in the Rockies or lying on the couch with a bowl of chips balanced on her chest. There is no in-between.

Further reading

The Best Nonstick Pan

by Lesley Stockton

We’ve cooked mounds of eggs and more in 27 nonstick pans since 2016, and we recommend the slick and durable Tramontina 10-Inch Professional Restaurant Fry Pan .

How to Clean and Season Cast-Iron Cookware

by Michael Sullivan

We’ve tested numerous methods and products to find what’s best to restore, clean, and season cast-iron cookware.

Ask Wirecutter: My Family Uses Scratched Nonstick Pans. Is That Bad?

by Annemarie Conte

Using scratched nonstick pans is not a good idea for many reasons. Here’s how to keep them looking good, and alternative pans you might want to try.

How to Keep Food From Sticking to a (Not-Nonstick) Pan

by Wirecutter Staff

Tri-ply metal pots and pans are far more capable than nonstick skillets—and they can be just as easy to clean. Here’s how to unlock their full potential.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Negative counterpart for the word "rave" in the sense "favorable criticism"

What is the one-word for a piece — art piece etc., maybe topic, subject — that has gained popularity through negative reviews or appraisals?

In other words, I am looking for a one-word noun or adjective that is the opposite of rave in the sense "favorable critism".

• single-word-requests

• 2 So first you need the opposite of a rave review , and then you need one that has gained positive notice as a result? Or can it be any notice whatsoever, even a negative one? That is, it can not just famous but infamous? –  tchrist ♦ Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:20
• 1 Do you want a verb, noun, adjective? rave can be a noun, verb or adjective. A bit more context would be helpful. –  anongoodnurse Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:30
• 1 "Raving" doesn't particular mean good or bad: it can usually mean excited talking. –  xserf Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:38
• 1 If the review is angry enough, you could use RAVE in the RAVING MAD sense... –  Oldcat Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 22:09
• 2 It's not clear to me how these requests are connected. Something that has gained popularity through negative reviews is not something that I would name or describe with an antonym for “rave”. Can you share anything about the context of this need that would clarify how this is one thing? –  Tyler James Young Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 21:24

8 Answers 8

Well an antonym of "rave" would probably be " pan ".

pan a harsh criticism

but perhaps you really want notorious ,

notorious well-known or famous especially for something bad

• 1 Rant also goes well with rave, although not in this context. +1 for notorious. –  Bradd Szonye Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 20:05
• 2 There are plenty of famous works that are referred to as having been "universally panned by critics". My vote's here. –  Andrew Kozak Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 3:14
• 2 Infamous is an alternative to notorious, though many people either misuse or misunderstand the word (assuming it to mean simply famous). –  Doc Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 18:08
• @Doc I know, see my comment to the "infamy" answer below. Also, tchrist commented with "infamous" almost as soon as the question was posted. –  Elliott Frisch Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 18:09
• @ElliottFrisch Just trying to add detail for any reader's sake. Not everyone reads comments to non-top-voted answers or even the question when browsing for their own sake. Wasn't trying to imply that you were in any way unaware. –  Doc Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 19:24

I would go with infamy or its close cousin infamous .

the state of being well known for some bad quality or deed.

• 1 the word for the " piece of art , maybe topic which has gained infamy" ? i feel the question could be paraphrased like this.... but it is not "the word" –  Argot Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:36
• 1 @Argot It could be an infamous (or notorious ) piece . –  Elliott Frisch Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:52
• 1 this is i like , "close cousin"-- phrases like these cheer me up for some reason –  Argot Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:55
• 1 I hope it's not because you have feelings for a cousin! –  RyeɃreḁd Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:57

There is a loan phrase from French: succès de scandale

(Literary & Literary Critical Terms) success of a play, book, etc, because of notoriety or its scandalous character [literally: success of scandal]

• 2 Seems similar in meaning (and intent) to "no such thing as bad publicity". –  Elliott Frisch Commented Apr 2, 2014 at 18:50

Scathing comes to mind as an adjective.

bitterly severe, as a remark: another restaurant has fallen victim to one of her scathing reviews

In BrE, rubbish , used as a verb, is a common word these days for the act of pouring scorn on a performance or an artistic work. His book was rubbished by the critics. He rubbished her stand-up act .

• 3 Though, in my experience, this is used only by tabloid newspapers. –  David Richerby Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 8:30
• 1 The closest AmE might be trashed . –  Phil Perry Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 21:36

Savage can be used as a noun an adjective or a verb for this purpose.

to attack or criticize thoroughly or remorselessly; excoriate: a play savaged by the critics. A savage review

• 1 Post edit: there is no noun usage for savage in this sense; it is only a verb. All nounal usages for savage are for a type of person, none relating to a critic. –  Patrick M Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 15:29

Something popular despite (and because of) widespread negative reception

“Notorious” is certainly a fine word for describing “a piece [. . .] that has gained popularity through negative reviews or appraisals”. I would also consider use of related terms like “guilty pleasure”, “kitch”, “(something) we love to hate”, or “so bad it's good” depending on the material and context. There's also the term “cult” to describe these sorts of pieces (esp. “cult classic”) or their followings.

If you have some space to explain yourself, you might consider coining “the Regretsy effect” which you could describe as the curious phenomenon of explosive sales after a craft posting was criticized on the (now defunct) crafting ‘lowlight’ aggregator.

Antonym for “rave”

1. commentary on available options.

— — Verb — — “Pan” is used a lot, but I hear and read it much more often as a past-tense verb (not a noun), e.g.:

The film was universally panned by critics. Ebert panned the film, decrying its sympathetic portrayal of a violent protagonist.

— — Adjective — — If the word describes “review”, I think you're better off using “very critical” or “scathing”, c.f.:

I read a scathing review of that movie. vs. I read a rave review of that movie.

— — Noun — — In that example, “review” could be taken out of the latter, and it would still make sense as a noun:

I read a rave about that movie.

If your desire is a replacement for that usage, there isn’t a great one-word substitution. “Pan” is fine, but is less recognizable:

I read a pan of that movie.

You might be better off just forcing the verb in that case:

I read a panning of that movie.

There's also “(a) rant”, but that is difficult to recognize outside of collocations with “rave”.

2. My suggestions

It's not a single word, but as far as noun phrases go you might consider “hit piece” as in:

“Did you read the A.V. Club review of Howard Cantour.com? ” “Yeah, basically a hit piece .”

This has lots of problems itself, and is basically a metaphorical usage of the primary definition that has more to do with politics and is very similar to “smear campaign”. It also adds in a bit of negativity about the review, possibly conveying that the person using this term believed the review was overly harsh or resorted to ad hominem.

If you can trust context to communicate that you are talking about a review, you might just go fully metaphorical and say something like:

Ebert's evisceration of Transformers comes as no surprise to anyone who knows his opinion of Michael Bay's characteristically baroque usage of CG.

There's also “takedown”, for which you probably won't find much dictionary backing (I couldn't) but might be useful in its modern usage (such as seen here ).

• Very nice answer... but rather then "takedown" I might use put-down . –  Elliott Frisch Commented Apr 4, 2014 at 18:09

For the sake of alliteration, ridiculed

• 1 Alliteration with what? –  Tyler James Young Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 21:28
• As in "raved or ridiculed" –  mr.musicman Commented Apr 5, 2014 at 1:15

Your Answer

Sign up or log in, post as a guest.

