victoria movie review rotten tomatoes

• Trending on RT

Victoria Tomatometer: 82% Release: Oct. 9

Victoria ‘s single-take production is undeniably impressive, but it’s also an effective drama in its own right — and one that juggles its tonal shifts as deftly as its technical complexities.

Movie & TV News

Featured on rt.

The 100 Best Horror Movies of the 1970s

September 25, 2024

The 100% Club: Movies With a 100% Tomatometer Score on Rotten Tomatoes

September 24, 2024

Lupita Nyong’o Explains How Variety Has Guided Her Career Decisions on The Awards Tour Podcast

TV Premiere Dates 2024

Top Headlines

• The 100 Best Horror Movies of the 1970s –
• 100 Best Movies on Disney Plus (September 2024) –
• The 100% Club: Movies With a 100% Tomatometer Score on Rotten Tomatoes –
• The Best ’90s TV Shows –
• The 100 Best Movies of 1994, Ranked by Tomatometer –
• 30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming –

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

A young Spanish woman who has recently moved to Berlin finds her flirtation with a local guy turn potentially deadly as their night out with his friends reveals a dangerous secret. A young Spanish woman who has recently moved to Berlin finds her flirtation with a local guy turn potentially deadly as their night out with his friends reveals a dangerous secret. A young Spanish woman who has recently moved to Berlin finds her flirtation with a local guy turn potentially deadly as their night out with his friends reveals a dangerous secret.

• Sebastian Schipper
• Olivia Neergaard-Holm
• Eike Frederik Schulz
• Frederick Lau
• Franz Rogowski
• 224 User reviews
• 278 Critic reviews
• 77 Metascore
• 17 wins & 21 nominations

Top cast 25

• (as André M. Hennicke)
• (as Hans Ulrich Laux)

• Junge Mutter
• (as Anna Lena Klenke)
• Junger Vater

• (as Andreas Schmittka)
• Hooligan kurze Haare
• Hooligan lange Haare

• Zivilfahnder 1
• Zivilfahnder 2

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

More like this

Did you know

• Trivia It took 3 attempts to film the movie. The take used for the final cut was the third one and completed from 4:30 AM to 7:00 AM on 27 April 2014 in the Kreuzberg and Mitte neighborhoods.
• Goofs When Victoria and Sonne hop on the back of the cab during the getaway they both get in through one door, but when they close it two thumps are heard, their door and the cameraman's.

Victoria : I've been... I've been... I don't know the name, how you say that... I've been... in the conservatory, you know... I was in the conservatory. and I cannot continue in the conservatory because I'm not good enough, or something like that

Sonne : Because they're stupid, or what?

Victoria : No, it's okay. I prefer that.

Sonne : No, really... Because it's amazing. It's like. You know, I...

Victoria : No, it's not amazing... I don't know. I've been sixteen and a half years practicing playing the piano. every day, like seven hours every day. Seven is the maximum. You cannot play more, because you're gonna hurt your arms. And it's a really hard life, because you have no... you have no life. You have no friends. Well, the friends are like the other guys that are in the conservatory... but they are not your friends really. They're like your enemies. Because they are fighting for your dream too.

Sonne : But was it your dream... to play?

Victoria : Not any more.No. Because it's... You are... You... You can became a bad... I don't know. I was just thinking, for my friends, they should fail in their exams... because then I would have, like, more opportunities for me! Our teacher said to us that. just the 90% of us, we are wasting our time. It's really difficult to become a real piano player. And it's better like this. You know, when I was 12, I can remember, I was like an old lady... just playing always the fucking piano.

• Connections Featured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Movies Told in Real Time (2017)
• Soundtracks Our Own Roof Written by Nils Frahm Published by Manners McDade Publishing Limited

User reviews 224

• Oct 12, 2016
• How long is Victoria? Powered by Alexa
• June 11, 2015 (Germany)
• Official Facebook (United Kingdom)
• Official site (Spain)
• My Name Is Victoria
• Charlottenstraße, Kreuzberg, Berlin, Germany (night club)
• Deutschfilm
• RadicalMedia
• See more company credits at IMDbPro

Technical specs

• Runtime 2 hours 18 minutes

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed.

handcrafted by maryann johanson (human) | 100% free of AIs and algorithms

Victoria movie review: no cutting to the chase here

Get new reviews via email or app by becoming a paid substack subscriber or paid patreon patron ..

I’m “biast” (con): nothing

A nd here I was all excited to finally catch up with the film my fellow critics have been raving about for months. Victoria ! One single long take: no cuts or edits for two hours and nine minutes as a young woman runs around Berlin. Turns out it’s not even very intriguing as a stunt, the technological challenges of it aside; there’s a good reason for cuts and edits, as a few tediously long walking and driving sequences remind us. Mostly director Sebastian Schipper’s gimmick disappears into the background as the implausibility and the flatness of the central character — as the utter absence of any distinguishing features at all in the supporting characters — becomes the unfortunate focus.