Required, but never shown

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged single-word-requests nouns adjectives or ask your own question .

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Has a tire ever exploded inside the Wheel Well?
• What to call a test that consists of running a program with only logging?
• What happens if all nine Supreme Justices recuse themselves?
• Parse Minecraft's VarInt
• Why there is no article after 'by'?
• What would be non-slang equivalent of "copium"?
• Story where character has "boomerdisc"
• Do metal objects attract lightning?
• What prevents a browser from saving and tracking passwords entered to a site?
• My visit is for two weeks but my host bought insurance for two months is it okay
• Two way ANOVA or two way repeat measurement ANOVA
• Passport Carry in Taiwan
• What rule or standard is used to assign a SOT number to a chip housing?
• DATEDIFF Rounding
• What explanations can be offered for the extreme see-sawing in Montana's senate race polling?
• A way to move an object with the 3D cursor location as the moving point?
• How can I get an Edge's Bevel Weight attribute value via Python?
• Correct Expression for Centripetal Force
• The size of elementary particles
• Integral concerning the floor function
• Which programming language/environment pioneered row-major array order?
• Dress code for examiner in UK PhD viva
• How much missing data is too much (part 2)? statistical power, effective sample size
• Manifest Mind vs Shatter

Site Navigation

Latest stories, 33 hilariously bad reviews of classic movies, hindsight really is 20/20..

Movie critics can make or break a new release's potential success . And while picking the duds is easy, what requires more skill is identifying when you’re watching what will eventually become a classic. In fact, even the most famous film critics can have a hard time recognizing greatness. Take Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic , for example. In his review of  Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey , he described the film as “so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull.” Or how about Joseph McBride , a Variety critic who thought he hit the nail on the head when he dismissed Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas , one of the best gangster movies ever made, as “dramatically unsatisfying.” Here are 33 more hilariously bad reviews of what would become beloved, timeless cinematic classics.

1 | The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

“The more one sees the main characters, the less appealing they become. Luke Skywalker is a whiner, Han Solo a sarcastic clod, Princess Leia a nag, and C-3PO just a drone.”

2 | The Wizard of Oz (1939)

“It has dwarfs, music, Technicolor, freak characters, and Judy Garland . It can’t be expected to have a sense of humor as well, and as for the light touch of fantasy, it weighs like a pound of fruitcake soaking wet.”

— Otis Ferguson , The New Republic

3 | Ben-Hur (1959)

“If you can keep both eyes open through its whole three-hour length you're a better man than I am.”

— Dave Kehr , Chicago Reader

4 | Jaws (1975)

“It's a measure of how the film operates that not once do we feel particular sympathy for any of the shark's victims… It puts good actors to the test. They have to work very hard just to appear alive.”

— Vincent Canby , The New York Times

5 | The Godfather: Part II (1974)

“Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film, but like many people who have nothing to say, Part II won't shut up.”

6 | A Star Is Born (1976)

“ [Barbra] Streisand’s notion of acting is to bulldoze her way from one end of a line to the other without regard for anyone or anything; you can literally feel her impatience for the other performer to stop talking so she can take over again.”

— John Simon , New York Magazine

7 | Apocalypse Now (1979)

“A dumb movie that could have been made only by an intelligent and talented man.”

— Richard T. Jameson , The Weekly

8 | Casino Royale (1967)

“I can’t think of a folk hero in human history with fewer redeeming qualities than James Bond. He’s not even a human being, but just a department store dummy going bang-bang… Of course, this reviewer is too wise in the ways of brainwashing to believe that any of his readers will believe him. So see it for yourself, but don’t blame me.”

— Andrew Sarris , Village Voice

9 | Clueless (1995)

“ Clueless has a meandering plot that has something to do with Cher doing nice things for people—if they're wearing the right clothes, that is… It's like biting into a tamale and finding it filled with Marshmallow Fluff.”

— Owen Gleiberman , Entertainment Weekly

10 | Alien (1979)

“For the most part, things simply jump out and go 'boo!'”

11 | Pretty Woman (1990)

“No one has yet made a romantic comedy in which, say, a toxic-waste dumper falls for a terrorist hijacker. (They meet cute in an airport check-in line, and she's got a bomb in her luggage.) But Pretty Woman comes close to finding the least admirable characters to build a feel-good movie around.”

— Richard Corliss , Time

12 | The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

“I don’t mean to be cynical, but isn’t prison life supposed to be a little less nostalgic than this?”

— Ed Gonzalez , Slant

13 | The Exorcist (1973)

“A chunk of elegant occultist claptrap… The devil, it seems, for all his supposed powers, can't break and enter without sounding like Laurel and Hardy trying to move a piano.”

14 | Forrest Gump (1994) 

“Judging by the movie’s enduring popularity, the message that stupidity is redemption is clearly what a lot of Americans want to hear.”

– Jonathan Rosenbaum , Chicago Reader

15 | Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

"Seldom has so little been said in so many words."

— Bosley Crowther , The New York Times

16 | Fight Club (1999)

“ Fight Club is a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy—the kind of ride where some people puke and others can’t wait to get on again.”

— Roger Ebert , Chicago Sun-Times

17 | The Matrix (1999)

“If anybody ever wanted to see [Keanu] Reeves shaved naked and covered with slime, now is the chance. He plays a computer hacker who stumbles into a vague awareness that this world is but the dim reflection of a controlling cyberworld ‘out there’... We know he is puzzled about which reality he currently occupies because he squinches up his eyebrows.”

— Bob Graham , The San Francisco Chronicle

18 | E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

“Evidently, he (E.T.) is one of those autistic genius types that Hollywood adores—capable of crafting an interstellar communicator out of toys and cutlery, but completely inept at basic social skills.”

— Don McKellar , Cinema Scope

19 | Gladiator (2000)

“It employs depression as a substitute for personality, and belief that if the characters are bitter and morose enough, we won’t notice how dull they are.”

20 | Sixth Sense (1999)

“I was not only surprised by the film’s final twist, I wasn’t even looking for one. I just thought I was watching a bad movie.”

— Jack Mathews , New York Daily News

21 | Halloween (1978)

“With the seductive tracking shots and the repetitive music, the film stops and starts so many times before anything happens that the bogeyman's turning up just gets to be a nuisance.”

— Pauline Kael , The New Yorker

22 | Reservoir Dogs (1992)

“Here is the ideal date movie, assuming you’re dating a psychopathic sadist with a high tolerance for dillydallying.”

23 | Titanic (1997)

“ [James] Cameron has never been known for his dialogue, but Titanic carries some stinkers that wouldn’t make the final draft of a Days of Our Lives script .”

— David Edelstein , Slate

24 | Black Swan (2010)

“Not just any kind of trash, it’s high-art trash, a kind of ‘When Tutu Goes Psycho’ that so prizes hysteria over sanity that it’s worth your life to tell when its characters are hallucinating and when they’re not.”

— Kenneth Turan , Los Angeles Times

25 | The Shining (1980)

"With everything to work with, director Stanley Kubrick has teamed with jumpy Jack Nicholson to destroy all that was so terrifying about Stephen King's bestseller … The crazier Nicholson gets, the more idiotic he looks."