In retrospect, it appears that perhaps Victoria’s earlier sob story to Sonne, part of their unconvincing flirtation, about being a thwarted musician might be intended as some sort of justification for why she eventually agrees to participate in their ever-ramping-up criminal behavior. Her creativity has been stifled, and so she’s okay with getting caught up in some very bad doings? That’s hardly persuasive, but even if it were, it does not explain her inexplicable stoicism in the face of it. She’s not a person, more like a mannequin being dragged around by a plot that doesn’t even actually need her. If Victoria is meant to be a character study of a young woman in trouble, it has almost entirely neglected her.

share and enjoy

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card , please reconsider.

If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for maryann’s approval. this is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. if your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.), if you’re logged in here to comment via facebook and you’re having problems, please see this post ., please note: the many many disqus comments that were missing have mostly been restored i continue to work with disqus to resolve the lingering issues and will update you asap..

Birdman got Best Picture, therefore… but whatever one thinks of Birdman it did at least have something more than this gimmick.

I saw it and reviewed it. I also had a wary feeling of why would she hang with these guys but the clue in to me was the possibly the first few lines she speaks. She’s dancing by herself at a club, she meanders over to the bar and tries to start a conversation with the bartender, is rebuffed, and she continues, asking her to have a drink with him. The main motivation for her, as far as I could tell, was loneliness. She came off as desperately lonely, and add to that her youthfulness and naivete and I got her. I thought it was a lovely film.

Loneliness doesn’t generally trump wariness in most women, in my experience.

Not just loneliness…despair and soul-wrenching angst at how all those wasted years (in her mind, at least) at the conservatory has left her friendless and alone at this stage in her life, feeling compelled to move to a foreign place where she doesn’t even speak the language. Understanding that, and the sense of release and bonding she must have felt at being able to unburden herself of those unbearably self-destructive feelings to a sympathetic stranger can go a long way to explaining why she would consider doing crazy things for the sake of ‘amour fou’. The surface action of the film IS implausible, true. But the viewer has to peer beneath the technically impressive camerawork and simplistic banal storyline (girl meets boy, boy turns out to be small-time crook, girl helps boy commit crime) to find the emotional reality.

Oh, never fear: I peered.

Fear never crossed my mind, I can reassure you ;-)

I just watched this and while I liked the idea of the single take and did think there was some thrill to it, and thought the end was pretty heart-tugging I totally agree that the movie did nothing to elucidate the motivations of Victoria and whether she was just a reckless thrillseeker or hopelessly naive. It really made it hard to enjoy it and get into it. Thanks for this review. I just cant understand why people were so head over heels for it.

MaryAnn Johanson, what’s your problem? Why you have to spread your hate all around? It’s still a movie. A pretty good one too even it has its longueurs and its characters are behaving dumb at various stages of their road to demise. You are picking every single bit out of it to criticize and support your hatespeech. (Yeah she’s opening up the cafe at her own, even without any knowledge of the language. Wow what a major mistake. It ruins the whole plot. Maybe the Boss is just sick this particular morning or whatever??? ) You Madame Johanson are a perfect example of people, who talk down a piece of art, just out of their own small scope of mind. Or maybe you are just bitter because you’ve been always too reasonable and smart in your youth to ever experience something.

G5 on both cards!

A sprinkle of oO5 in the beginning too – I don’t know if it’s too late, but someone should consider adding a Bingo square along the lines of, “Although you clearly explained your reasoning, you actually hated this because you’re a bitter old woman who’s never recklessly grabbed life by the balls like me, a person who petulantly pens angry comments below disagreeable movie reviews. P.S. I am 100% not projecting my own frustrations and regrets at all.”

At least you didn’t mention cats, getting laid, and/or Sex and the City/Twilight/Fifty Shades. A couple years back, I was starting to think that ancient straw feminist deserved a square too. Also, weird use of “hatespeech.” I dislike the term, but what protected group does the review incite violence or prejudice against? Or are you just claiming that any expression of strong dislike can be called hatespeech?

The next time I update the card (presumably in 2019), it may include “You’re just a bitter old woman who hates everything.” It will also probably include “You clearly didn’t really watch the movie, or you’d agree with me!” and “This review is just clickbait.”

The thing is, a lot of the recurring comments aren’t even actual arguments. I thought about including a square that just said, “SJW, snowflake, white knight, feminazi,” and a few other terms. But the Bingo card could really be one big square that says, “No right-thinking person could disagree with me, so I’ll have to come up with some kind of rationalization to explain your opinion.”

If there are really 25 more Bingo-worthy arguments by 2019, though, I may be too depressed to find it funny anymore.

I’m not sure you understand what film criticism is, but that’s for your thoughtful rebuttal to my review. You are a gentleman, sir.

watch at home

please help keep truly independent film criticism alive!

🙌 Awesome, you're subscribed!

Thanks for subscribing! Look out for your first newsletter in your inbox soon!

Get us in your inbox

Sign up to our newsletter for the latest and greatest from your city and beyond

By entering your email address you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and consent to receive emails from Time Out about news, events, offers and partner promotions.

Awesome, you're subscribed!

The best things in life are free.

Sign up for our email to enjoy your city without spending a thing (as well as some options when you’re feeling flush).

Déjà vu! We already have this email. Try another?

Love the mag?

Our newsletter hand-delivers the best bits to your inbox. Sign up to unlock our digital magazines and also receive the latest news, events, offers and partner promotions.

• Things to Do
• Food & Drink
• Arts & Culture
• Time Out Market
• Coca-Cola Foodmarks
• Los Angeles

• Recommended

In Bed With Victoria

A witty romantic comedy about a lawyer who's trying to balance work, motherhood and dating

Time Out says

A Parisian lawyer struggles to juggle work, love and family life in this spirited French comedy. Virginie Efira plays Victoria, a single mother whose two daughters are background players in her world, as well as this film. At a drunken wedding she bumps into a former client and one-time drug dealer, Sam (Vincent Lacoste). Grateful and clearly smitten, Sam offers to work for her for free, and soon becomes the nanny rather than the law intern he was hoping for. 

An amusing watch, this has a freshness and naturalism rarely found in the typically over-styled French romcom genre – one can imagine an American remake with Amy Schumer or, were this the early noughties, Katherine Heigl. The most successful scenes faintly exaggerate the restrictions of a dating working mother: Victoria meets and hosts internet dates in her bedroom while the children are in the living room next door. The least successful scenario tries to grapple with the dubious morality of our heroine representing a friend accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend. 

While it’s wonderful to see a powerful working woman in a comedy onscreen, it’s her relationship battles that strike the funniest note – although the eventual romance feels like a bit of a footnote. 

Release Details

• Release date: Thursday 24 August 2017
• Duration: 97 mins

Been there, done that? Think again, my friend.

Discover Time Out original video

• Press office
• Investor relations
• Work for Time Out
• Editorial guidelines
• Privacy notice
• Do not sell my information
• Cookie policy
• Accessibility statement
• Terms of use
• Modern slavery statement
• Manage cookies
• Advertising

Time Out Worldwide

• All Time Out Locations
• North America
• South America
• South Pacific

Screen Rant

Wendie malick's 10 best movies and tv shows.

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.

10 Best The Owl House Characters, Ranked

No, rey's new jedi order movie hasn't been canceled or delayed, transformers one's violence addressed by director.

The best Wendie Malick movies and TV shows contain a familiar batch of episodic television shows and popular movies, and she has developed a reputation as a familiar face, always ready to deliver a solid performance. After college, Malick became a model before she decided to give acting a try. This led to a small role in a 1982 comedy film called A Little Sex and then a regular role on the ABC medical drama series Trauma Center . That was only the start of her impressive television career.

Malick got her start with TV shows like Another World and Kate & Allie before moving on to major roles in the HBO series Dream On and the sitcom Just Shoot Me! She also started building up some movie roles along the way, such as a role in the Bill Murray Christmas movie Scrooged and Oscar contenders like The American President and Bugsy . Malick has gone on to earn Primetime Emmy and Golden Globe nominations and continues to be an actress, earning rave reviews into her 70s.

10 Just Shoot Me! (1997-2003)

Wendie malick played nina van horn.

Just Shoot Me!

Your rating.

Your comment has not been saved

Just Shoot Me! is a sitcom that aired from 1997 to 2003, centered around the staff of a fictional fashion magazine called Blush. The show stars Laura San Giacomo as Maya Gallo, a journalist who finds herself working alongside eccentric characters including her father Jack Gallo (George Segal), the charming photographer Elliot DiMauro (Enrico Colantoni), and the fashion editor Nina Van Horn (Wendie Malick).

Just Shoot Me! is an NBC sitcom set in the world of a fictional fashion magazine called Blush . The plot follows the magazine's staff members, from the publisher to his daughter and everyone working around them. Geoge Segal ( The Goldbergs ) is the publisher, Laura San Giacomo ( NCIS ) is his daughter, and David Spade plays the publisher's assistant, Dennis Finch. For Wendie Malick, she stars as Nina Van Horn, the fashion editor for the magazine.

Wendie Malick earned 2 Primetime Emmy nominations and one Golden Globe nomination.

Nina is a big part of the show's comedy, a former movie star who retired and was immediately forgotten about. Her lack of continued popularity is a running gag, as are her big stories claiming she slept with rock and roll legends and broke up bands like The Eagles. Just Shoot Me! lasted for seven seasons and 145 episodes, and Malick was a main part of the cast for its entire run. Over its run, Just Shoot Me! earned seven Golden Globe nominations and six Emmy nominations, including three nominations for Malick.

9 Hot In Cleveland (2010-2015)

Wendie malick played victoria chase.