26 | Psycho (1960)

“The one thing we would note with disappointment is that, among the stuffed birds that adorn the motel office of [Anthony] Perkins , there are no significant bats.”

27 | Se7en (1995)

“So chic, studied, and murky it resembles a cross between a Nike commercial and a bad Polish art film… Set in a rainy, portentously unnamed burg (The City of Dread?) where overhead lighting has yet to be invented, Seven seems to believe that if you drop enough references to Dante and Chaucer you have achieved seriousness.”

— David Ansen , Newsweek

28 | Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

“This movie inspires no fear in me, but loathing? Yes. Oh yes.”

— Barbara Shulgasser , Examiner

29 | No Country for Old Men (2007)

“An exasperating and self-defeating experience, rather like listening to a nymphomaniac extol the virtues of celibacy.”

— Ryan Gilbey , New Statesman

30 | Vertigo (1958)

“The old master has turned out another Hitchcock-and-bull story in which the mystery is not so much who done it as who cares.”

31 | Inception (2010)

“One way to salvage some fun with this blunderbuss would be to fall asleep while watching and dream up a better movie yourself. Try it. You'll avoid a headache.”

— Kelly Vance , East Bay Express

32 | Twilight (2008)

“I've had mosquito bites that were more passionate than this undead, unrequited, and altogether unfun pseudo-romantic riff on 'Romeo and Juliet'."

— Marc Salov , The Austin Chronicle

33 | Blue Velvet (1986)

“ Blue Velvet is like the guy who drives you nuts by hinting at horrifying news and then saying. ‘Never mind.’”

And to learn about some more cinematic blunders, check out these 50 Original Titles for Hit Movies We're So Glad Didn't Happen .

To discover more amazing secrets about living your best life,  click here  to follow us on Instagram!

11 Netflix Shows Premiering in September

15 documentaries that make you smarter, "wheel of fortune" new season changes leaked, these books will inspire you..

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy . We use vendors that may also process your information to help provide our services. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA Enterprise and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

You Can’t Please Everyone: Negative Reviews Of Some Of The Best Loved Films In Cinema History

Oliver lyttelton.

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Share on LinkedIn
• Show more sharing options
• Submit to Reddit
• Post to Tumblr
• Print This Page
• Share on WhatsApp

As you may have noticed, the review embargo on “ The Dark Knight Rises ” broke yesterday, and the word, including that from our own Todd Gilchrist , is mostly good. We say mostly, because as with most films, there are objections from a few reviews — Christy Lemire from the Associated Press , Marshall Fine at Hollywood & Fine , Christopher Tookey at the Daily Mail , Devin Faraci at Bad Ass Digest — coming in on the negative side of the fence. And as has become increasingly common in the last few years — particularly with Christopher Nolan ‘s films,  Pixar  movies, and even “ The Avengers ” — the fans are in uproar at the sheer concept that reviewers dare give a negative notice to “The Dark Knight Rises” (regardless of the fact that these fans haven’t yet seen the film for themselves).

Comment sections have been deluged with idiot children Bat-fans, not just angry about negative reviews, but merely “good” ones — Playlist contributor James Rocchi has attracted ire for his 3/5 take on the film over at Movies.com . With chatter around ‘Rises’ only to increase in the next few days, we thought it seemed like a good time to remind everyone: everything gets a bad review at some point.

Some films are more divisive than others, and there were a few films — “ Singin’ In The Rain ,” “ Seven Samurai ,” “ North By Northwest ,” “ The Godfather ” — that we couldn’t find bad reviews from serious critics for. But generally speaking, there’s an always an outlier, and we’ve collected reviews from the releases of ten of the most beloved and acclaimed releases in history to prove our point. That’s not to say that the reviews below are wrong — most make their points well, and some are positively insightful. The fanboy trend of being unable to let any criticism pass is an insidious one: you should seek to challenge your views on a film, not shout down people for pointing out any possible flaws.

But for those who say they don’t listen to critics, we’ve also grabbed some excerpts of user reviews from the IMDB boards, to again show that opinion isn’t a black and white thing. And also because they’re funny. Read on for more, and feel free to speak up in the comments section and let us know what movies have set you against the critical grain.

“Citizen Kane” “The picture is very exciting to anyone who gets excited about how things are done in the movies… and in these things there is no doubt the picture is dramatic. But what goes on between the dramatic high points, the story? No. What goes on is talk and more talk. And while the stage may stand for this, the movies don’t.” – Otis Ferguson, The New Republic

“I watch movies constantly, an i rarely see movies that i have troubles watching all the way through. For one of my classes at school, i needed to watch afi’s top 10 movies. This movie was ranked at number one and I have no idea why. This movie was so boring I had to watch it several times because i kept falling asleep and missing certain parts. Fine, it was clever having Rosebud, and the importance of youth, but i felt that this is an example of a movie, that could be told in about 5 minutes, rather than stretching it out into one of the longest and most boring movies that i have ever seen. Now, i was also shocked at the acting. i generally find that acting supports a relatively weak script, however in this movie’s case, i felt that the relatively weak script was supporting the awful acting. i personally was not very impressed with the acting strictly because the reactions felt very forced and everything was very overdone. all in all i was not impressed at all with this film, regardless of past ratings.” – tennisislife67, IMDB

“The Godfather Part II” ‘The Godfather, Part II’… is not very far along before one realizes that it hasn’t anything more to say. Everything of any interest was thoroughly covered in the original film, but like many people who have nothing to say, ‘Part II’ won’t shut up… Even if ‘Part II’ were a lot more cohesive, revealing and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self-parody it now seems. Looking very expensive but spiritually desperate, ‘Part II’ has the air of a very long, very elaborate revue sketch. Nothing is sacred… Mr. Pacino, so fine the first time out, goes through the film looking glum, sighing wearily as he orders the execution of an old associate or a brother, winding up very lonely and powerful, which is just about the way he wound up before. Mr. De Niro, one of our best young actors, is interesting as the young Vito until, toward the end of his section of the film, he starts giving a nightclub imitation of Mr. Brando’s elderly Vito.” – Vincent Canby, New York Times

I really don’t understand the obsession with the Godfather trilogy, brought up with society around me proclaiming it to be a classic I rented the first and found it just bearable! Determined on my task of watching all three I rented the second, I barely made it through, i found the storyline confusing and didn’t see any of the quotes used in ‘You’ve got Mail’! Please don’t think that the only films I watch are chick flicks, I do like more serious, older films but … oh dear… maybe I just can’t relate to Italian mafia families, I must have wiped this film from my mind as I can hardly remember the storyline! I do not which to be stereotypical but maybe this really is a film for men! Please tell me there are other people out there who feel this way about these films! I can’t understand how they always get to the top of ‘Great film Lists’! If asked by a friend whether to watch this film I would say no, unless I wanted to punish them! P.S I still haven’t watched number three!!  – laura5578, IMDB

“Casablanca” “The love story that takes us from time to time into the past is horribly wooden, and clichés everywhere lower the tension.” — William Whitebait, The New Statesman