Hot in Cleveland

Hot and Cleveland is an original TV Land series that aired from 2010 to 2015. It is about three best friends from Los Angeles who moved to Cleveland to find the people there more hospitable and welcoming than the youth-obsessed California community. Those three women are Melanie (Valerie Bertinelli), Joy (Jane Leeves), and Victoria (Wendie Malick) . The women accidentally end up in Cleveland and decide to stay, where they end up leasing a home from a sassy caretaker played by Betty White.

Malick received high critical praise for her performance.

Malick plays a five-time divorced former Emmy-winning actress who laments there are no roles left for her other than playing "grandmothers." The series was one of TV Land's most successful, running for six seasons and 128 episodes from 2010 to 2015. Betty White won two SAG Awards for her performance on the series, and Malick received high critical praise for her performance. The series received mostly positive reviews from critics throughout its run.

8 Adventureland (2009)

Wendie malick played mrs. annette brennan.

Adventureland

Starring Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, Adventureland is a coming-of-age film about a college graduate who takes a summer job at a dilapidated amusement park in order to save money for his career. Set in the 1980s and released in 2009, the movie is the first collaboration between the two leads, preceding American Ultra and Café Society.

Adventrueland was a 2009 indie romantic comedy-drama that ended up as a critical darling and was on many best-of lists the year of its release. The film takes place at a theme park called Adventureland where a group of young adults get jobs, including a recent college graduate named James (Jessie Eisenberg) who is saving for a trip to Europe. There, he meets a group of like-minded young adults (Ryan Reynolds, Kristen Stewart, Martin Starr, and more) in a coming-of-age story.

Wendie Malick stars in the film as James's mother , who is the strictest of his two parents. However, as the movie is a coming-of-age story, part of the plot sees her and James start to develop a better understanding of each other. Critics mostly praised the film for its story and great performances, with an 89% fresh Rotten Tomatoes score. It received a Gotham Film Award nomination for Best Ensemble Cast and remains a cult classic.

7 The American President (1995)

Wendie malick played susan sloan.

In 1995, Wendie Malick joined the cast of the Rob Reiner political romantic comedy The American President . The film stars Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepherd as he prepares to run for re-election. Part of the story is Shepherd trying to get a bill passed, even with both political parties being stubborn about it. However, the other part of the story is his role as a lonely widower, and he ends up meeting a new woman, a lawyer (Annette Bening), and falling in love with her.

The Golden Globes awarded the film five nominations, including Best Motion Picture.

Wendie Malick stars in the movie as Susan Sloan, a lawyer who likes to cause problems where none exist and often makes things worse for the President as a result. The American President received great critical reviews, sitting at 91% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, with praise going to the romance and performances. The Golden Globes awarded the film five nominations, including Best Motion Picture. The film was also said to be a big influence on The West Wing .

6 Dear White People (2021)

Wendie malick played geraldine bernadette.

Dear White People

Not available

Dear White People is a Netflix original Comedy Drama that acts as a continuation of the 2014 movie of the same name. Starring Logan Browning, Brandon P. Bell, and DeRon Horton, Dear White People tells the story of a group of black friends who attend a predominantly white Ivy League school. The series lasted for four seasons on Netflix before ending its run in 2021.

Dear White People is a Netflix series based on the 2014 film of the same name and continues the story from that release. The original film was about students at a fictional Winchester University and their struggles with racial inequality. Justin Simin wrote and directed the movie and created the Netflix series, which lasted for four seasons and 40 episodes. Each episode of the series mostly focuses on one person and their interactions and experiences on campus.

Wendie Malick joined the cast in the fourth season as Miss Geraldine Bernadette, a teacher who appeared in three episodes (the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th). Overall, the series received a rather high 88% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but that score was pulled down by Part 4, which only finished with a 67% fresh rating, the only season that didn't break 90% or higher. The series received a 2020 GLAAD Media Award nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series.

5 The Owl House (2020-2023)

Wendie malick played eda clawthorne.

The Owl House

The Owl House is an animated fantasy series that follows Luz Noceda, a teenage human girl who stumbles upon a portal to a magical realm. There, she befriends a rebellious witch named Eda and a tiny warrior named King. Determined to become a witch herself, Luz embarks on various adventures while learning about magic, friendship, and self-discovery. Created by Dana Terrace, the series debuted in 2020 on Disney Channel.

Wendie Malick also has a large collection of animated voice roles over her career. One of her more prestigious turns came in the fantasy Disney series The Owl House . Sadly, the series ended up ending after only three seasons despite receiving widespread acclaim from both critics and fans. The series follows a 14-year-old girl who finds a portal leading to the Demon Realm. The show is the first from Disney to feature a same-sex romantic couple in leading roles.

From the first season of The Owl House, which witches are the best of the bunch, and which are the least interesting?

Wendie Malick voiced the character of Edalyn "Eda" Clawthorne , the Owl Lady from the series, who might be the most powerful witch in the Boiling Isles and who is also the main character Luz's mentor. Both the first and second seasons received perfect 100% Rotten Tomatoes scores from critics, showing universal acclaim. It also received several awards, including a 2021 Peabody Award for Children's & Youth Programming and three GLAAD Media Award nominations.

4 Scrooged (1988)

Wendie malick played wendie cross.

Scrooged is a Christmas comedy film by director Richard Donner, released in 1988. In this modernized take on Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol, Bill Murray stars as a narcissistic and selfish television executive named Frank Cross, who looks to put on a big-budget Christmas show for his network while trampling anyone in his way. However, his plans are interrupted when three ghosts of Christmas visit him to coax him to change his ways.

In 1988, Wendie Malick took on one of her first big movie roles when she appeared in the Bill Murray holiday Christmas movie Scrooged . The film is an adaptation of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol , with Murray playing Frank Cross, a television producer who demands that his staff work on Christmas Eve to put on a live production of A Christmas Carol . Through it all, he has no idea how he is no better than Scrooge from the fictional special he is putting on. Through the night, the three ghosts visit Frank.

Wendie Malick plays Wendie Cross in Scrooged, who is Frank Cross's brother James's wife, and she plays a role when the Ghost of Christmas Present shows Frank how his brother still defends him to his family, even after everything Frank does in the name of selfishness. The movie has a 93% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and remains a holiday cult classic over three decades later. It also received an Oscar nomination for Best Makeup the year of its release.

3 Bugsy (1991)

Wendie malick played inez malick.

Bugsy chronicles the tumultuous life of notorious gangster Bugsy Siegel and his role in the establishment of modern Las Vegas. Directed by Barry Levinson and featuring Warren Beatty in the titular role, the film explores Siegel's ambition, turbulent relationships, and enduring impact on the American criminal underworld.

The best movie that Wendie Malick appeared in throughout her illustrious career is the 1991 crime drama Bugsy . The film follows real-life mobster Bugsy Siegel in the 1940s and focuses on when he went to Los Angeles and fell in love with actress Virginia Hill. Warren Beatty stars as Bugsy in the film, while Annette Bening takes on the role of Virginia. Also in the cast are some notable names, like Harvey Keitel, Ben Kingsley, Bebe Neuwirth, Joe Mantegna, and Elliott Gould.

She nabbed the role of Inez Malick, a woman that Bugsy Siegel met on a train trip.

As for Wendie Malick, this was one of her earlier movie appearances, and she nabbed the role of Inez Malick, a woman that Bugsy Siegel met on a train trip. While it wasn't a big role, it was an important movie when it came out. Directed by Barry Levinson, Bugsy earned 10 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director. It also picked up three acting nominations for Beatty, Keitel, and Kingsley. The film won for Best Art Direction and Best Costume Design.

2 Frasier (2003-2004)

Wendie malick played ronee lawrence.

Fraiser is a comedy-drama sitcom that stars Kelsey Grammer as a psychiatrist who takes up the role of a radio show host in Seattle after his life in Boston is upheaved. A spin-off of the series Cheers, Fraiser follows the titular character adjusting to the single life while caring for his father (a retired police officer,) his brother, and other eccentric co-workers.

Frasier was a spin-off of the popular sitcom Cheers , taking one of the characters from that series and relocating him to the Pacific Northwest, where he was able to break out into a show about him and his eccentric family. Kelsey Grammer plays Frasier Crane, a psychiatrist who takes on a radio show and reconnects with his father (a retired police officer) and brother (another psychiatrist). The series lasted for 11 seasons, although it was brought back for a 12th season, 21 years after the original ended.

She was Niles and Frasier's old babysitter and was the first person to break Frasier's heart when he saw her kissing her boyfriend.

Wendie Malick joined the cast in the final (11th) season as Ronee Crane. She was Niles and Frasier's old babysitter and was the first person to break Frasier's heart when he saw her kissing her boyfriend. It also turns out she is responsible for why Niles compulsively wipes down furniture. Ronee reconnects and then marries Martin (Frasier's dad) in the series finale . That final season has a 100% Rotten Tomatoes score and 94% from the audience. Grammer and David Hyde Pierce both won Emmy Awards for that final season.

1 BoJack Horseman (2014-2020)

Wendie malick played beatrice horseman.

BoJack Horseman

Once the famous star of a hit sitcom, BoJack Horseman has fallen on tough times. Stuck in a major career slump and longing to relive his glory days, BoJack attempts to once more become relevant in an industry that has long since turned its back on him. With a few dysfunctional friends at his side, BoJack begins his long-overdue career comeback.

The best show that Wendie Malick ever appeared in was one where she provided a voice role. Malick voiced the role of Beatrice Horseman , the mother of BoJack Horseman , in the Netflix adult animated series. She appeared in 11 episodes of the series, spread throughout its critically acclaimed run. BoJack Horseman tells the story of an anthropomorphic horse named BoJack, a sitcom star who has since fallen out of favor and wants to find a way to get his fame back.