“So I finally got around to watching Casablanca, one of the greatest movies ever made, or so I’ve always heard. Does it live up to its hype? In a word, no. It was maudlin and melodramatic; Ingrid Bergman was homely, no matter how many softening effects were used in the close-ups of her face (did a rodent gnaw off the sides of her nose? To say nothing of that masculine jawbone and those underdeveloped lips…); Humphrey Bogart was about as slick and charismatic as the Hunchback of Notre-Dame; and the story was undisguised war propaganda. One would have to have the mental age of 5 to think this movie was in any way great. Watchable, yes, but not great, and certainly not deserving of being on the IMDb top 250. The movie was fast-paced, which was both good and bad: good because it would’ve been unbearable to watch otherwise, and bad because it didn’t give the viewer time to get attached to any of the characters (which is just as well, since as I’ve said, it was war propaganda and so the less effective, the better). – le_chiffre-1 , IMDB

“Raging Bull” “Robert De Niro is one of the most repugnant and unlikeable screen protagonists in some time… the director excels at whipping up an emotional storm, but seems unaware that there is any need for quieter, more introspective scenes in drama… the scenes it does choose to show are almost perversely chosen to alienate the audience – Joseph McBride, Variety

Oh my is this film terrible. I really wanted to like this film, honest; in fact, I bought it before actually seeing it. Seriously though, this film is grossly pregnant; there is nothing there; it’s fluff; get it? Forgebodit!! Boxing movies are stupid enough as is, next to football flicks of course. However, I thought, “Well it’s a Scorsese flick, he’ll do something meaningful.” Nope!!! Just a bunch of swearing, violent, irrational, testosterone-junkie wops walking around beating their women saying forgebodit. Peachy, let me tell ya; in fact, I want my time back, dig. This film is boring, redundant, annoying, and meaningless. The cinematography is somewhat sharp, but then again, somewhat sharp is just dull. One last thing, just because a film is black/white does not make it art…K?…K. – Kevin Cordia, IMDB

“Lawrence Of Arabia” “It is such a laboriously large conveyance of eye-filling outdoor spectacle—such as brilliant display of endless desert and camels and Arabs and sheiks and skirmishes with Turks and explosions and arguments with British military men—that the possibly human, moving T. E. Lawrence is lost in it. We know little more about this strange man when it is over than we did when it begins… The fault seems to lie, first in the concept of telling the story of this self-tortured man against a background of action that has the characteristic of a mammoth Western film. The nature of Lawrence cannot be captured in grand Super-Panavision shots of sunrise on the desert or in scenes of him arguing with a shrewd old British general in a massive Moorish hall… The fault is also in the lengthy but surprisingly lusterless dialogue of Robert Bolt’s over-written screenplay. Seldom has so little been said in so many words… sadly, this bold Sam Spiegel picture lacks the personal magnetism, the haunting strain of mysticism and poetry that we’ve been thinking all these years would be dominant when a film about Lawrence the mystic and the poet was made. It reduces a legendary figure to conventional movie-hero size amidst magnificent and exotic scenery but a conventional lot of action-film cliches. – Bosley Crowther, The New York Times

The first thing I’m looking for in a movie is “historical accuracy”.Since the movie takes its name from the leading character Lawrence let me ask you a question to those who casted a top-ten vote for this movie?Do you really know how Lawrence looked like?Six foot two inch Peter O’Toole differed strikingly with the real Lawrence, who was almost nine inches shorter.Lawrence was not a gung-ho drama queen who lead a nation to freedom.Most scenes such as the attack on Aqaba were heavily fictionalized from the writings of Lawrence.You can easily question how much he is reliable.Lawrence mentions in his Seven Pillars of Wisdom that he was raped by the Turkish Bey which was called into question by the historians.(Check out the article : Lawrence of Arabia ‘made up’ sex attack by Turk troops By Elizabeth Day) Not only most scenes are heavily fictionalized but some characters are a bunch of fiction too like Sheriff Ali,Mr. Dryden and Colonel Brighton. The movie neither tells you anything from the Turkish point point of view nor does it tell anything about the real Arab points. Yes it’s a well-know truth that the Arabs were tricked into fighting against the Turks by the British and they have been paying the price by being belittled by the westerners for centuries.But the movie shows us only a bunch of Bedouin tribes which are desert dwelling nomadic people. Not every Arab is (and was)a Bedouin. The historians say that the real Lawrence actually shunned the limelight, as evidenced by his attempts after the war to hide under various assumed names but the British officers certainly did not the find the attack outrageous since the Great(!) British Empire can finally be positioned at a table with the French to take care of the rest of the Turkish empire.And according to Wikipedia the film’s portrayal of General Allenby as a cynical, manipulative superior to Lawrence is not entirely accurate either. Allenby and Lawrence respected and liked each other, and Lawrence once said of Allenby that he was “an admiration of mine”… There are people who claim that such fictionalization was necessary to dramatize the great Lawrence character but I say “watch out! The devil lurks in the little details” – shutterbug_iconium, IMDB

“The Searchers” “The Searchers” is somewhat disappointing. There is a feeling that it could have been so much more. Overlong and repetitious at 119 minutes, there are subtleties in the basically simple story that are not adequately explained… Wayne is a bitter, taciturn individual throughout and the reasons for his attitude are left to the imagination of the viewer… The John Ford directorial stamp is unmistakable. It concentrates on the characters and establishes a definite mood. It’s not sufficient, however, to overcome many of the weaknesses of the story.” – Ronald Holloway, Variety

I was bored, it’s Sunday and sat down really looking forward to this supposedly great western to fill the evening void. Maybe I’m not qualified to comment fully as I didn’t make it past half an hour. I figure if a film hasn’t grabbed me by then it probably won’t get any better. Usually a rubbish film will grab you then go downhill but this………. well, first off I’m English and even I know that those funny things sticking out the earth don’t come from Texas they’re somewhere in Utah. That’s the first insult. It may be great scenery but great scenery a great film it doth not make. And there’s nothing glorious about glorious Technicolor either. It’s like being hit on the head with a sledgehammer. Then, oh I dunno just that dumb acting from that time, those stupid children full of beans and cockadoodle dandy acting just irritate the hell out of me as if lots of energy will make up for real acting. Embarrassing. The story just plods along and doesn’t build any tension whatsoever with a lot of hammy acting by our stars more fit for a TV show. Then it’s just cliché after cliché and the end result is wishing the maker of this film would stop insulting my intelligence and pi** off. I disliked John Wayne as a small boy because I thought he was boring. I think he’s boring now. If you wanna watch a good Western with interest and real characters, story development, tension and drama that sucks you in watch Unforgiven. I’ll never forgive this pile of dross. – jackbenimble, IMDB

“2001: A Space Odyssey” “A major achievement in cinematography and special effects, “2001” lacks dramatic appeal to a large degree and only conveys suspense after the halfway mark…. The plot, so-called, uses up almost two hours in exposition of scientific advances in space travel and communications, before anything happens, [including] the surprisingly dull prolog… Film ends on a confused note, never really tackling the ‘other life’ situation and evidently leaving interpretation up to the individual viewer. To many this will smack of indecision or hasty scripting.” — Robert B. Frederick, Variety