One of the key things that happens in the series is that fans see that BoJack's mother, Beatrice, is largely responsible for his feelings of loathing and self-doubt...

However, at its heart, BoJack Horseman is about depression and anxiety. It follows the lead character as he alienates everyone around him and remains a self-destructive force in his own life. One of the key things that happens in the series is that fans see that BoJack's mother, Beatrice, is largely responsible for his feelings of loathing and self-doubt, which makes her appearance so important. The series received three Emmy nominations, and Wendie Malick earned an Annie Award nomination in 2018.

• Login / Sign Up

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

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

by Alissa Wilkinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated?

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

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

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

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

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

What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2017’s highest grossing movies in the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As box office analyst Scott Mendelson wrote at Forbes :

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

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

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

Most Popular

• Has Harris pulled ahead of Trump? The state of the 2024 polls, explained.
• One chart shows how Hurricane Helene could turn into a monstrous storm
• Sign up for Vox’s daily newsletter
• Take a mental break with the newest Vox crossword
• Chappell Roan and the problem with fandom

Today, Explained

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

This is the title for the native ad

More in Culture

The toxic stans aren’t the problem, it’s fan culture itself.

Kids love to eat them. Parents love to fight about them.

In the deeply-felt Intermezzo, the celebrity novelist plays chess with God.

There’s enough fun in the WandaVision spinoff to make you forget about the MCU.

His staggering new record cements his dominance in the sport.

The original Kodak camera changed photography forever.

Victoria & Abdul

Brit wit Stephen Fry  once said of Judi Dench , “Railings should be built around her so that all may admire her in an orderly and respectful fashion.”

No need to fence in this glorious dame. It’s far better to simply let Dench loose across a worthy cinematic expanse, judging by her mostly silent yet resoundingly brilliant early moments in “Victoria & Abdul.” This sturdy regal period piece provides a perfect opportunity to properly adore the 82-year-old legend as she revisits the role of Queen Victoria two decades after first playing the indomitable monarch in “ Mrs. Brown .” 

The occasion is the Golden Jubilee celebration held in 1887 to salute her 50 years of rule over the British Empire. After all the royal celebrants in a cavernous dining hall are seated, Her Majesty—a pudgy figure attired in a heavy black gown that droops like a curtain over her ample backside—slowly waddles her way to the head of a table. Her joyless face is as shriveled and sour as an ancient grapefruit as she wordlessly goes about the ritual as swiftly as possible. As the first course is served, she shovels soup into her mouth at such a rapid pace that liquid sloppily cascades down her chin. Later, she swiftly gnaws through a poultry course like a ravenous lawn mower before sneaking in a cat nap before dessert. Meanwhile, protocol requires that once she is done with a dish, others must cease eating as well.

But Victoria’s frown is soon turned upside down when two of her Indian subjects, uprooted from their colonized homeland for the occasion, present her with a ceremonial coin. Both have been warned to not look directly at the queen and Mohammed ( Adeel Akhtar , who emits an amusing Paul Giamatti level of disgruntlement), the older and squatter of the pair, follows the rules. But Abdul ( Ali Fazal ), tall, youthful and quite attractive with a merry twinkle in his eye, can’t help but gaze upon and smile at this lonely old woman. Suddenly, he bends down and kisses her foot. And, just like that, a bolt of mutual affection passes between the queen and the stranger who is about to become her closest companion during the waning years of her reign. That’s when director Stephen Frears , who did so well by Dench with “ Philomena ,” finally flashes— ta da —“Victoria & Abdul” upon the screen.

Those who have seen “Mrs. Brown,” the source of Dench’s first of seven (to date) Oscar nominations, will be familiar with Victoria’s relationship with another commoner, Scotsman John Brown (played with robust cheekiness by Billy Connolly ), after her beloved consort Prince Albert died. Their connection was more a meeting of the minds as her horse-riding partner would challenge her in a way that others did not dare. 

Most of her advisers treat the aging queen as an obstruction they are forced to indulge, especially eldest son Bertie (a frazzled Eddie Izzard , exasperation incarnate) who is anxious to be king. But what bonds the now-grandmotherly Victoria and Abdul, who has an elegiac way of speaking and viewing the world, is how he approaches her as a human being with feelings and not as an intimidating institution. He also serves as a conduit to India, a part of her kingdom that she is forbidden to visit since a fatwa has been placed on her head. His enchanting description of the Taj Mahal in his hometown of Agra leads her to build an elaborate Indian-themed Durbar meeting room in her seaside house on the Isle of Wight complete with ornate white ceiling, imported rugs and peacock throne.

The script by Lee Hall (“ Billy Elliot ”)—“based on real events—mostly,” we are told—smartly allows moviegoers to discover along with Victoria just who this mysterious charmer actually is. Abdul appears to be forthright but will eventually be shown to be prone to omitting inconvenient truths about his past as need be. Initially, he is promoted to a kind of personal assistant. But as he helps the queen with her daily correspondences, she learns this onetime clerk at a prison is a Muslim and requests that he schools her in his native tongue of Urdu as well as in the Koran. When she learns the word for teacher is “munshi,” Victoria declares that will now be Abdul’s official position.