“This is certainly one of the most boring and meaningless films I have ever seen in my life. I love science and science fiction both. They are in fact 2 of my main interests in life. This movie still bored me beyond description! The accolades being heaped upon this hunk of garbage is hilarious. The most amusing tendency among the fans of this movie is ridiculing those who think it is boring and meaningless as stupid, ignorant or both. I am a professional in the computer design and engineering business. I am not stupid. And guess what? This movie is still boring and meaningless… It’s a collection of very long, very boring scenes that never seem to end… For those who will attempt to dismiss my comment along with the other people they have dismissed let me be perfectly clear. I understood everything in the film. It is simply a terrible film. This pseudo-intellectual drivel is a director who thinks he’s quite brilliant in his high school level presentation and vision of the journey of man. Of course he is very wrong indeed!… It’s disjointed. It lacks cohesiveness. It adds elements of science fiction, horror, fantasy, and pre-teen created entertainment. It also fails to deliver in any of these categories. Stop attacking those who do not like this film. They aren’t nearly as stupid as is implied here… There is nothing brilliant about meaningless film that must be “interpreted” by the few viewers who claim they have the answer. Thats just incompetent lazy film making.” – tom_jones, IMDB

“Chinatown” “The most acclaimed private-eye saga since ‘The Big Sleep’ has the torpor of a wake… Evans and Polankski are masters of Hollywood ‘dramatic organization.’ They ram home what they see as major points… ‘Chinatown’ brings to question not only their lack of subtlety, but their hypocrisy… Polanski never favors compassion over carnage. He has none of Towne’s emotional stakes in the film… Polanski smothers Towne’s script. He never lets in any air… Polanski revels in artifice. Every shot in ‘Chinatown’ locks into a larger puzzle, and each character’s smirk hides a secret.” – Michael Sragow, New York Magazine

“Got two hours of your life to waste? Want to wonder watch the same actor who scared you in the Shining bore you to death? Want to wish you had not already cleaned out the cat’s litter? I have the film for you. Two hours of the most excruciating boredom watching male chauvinistic pigs who think there is nothing wrong in raping, beating or in general any other form of abusing women, sprinkle in some under-age sex with your own daughter (how ironic that three years later the film’s director will be charged with such an offence – was he planning his own future? Oh, sorry I forget 15 is too old for him) and add a cherry on top for being absolutely pointless and you have Chinatown. If anyone can tell me what Chinatown has to do with the film’s plot I will give you the cherry myself. And before you all start jumping on me I do understand the ‘rape’ refers to the water supply controversies of the early 1910’s. However, please, seriously, do not tell me that you enjoyed this film. I am only saying what everyone else is too scared to say – it really is not that good a film.” – b-jhoree, IMDB

“Die Hard” “On a technical level, there’s a lot to be said for ‘Die Hard.’ It’s when we get to some of the unnecessary adornments of the script that the movie shoots itself in the foot… the filmmakers introduce a gratuitous and unnecessary additional character: the deputy police chief (Paul Gleason), who doubts that the guy on the other end of the radio is really a New York cop at all. As nearly as I can tell, the deputy chief is in the movie for only one purpose: to be consistently wrong at every step of the way and to provide a phony counterpoint to Willis’ progress. The character is so willfully useless, so dumb, so much a product of the Idiot Plot Syndrome, that all by himself he successfully undermines the last half of the movie. Thrillers like this need to be well-oiled machines, with not a single wasted moment. Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working. Without the deputy chief and all that he represents, “Die Hard” would have been a more than passable thriller. With him, it’s a mess… you can’t go wrong if all of the characters in your movie are at least as intelligent as most of the characters in your audience.” – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

This film has almost everything that I despise. I do like the action, explosions, and Alan Rickman since he stars as Severus Snape in the seven Harry Potter flicks. Rickman is excellent at playing the bad guy. Bruce Willis thinks he is so cool; however, but nothing but a fool. So the two stars are for Rickman and the action. The subtraction of eight stars is for the ballooning votes that this movie has been given, the violence, the nudity, the vulgarity, Bruce Willis, the mindless acting by the majority, the length of the film, and finally not giving Rickman more lines. Yes, it’s a slight obsession with Rickman as it seems, but I had to think of eight reasons and ran out of ideas. So if you like or love this imbecilic claptrap, you will most likely disagree with me and jump to conclusions while forming stereotypes. I don’t blame you. I only wish Hollywood wouldn’t contribute to the degenerating of our civilization where people don’t care about humans they don’t know – jamesolio, IMDB

“Raiders Of The Lost Ark” “But “Raiders” is a machine-tooled adventure in the pulp-esoterica spirit of Edgar Rice Burroughs; it appears that Lucas and Spielberg think just like the marketing division… But Spielberg’s technique may be too much for the genre: the opening sequence, set in South America, with Indy Jones entering a forbidden temple and fending off traps, snares, poisoned darts, tarantulas, stone doors with metal teeth, and the biggest damn boulder you’ve ever seen, is so thrill-packed you don’t have time to breathe—or to enjoy yourself much, either… you know that Spielberg, having gone sky-high at the start, must have at least seventeen other climaxes to come, and that the movie isn’t going to be an adventure but a competition… there’s no exhilaration in this dumb, motor excitement… Yet, with the manicured wide-screen images and the scale of this production, klunkiness sticks out in a way that it didn’t in the serials, which were usually all of a piece… It’s a shocker when the big-time directors provide a rationale for the marketing division—when they say, as Spielberg does, that “the real movie-lovers are still children.” And there’s no doubt he means that in a congratulatory sense. The whole collapsing industry is being inspired by old Saturday-afternoon serials, and the three biggest American moviemakers are hooked on technological playthings and techniques.” Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

I’ve been avoiding Indiana Jones like the plague until tonight when I decided to see what it’s all about. And boy was I in for a treat! I was laughing so hard at every action scene! The music was so laughable, Harrison Ford played worse than Paris Hilton sings and every cliché imaginable was there. The plot is virtually non-existent during the first half of the movie and when the real action finally kicks in, you see Dr. Jones escaping from difficult situations with unbelievable ease, the ridiculous music score serving as another way of applauding his actions. Those were the best bits. Because then you have the totally random ending that turns your laughter into a WTF expression. The characters are paper-thin – not to mention Spielberg’s obsession with the Germans (or anyone non-American or non-Jewish) who have to be depicted as either superevil or superstupid. Unintentionally funny, totally predictable and a waste of money and film. How anyone with an average IQ can enjoy this is beyond me. – grybop, IMDB  

Most Popular

You may also like.

Negative movie review NYT Crossword Clue

We’ve solved a crossword clue called “Negative movie review” from The New York Times Mini Crossword for you, see answer below!

Negative movie review NYT Crossword Answer is:

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

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

Negative (I) (2017)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Reagan 2024 Movie Reviews: Strong First Reactions Get Shared Online

The upcoming Ronald Reagan movie (officially titled Reagan ) is quickly garnering strong reactions and reviews from those who have seen it early.

Directed by Sean McNamara, Reagan follows Dennis Quaid's take on the United States' 40th President from his early life through his time spent in the White House from 1981 to 1989.

The story is based on a book written by Paul Kengor titled The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism , detailing President Reagan's reign as the country's leader from a political and personal perspective.

The film is set to be released theatrically on Friday, August 30.

First Reviews to Reagan Movie

Ahead of Reagan 's debut in theaters, general audience members and government officials who saw the film early shared their first reactions and reviews on X (formerly Twitter).

Van Hipp , the Chairman of American Defense International and former U.S. Army Deputy Assistant Secretary, thoroughly enjoyed the film, calling it a "powerful movie" showing how "God can use one man to make a difference:"

"Jane & I had a blast at the World Premiere of the movie, 'REAGAN!' This is a powerful movie that shows how God can use one man to make a difference in the World. Take the whole family and your children can see how great America can be."

Reagan Legacy Foundation President Michael Reagan , who is President Reagan's son, praised the film's producers and team for the work they did on his father's story:

"Don’t be afraid to go see 'REAGAN' the writers & producers nailed it and so did the Actors & my family who saw it Aug 20 100% support the Movie..Pass the word"

Joseph Joyce of Angelus News admitted in his review that most presidential biopics are not the most needed in the movie space as a whole. He even joked that the film covers "the whole of the president’s 93-year-long life" while showing "no respect for the viewer’s bladder."

He also described the way the film ended by calling it "as open a declaration of love one can manage without shouting" while noting how it's "structured like the biography of a saint."

Kathy Petsas urged fans not to miss the movie, sharing how much she enjoyed the "honest portrayal" of the first President she cast a vote for:

"Don’t miss the 'Reagan' Movie... Loved this honest portrayal of the first President and First Lady I ever voted for."

X user @Ranchmemaw called Reagan "a beautiful movie," heaping heavy praise upon Dennis Quaid for his performance as the former President:

"Seeing it for the second time...⁩ It’s a beautiful movie! Dennis Quaid IS Reagan!"

Young America's Foundation COO Jess Jensen spoke highly of the Ronald Reagan biopic, specifically highlighting the scenes highlighting Reagan Ranch:

"What a memorable night for @yaf and our @TheReaganRanch team attending the worldwide premiere of 'Reagan' Movie in Hollywood. What an amazing film and tribute to President Reagan. The Reagan Ranch scenes are spectacular. Go see it!"

What to Take From Positive Reagan Reviews

Reagan is in a truly unique position as a Presidential biopic coming out in the midst of an election year. Its release date comes only two months before the election for the United States' top leadership position, putting it directly in the heart of a likely heated time for the country socially.

It is also facing light competition at the box office , as no other huge movies are being released over that same weekend. Additionally, heavy hitters like Deadpool & Wolverine , Twisters , and Alien: Romulus are well into their own runs as their box office potential begins to level out.

This film should be a solid option for those looking to brush up on American history, even through a fictionalized take on Reagan's life and legacy. Considering his story largely took place as the President in the last 40 years, there is also plenty of source material to ensure accuracy from a historical perspective.

How the movie is received by the general public is still a mystery, although it should have a chance to gain a solid following as the election is brought more into the spotlight.

Reagan is set to arrive in theaters on Friday, August 30.

Read more about other movies below:

Here's When Alien Romulus' Streaming Release Is Expected to Happen

Avatar 3 Star Reacts to 'Extraordinary' First Footage

Blink Twice Movie: Plot Summary Spoilers & Ending Explained

LATEST NEWS

Get the Reddit app

The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.

What is your favorite negative review of a bad movie?

When it comes to reviews of bad movies, some of favorite reviews are short and to the point. For the 2010 comedy Vampires Suck, which spoofed the Twilight movies, Rolling Stone movie critic Peter Travers only wrote "This movie sucks more."

There's also Roger Ebert's review of Tom Green's Freddy Got Fingered where he wrote:

"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."

With that said, what is your favorite review of a bad movie whether it be written or in a video?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

• Entertainment /

The bad movie reviews quoted in Lionsgate’s Megalopolis trailer were mostly made up

Did lionsgate use ai to generate negative reviews from critics like roger ebert.

By Jay Peters , a news editor who writes about technology, video games, and virtual worlds. He’s submitted several accepted emoji proposals to the Unicode Consortium.

Share this story

Hours after it was released, Lionsgate pulled a trailer for Megalopolis that was clearly “ gunning for the haters ” with a selection of negative quotes about director Francis Ford Coppola’s previous works. That’s because reports like this one from Vulture’s Bilge Ebiri showed that critic quotes in the trailer lambasting films like The Godfather and Apocalypse Now were fabricated.

“Lionsgate is immediately recalling our trailer for Megalopolis ,” a Lionsgate spokesperson said in a statement to Variety . “We offer our sincere apologies to the critics involved and to Francis Ford Coppola and American Zoetrope for this inexcusable error in our vetting process. We screwed up. We are sorry.”

That all led some people to immediately wonder whether the quotes may have been generated by a tool like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Chatbots, and ChatGPT specifically, will create quotes in responses to queries complete with citations and even fake URLs for content that never existed. A famous example is a case earlier this year where a lawyer cited judicial decisions that did not exist . The lawyer admitted using ChatGPT for his research and said he was “unaware of the possibility that its content could be false.”

We’ve asked Lionsgate if it used a generative AI tool as part of the creation of the trailer but haven’t heard back.

Variety also reports that one of its staffers was falsely quoted in the trailer over their review of Bram Stoker’s Dracula and that a Roger Ebert quote attributed to his Dracula review was actually from a review of the 1989 Batman.

Ryzen CPU owners can now download better gaming performance thanks to a Windows 11 update

Brilliant is back from the brink, google’s custom ai chatbots have arrived, apple’s iphone 16 launch event is set for september, xbox is changing and it’s confusing everyone.

More from Entertainment

Chick-fil-A is reportedly launching a streaming service for some reason

Asus brings Wi-Fi 7 to its tri-band ROG gaming router

Microsoft’s new Xbox Adaptive Joystick puts accessibility at the center

Lego’s Super Mario: Mario Kart sets will cross the finish line early in 2025

Disneyland | Disneyland to remove negative stereotypes from…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Food & Drink

Amusement Parks

• Theater & Arts

Things To Do

Subscriber only, disneyland | disneyland to remove negative stereotypes from peter pan’s flight.

The Never Land Tribe scene changes are expected to be similar to those made at Florida's Magic Kingdom.

Subscribe to continue reading this article.

Already subscribed to login in, click here..

• Newsroom Guidelines
• Report an Error

More in Disneyland

Disneyland | Porto’s Bakery to begin construction in 2025 at Downtown Disney

Disneyland | Disneyland closes 6 attractions during busy Halloween season

Disneyland | Disneyland spends $600,000 to replace Jungle Cruise animatronic tiger scene

Disneyland | Disneyland previews new Bayou Country before Tiana’s Bayou Adventure debuts

What The Most Negative Critic Reviews Said About The Borderlands Movie

When "Borderlands" opened in theaters on August 9, 2024, it brought in just $8.6 million — an astonishingly low figure for a film that cost more than $100 million to make. Then, things just went from bad to worse for "Borderlands" at the box office , with the movie seeing an almost unprecedented 73% drop in its second weekend. Thus far, the video game adaptation has made just $21 million on a reported $115 million budget — and that's before the marketing cost is accounted for. A very rough estimate typically puts marketing at around half a film's production budget, so we're looking at a movie that likely cost in the region of $170 million, making less than a quarter of that at the box office ahead of its fast-approaching streaming debut.