As the queen grows ever fonder of and more reliant on her new soulmate, tensions rise among those in her inner circle including Michael Gambon as Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, Olivia Williams as Baroness Churchill and Paul Higgins as Dr. Reid, the queen’s personal physician. Race, class and out-sized privilege definitely play a role in stoking their shared resentment of being pushed aside by this foreign outsider to the point that an out-right mutiny is eventually threatened.

The costumes, the gorgeous real-life settings and interiors, the just-right lighting, the music—all technical aspects are handled precisely. But if there is a problem with “Victoria & Abdul,” it exists within the imbalance between the movie’s titular twosome. While Fazal is well suited for his role physically and acquits himself as best as he can, there is no way he can come close to keeping up with Dench in the acting department. It is as if a cloud is pitted against a boulder. 

Despite that weakness, there are multiple pleasures to be had by witnessing a powerful, still-vital woman finding unexpected late-life joy of the platonic variety. Sure to bring a smile to anyone’s face is when Victoria and Abdul journey to romantic Florence, where Puccini himself ( Simon Callow ) sings for the queen and her entourage. In fact, the ruler returns the favor by straining to warble Gilbert & Sullivan’s “I’m Called Little Buttercup.” Much like this often-endearing portrait of an odd-couple relationship, it is a little off-key but well worth the experience.

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.

• Tim Pigott-Smith as Sir Henry Ponsonby
• Ali Fazal as Abdul Karim
• Eddie Izzard as Bertie, Prince of Wales
• Judi Dench as Queen Victoria
• Olivia Williams as Baroness Churchill
• Simon Callow as Mr. Puccini
• Michael Gambon as Lord Salisbury

Cinematographer

• Danny Cohen
• Melanie Oliver

Writer (based on the book by)

• Shrabani Basu
• Stephen Frears
• Thomas Newman

Leave a comment

Now playing.

I, The Executioner

The Apprentice

Daddy’s Head

Little Bites

House of Spoils

Memoir of a Snail

V/H/S/Beyond

Apartment 7A

Latest articles.

Fantastic Fest 2024: The Fall, The Birthday, Wake in Fright

Justice for Alex Forrest

Fantastic Fest 2024: Table of Contents

A Communication With Light: Azazel Jacobs on “His Three Daughters”

The best movie reviews, in your inbox.

Advertisement

Supported by

Review: One Vote for ‘Victoria’ Over ‘The Crown’

• Share full article

By Mike Hale

• Jan. 12, 2018

Vicky or Liz? “Victoria” or “The Crown” ? The simultaneous existence of lavish, successful television series dramatizing the lives of the current British queen, Elizabeth II, and her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, makes comparison inevitable.

“Victoria” on PBS and “The Crown” on Netflix have much in common. Each has filmed two seasons with a third on the way. Each features a heroine who feels trapped in her royal role but accomplishes more than is expected of her, while massaging the bruised ego of her husband and consort. Each hopscotches through history, cherry-picking crises and triumphs that fit the demands of episodic storytelling.

Where they differ is in how seriously they’re taken. “Victoria,” created and mostly written by the relatively unknown Daisy Goodwin, has received a handful of Emmy and Bafta nominations for music and makeup. “The Crown,” created and mostly written by the highly credentialed Peter Morgan, has harvested nominations and awards, including a Golden Globe for best drama.

So call me shallow, or just contrary, for preferring the breezy, full-blooded pleasures of “Victoria” to the more finely wrought, stiffer virtues of “The Crown.” Who would have thought that the person for whom the Victorian Era was named would be this much fun?

Season 2 of “Victoria” on “Masterpiece,” which begins Sunday with a two-hour episode and runs for seven weeks (ending with what was a separate Christmas special in Britain), covers the first half of the 1840s. The young queen begins producing what will eventually be a brood of nine children, while presiding over disasters like the British retreat from Kabul and the Irish potato famine. A new prime minister, Robert Peel (Nigel Lindsay), has her respect but not the love she felt for his predecessor, Lord Melbourne (Rufus Sewell).

Ms. Goodwin stays true to her conception of Victoria as a combination of coquettish flibbertigibbet, tough proto-feminist and compassionate, perhaps too-good-to-be-true liberal humanist. She recoils when labeled “pleasingly fecund,” suffers through a bout of postpartum depression, is forgiving of the staff’s peccadilloes and shakes hands with the black American actor Ira Aldridge (Ashley Zhangazha) — an audacious move in that era — when he comes to the palace to declaim lines from “Othello.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Apple Pay Wednesday

Today only! Save $5 off your order with Apple Pay.

Special offer.

Buy a Ticket, Save 50% off on Terrifier 2 to watch at home.

Fandango offer: gift, give or receive a ticket to the forge.