With this in mind, you might be starting to see how much of a historic blunder we're witnessing with "Borderlands." But that's just the box office. Plenty of movies have been commercial failures without actually being bad films. Surely, the receipts for "Borderlands" aren't entirely indicative of its overall quality? Well, put simply, they are. The film has been savaged by critics, who submitted some truly inspired takedowns before tossing the movie's carcass aside to wither in the harsh environs of 2024's movie landscape. At a time when "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" and "The Last of Us" seemed to signal that video game adaptations could finally represent the future of Hollywood, this is a remarkable achievement on the part of Lionsgate and director Eli Roth.

So, why not join us on a quick tour through the wasteland that is the critical reaction to "Borderlands" and see if we can't scavenge some of the more amusing takes?

Bad first reactions set a precedent for Borderlands

Unlike our roundup of the worst critical reactions to J. D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy,"  there's no ghoulish figure at the center of this mishap (unless you count Kevin Hart, who played Roland in "Borderlands"). That makes this particular roundup slightly more tragic. But there's simply no way around the fact that the first reactions to "Borderlands" were, well, bad .

This was, unfortunately, a sign of things to come for the movie, but the production had been so beleaguered already that really the first sign of trouble was the fact that this thing took almost 10 years to make. "Borderlands" was first announced in 2015, wrapped filming back in 2021, then sat on the shelf for a couple years before Tim Miller came in to oversee reshoots. But when the movie eventually debuted to an abject D+ CinemaScore, it seemed this long gestation period hadn't helped refine anything about Eli Roth's video game adaptation, as the reviews very much show.

/Film's Bill Bria delivered the kind of take that would, I imagine, make Kevin Hart do that face from the meme . Bria wrote in his 4/10 "Borderlands" review that the movie comes with a "heavily generic storyline and offensively inoffensive tone," reserving much of his scorn for the humor, or lack thereof, in the movie. Bria wrote, "The jokes aren't bad jokes per se; they're non-jokes. It's like watching 'Cardboard: The Movie.'" You might be thinking that you can't get much worse than calling this film "Cardboard: The Movie," but you'd be wrong.

The bad critical reactions to Borderlands

At the time of writing, "Borderland" sits at 10% on Rotten Tomatoes . Now, the site that would have you believe there are only two perfect sci-fi movies in the history of cinema probably shouldn't be taken all that seriously. But in this case, the average rating is at least partly instructive. Unlike the overall percentage, the average rating is RT's aggregation of critics' actual scores for films. So, if a review contains a letter grade, a star rating, or a number out of 10, RT will count that and add it to the average score — and the score for "Borderlands" is a truly dismal 2.8 out of 10.

What, then, has irked the critics so? Well, there are many reasons why "Borderlands" bombed , but one of them is surely, as Brian Tallerico writes in his review for RogerEbert.com that "nothing that works about the games has been adapted intact in this ugly, boring, truly inept piece of filmmaking." This seems to be a shared opinion among reviewers, with the  Los Angeles Times' Carlos Aguilar also noting how nothing from the game seems to work in the big screen adaptation. Aguilar writes that "[Eli] Roth and credited co-screenwriter Joe Crombie fail to effectively synthesize the game's lore and the characters' individual histories in a way that can entice the uninitiated."

But it's not just that "Borderlands" failed to emulate whatever it was that made the video games work. Critics really did not hold back when it came to their opinions on the overall quality of the movie. Even Aguilar eventually cast any kind of nuance aside and dubbed "Borderlands" as "an insipid mishmash of trite genre tropes" and "a game-to-screen misfire so thoroughly bad, it's breathtaking." But that's just the start of it...

The really bad critical reactions to Borderlands

How bad did the "Borderlands" reviews get? Take a peek at David Fear's Rolling Stone piece in which he concludes that "Borderlands" is "not a movie for critics, as the saying goes. Nor is it suitable for consumption by most gamers, film lovers, or 99 percent of carbon-based life forms." Fear's acerbic assessment is matched only by Peter Howell, who in his review for the Toronto Star writes, "There are still many cinema turkeys headed our way before the year closes. But this sci-fi gobbler mixes inept directing, terrible writing, indifferent acting and gawdawful CGI into such stupefying boredom, it feels like nothing could top it for badness."

Look, critics sometimes get carried away trying to outdo each other by coming up with the most ornate pejorative flourish imaginable, but in the case of "Borderlands," the sheer volume of these damning indictments seems to indicate that the movie really did demand such a response — and those indictments just keep coming.

Variety 's Peter Debruge writes, "By the time 'Borderlands' unlocks its vault, not even the characters seem to care what's inside." Allegra Frank at TIME laments, "Right as Hollywood has started to learn how to successfully adapt games for the screen, 'Borderlands' arrives as a reminder of how not to do it."  The Independent 's Clarisse Loughrey even comes close to Fear and Howell's vitriolic takedowns with her contention that "Borderlands" has "dragged us back to a time when studios used to make these with all the grace and acuity of a drunk person attempting to place a 3am chicken nugget order."

So yeah, that's how bad the reviews can get.

The critical response to Borderlands is actually reassuring

Not quite as overtly antagonistic as David Fear or Peter Howell's appraisals, but perhaps even more quietly devastating, was /Film alum William Bibbiani's review for TheWrap , in which he concluded that "the biggest problem with Eli Roth's 'Borderlands' isn't that it's bad, it's that it's not interesting enough to be bad. It's mass-produced pabulum." Isn't that really the nub of this whole thing? The reason why collecting these innumerable takedowns of "Borderlands" doesn't feel as mean as it sounds is because this film is, for anyone who cares at all about film as an artform, offensive in its cynical attempts to appeal to the masses.

What's more, this wouldn't be the first time Hollywood has served up this kind of "pabulum." In the streaming age, audiences are used to bland, insipid "content" that seems like the result of some marketing exec poring over the latest social media metrics and slapping together something with the help of writers all too willing to churn out scripts akin to the digital sputum coughed up from the depths of Large Language Models' collective digital lungs. Indeed, as Nick Schager writes in his Daily Beast review, the film is "so drearily routine and slapdash that even an A.I. would deem it too plagiaristic." Even worse than this, as many a middling streaming movie has shown, we'll quite often consume this stuff en masse. If anything, then, "Borderlands" is reassuring as it proves that we're still capable of pushing back against this sort of "pabulum" and demanding better.

"Borderlands" is (for now) playing in theaters.

Screen Rant

Megalopolis' trailer & fake review quotes controversy explained.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

I'm So Happy To See Lauren LaVera's Sienna Back In Terrifier 3

Who is dr. robotnik’s grandpa jim carrey’s new sonic the hedgehog character explained, every movie coming to theaters in september 2024.

• Megalopolis' marketing blunder with fake critic quotes backfired spectacularly, leading to the trailer being pulled by Lionsgate.
• Real reviews of Coppola's past films could have been used instead of fabricated negative quotes in Megalopolis' second trailer.
• Lionsgate admitted the vetting error with fake quotes, apologized, and now faces a challenging marketing campaign for Megalopolis.

Lionsgate has pulled the second trailer for Megalopolis after it was discovered that the review quotes featured in it had been fabricated, sparking a massive controversy. Thanks to its unique self-funded production, all kinds of behind-the-scenes drama, and early reviews promising a truly baffling moviegoing experience, Megalopolis is already one of the most talked-about movies of the year. Francis Ford Coppola covered the movie’s nine-figure budget out of his own pocket to finally bring his long-gestating passion project to life, but the initial reactions have suggested it’s not the game-changing masterpiece he set out to create.

Due to its unusual independent production and its unabashedly weird tone, Megalopolis initially struggled to secure a distribution deal. Coppola screened it for various studios and investors, but most of them got cold feet after watching what promises to be the wildest film of 2024. Megalopolis has since landed a distribution deal with Lionsgate, but the studio is struggling to market a movie that’s been fraught with every problem imaginable, from allegations of inappropriate on-set behavior to negative reviews from critics. The studio tried to incorporate the latter into the film’s tongue-in-cheek second trailer, but it backfired spectacularly.

Megalopolis' Second Trailer Used Fake Review Quotes About Past Francis Ford Coppola Movies

The idea behind the trailer was pretty good; the execution, not so much.

The second trailer for Megalopolis opens with negative review quotes about Coppola’s past classics – The Godfather , Apocalypse Now , and Bram Stoker’s Dracula – to show that they, too, were poorly received by critics and ended up being regarded as three of the greatest movies ever made. In theory, that’s a novel idea. Rather than trying to ignore the negative critical reception of Megalopolis , the trailer embraces it and demonstrates that the critics aren’t always right – especially when it comes to Coppola. It encourages viewers to ignore the reviews for Megalopolis and make up their own minds when it comes out.

But while the idea is good, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. Within hours of the trailer being posted, it was discovered that the review quotes had been fabricated (via Vulture ). Pauline Kael of The New Yorker did not write that The Godfather was “ diminished by its artsiness. ” Andrew Sarris of The Village Voice did not, in fact, call it “ a sloppy, self-indulgent movie ” that “ doesn’t know what it wants to be. ” Vincent Canby of The New York Times didn’t describe Apocalypse Now as “ hollow at its core. ”

They’re all real critics who really reviewed the films for their respective publications – this isn’t a David Manning situation – but the quotes cited in the Megalopolis trailer are nowhere to be seen in their writings . It was a baffling choice to go ahead with this marketing campaign, because it’s easily verifiable. Most of those reviews are readily available in their original form, with the actual words that the critics actually wrote. The internet picked up on the fakery within a couple of hours of the trailer appearing online.

Lionsgate Pulled The New Megalopolis Trailer After The Fake Review Quotes Were Discovered

"we screwed up".

As soon as the Megalopolis trailer quotes were revealed to be fake , Lionsgate removed the trailer from its online outlets and released a statement of apology (via Variety ). The studio apologized to the critics who were falsely quoted in the trailer and blamed an “ inexcusable error in our vetting process. ” Lionsgate ended its statement bluntly: “ We screwed up. We are sorry. ” Someone somewhere is responsible for fabricating the quotes, but Lionsgate has yet to identify the culprit. Between the Megalopolis trailer controversy and the critical and commercial failure of Borderlands , Lionsgate isn’t having a great month so far.

Megalopolis is set to be released in U.S. theaters on September 27, 2024.

How The Critics Referenced In Megalopolis' Trailer Actually Reviewed The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, & Bram Stoker's Dracula

Most of the critics cited in the trailer actually gave the films positive reviews.

A lot of the critics cited in the Megalopolis trailer actually wrote positive reviews for Coppola’s movies. The New Yorker ’s Pauline Kael didn’t pan The Godfather ; she deemed it to be “ a great example of how the best popular movies come out of a merger of commerce and art, ” a quote that’s frequently used in academic discussions of the film. Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly didn’t call Bram Stoker’s Dracula “ a beautiful mess, ” which sounds more mixed than negative, but he didn’t have many positive things to say about it, either.

Roger Ebert gave Bram Stoker’s Dracula three out of four stars. He praised the shadowy cinematography by Michael Ballhaus and the performances of Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, and Anthony Hopkins. He wrote that Coppola favors spectacle over storytelling, but also lauded the film’s “ operatic ” qualities. Ebert was much kinder to Coppola’s Dracula adaptation than his fabricated quote in the Megalopolis trailer makes out. It’s not a completely laudatory review, but the positive points far outweigh the negative points.

There Are Real Bad Reviews For Francis Ford Coppola's Other Movies Megalopolis' Marketing Could've Used

Coppola didn't have to make up negative reviews; he's gotten plenty over the years.

The review quotes seen in the Megalopolis trailer might be fake, but there are legitimate negative reviews of all those movies that could’ve been used. Frank Rich wrote a negative review of Apocalypse Now for Time magazine; Tom Hibbert wrote a negative review of Bram Stoker’s Dracula for Empire . There are plenty of negative reviews of Coppola’s well-regarded films that the Megalopolis trailer could’ve used without making up fake ones. And not only that; there are even some genuine negative quotes in the reviews that the Megalopolis trailer cited .

Canby didn’t say that Apocalypse Now was hollow, but he did deride it as “ profoundly anticlimactic intellectual muddle. ” Ebert didn’t call Bram Stoker’s Dracula “ a triumph of style over substance, ” as the trailer claims (which doesn’t even sound like much of an insult; it sounds like a compliment to the style), but he did call it “ an exercise in feverish excess, ” which sounds much more derogatory. Gleiberman wrote that Bram Stoker’s Dracula “ fails to deliver, ” and that Coppola had “ dressed up a classic tale in mesmerizing visual overkill without coming close to its dark heart. ”

Kael was generally complimentary of The Godfather , but she also claimed its storytelling was “ basic ” and its visual symbolism was “ obvious. ” Sarris wrote that The Godfather ’s core themes are “ never satisfactorily developed, ” and that the film is “ about as unkind to the Mafia as Mein Kampf is to Adolf Hitler. ” Why make up fake quotes when these pejorative gems are ripe for the picking? That last one is about as scathing as a film review can get – it’s much more damning than the fake quote included in the trailer.

Will Megalopolis' Marketing Campaign Change With Future Trailers?

It'll be tough for megalopolis' marketing campaign to recover after dropping the ball so hard.

With the now-removed second trailer for Megalopolis , the studio’s marketing team leaned heavily into the misunderstood genius element of Coppola’s work. This was the best way they could find to spin Megalopolis ’ own polarized reviews. But will that have to change now? Previously, the studio wanted to distance itself from the film’s critical reception. But now that they’ve been caught fabricating critic quotes, they’ll probably want to distance themselves from that, too . The making and marketing of Megalopolis has been a mess from start to finish – it might be more exciting to watch this unfold than the movie itself.

Source: Vulture , Variety

Megalopolis (2024)

Megalopolis, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is a visionary 2024 film exploring the ambitious dream of reconstructing New York City into a utopia, following a devastating disaster. The narrative delves into the clash between the architect's utopian vision and the political and personal turmoil that ensues. With a star-studded cast, the film examines themes of ambition, power, and the human spirit's resilience against the backdrop of a futuristic metropolis.