Buy a ticket for yourself and everyone else you want to share the movie with through The Kingdom Builders Gifted Ticket Program.

Get Deadpool's Premium Package Today!

Get Deadpool's Premium Package - Includes 2 tickets to Deadpool & Wolverine, the Official Best Friends Necklaces, and more

Rediscover the magic of hogwarts.

Save on select movies and get up to $5.00 towards a movie ticket* to see Transformers One in theaters.

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

• 88% Transformers One Link to Transformers One
• 100% Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story Link to Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story
• 98% His Three Daughters Link to His Three Daughters

New TV Tonight

• 100% Colin from Accounts: Season 2
• 100% Matlock: Season 1
• 100% Brilliant Minds: Season 1
• 67% Murder in a Small Town: Season 1
• 43% Rescue: HI-Surf: Season 1
• -- Grotesquerie: Season 1
• -- Nobody Wants This: Season 1
• -- Everybody Still Hates Chris: Season 1
• -- Doctor Odyssey: Season 1
• -- Social Studies: Season 1

Most Popular TV on RT

• 94% The Penguin: Season 1
• 79% Agatha All Along: Season 1
• 63% The Perfect Couple: Season 1
• 86% High Potential: Season 1
• 47% Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story: Season 2
• 67% Twilight of the Gods: Season 1
• 100% From: Season 3
• 74% Kaos: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV

Certified fresh pick

• 78% Agatha All Along: Season 1 Link to Agatha All Along: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

The 100 Best Horror Movies of the 1970s

100 Best Movies on Disney Plus (September 2024)

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Lupita Nyong’o Explains How Variety Has Guided Her Career Decisions on The Awards Tour Podcast

TV Premiere Dates 2024

• Trending on RT
• Hispanic Heritage Month
• Best 2024 Action Movies
• TV Premiere Dates
• Best ’90s TV Shows

Prey for the Devil Reviews

While Stamm’s latest effort isn’t the worst the genre has on offer, it is one of the most frustrating— filled with promise that is quickly exorcized.

Full Review | Nov 2, 2023

Prey for the Devil tries to be religious, feminist, terrifying and led by a nuanced protagonist, but it fails on almost all fronts. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Jan 3, 2023

Offering a little twist on the typical exorcist movie, Prey for the Devil combines jump scares with hypotheses on possession and exorcism...

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/5 | Jan 3, 2023

The viewer who came for more will be disappointed. Those who wanted impossible twists and sudden frights seen a thousand times get a fair amount. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Dec 28, 2022

Ultimately, Prey for the Devil is a very hammy movie that almost feels like it was made in the 80s, back when audiences got these ridiculous horror films.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/10 | Nov 30, 2022

So derivate of (the Exorcist), and even the films it inspired… when there are so many better films like this flooding streaming services, it begs the question – why do we need another?

Full Review | Original Score: 1/5 | Nov 17, 2022

Dull, scare-free and absurd.

Full Review | Original Score: C+ | Nov 11, 2022

Not enough chills or thrills to make this anything but average entertainment.

Full Review | Original Score: 5/10 | Nov 10, 2022

Prey For The Devil is as generic and cliche' as an exorcism/possession movie can be. The visuals, story, and scares are all retreads of things we have seen many times before and done much better in the past.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Nov 4, 2022

Prey for the Devil could have been something, but is nothing more than average. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Nov 2, 2022

Prey for the Devil struggles to exercise the cliched demons haunting its runtime.

It feels like a movie that was built to come out in the dead zone of winter.

Full Review | Original Score: 1/5 | Nov 2, 2022

[The film] is a tired-ass therapy session posing as a horror flick, one that would be far easier to endure if it wasn’t so self-serious, which makes sense given the thematics at hand, but robs the proceedings of anything even remotely resembling fun.

Full Review | Oct 31, 2022

If terror is often measured by the scares it causes, I suppose that in this line the balance is not so negative. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 50/50 | Oct 31, 2022

Interesting bits aside, “Prey for the Devil” still can’t quite get over the hurdle of familiarity. There’s just too much that feels rehashed from countless other films.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Oct 31, 2022

Like many exorcist movies, this one is beautiful to look at (old churches, libraries, stained glass windows), but it has the energy of a sloth, as if it drifted off while gazing at things.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Oct 30, 2022

Director Daniel Stamm brings a fresh take on exorcism movies for the first two-thirds of the movie until the final sequence when it treads familiar territory.

Full Review | Original Score: B | Oct 29, 2022

While it does attempt to modernize the subgenre with its setting and female lead, it lacks what makes exorcism films so affecting and makes some questionable choices that keep Catholicism’s archaic rule alive.

Full Review | Oct 29, 2022

Far from the worst exorcism story ever, it nevertheless squanders a potentially riveting premise in favor of the same old, same old.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/4 | Oct 28, 2022

This is just another regurgitation of yesterday's devout scare tactics, spewing diet Exorcist clichés as freely as Linda Blair once painted the walls in pea soup.

Full Review | Oct 28, 2022