the reader movie review rotten tomatoes

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors, how your own secret shame can create all-devouring evil.

Now streaming on:

The crucial decision in "The Reader" is made by a 24-year-old youth, who has information that might help a woman about to be sentenced to life in prison, but withholds it. He is ashamed to reveal his affair with this woman. By making this decision, he shifts the film's focus from the subject of German guilt about the Holocaust and turns it on the human race in general. The film intends his decision as the key to its meaning, but most viewers may conclude that "The Reader" is only about the Nazis' crimes and the response to them by post-war German generations.

The film centers on a sexual relationship between Hanna ( Kate Winslet ), a woman in her mid-30s, and Michael (David Kross), a boy of 15. That such things are wrong is beside the point; they happen, and the story is about how it connected with her earlier life and his later one. It is powerfully, if sometimes confusingly, told in a flashback framework and powerfully acted by Winslet and Kross, with Ralph Fiennes coldly enigmatic as the elder Michael.

The story begins with the cold, withdrawn Michael in middle age (Fiennes), and moves back to the late 1950s on a day when young Michael is found sick and feverish in the street and taken back to Hanna's apartment to be cared for. This day, and all their days together, will be obsessed with sex. Hanna makes little pretense of genuinely loving Michael, who she calls "kid," and although Michael has a helpless crush on Hanna, it should not be confused with love. He is swept away by the discovery of his own sexuality.

What does she get from their affair? Sex, certainly, but it seems more important that he read aloud to her: "Reading first. Sex afterwards." The director, Stephen Daldry , portrays them with a great deal of nudity and sensuality, which is correct, because for those hours, in that place, they are about nothing else.

One day Hanna disappears. Michael finds her apartment deserted, with no hint or warning. His unformed ego is unprepared for this blow. Eight years later, as a law student, he enters a courtroom and discovers Hanna in a group of Nazi prison guards being tried for murder. Something during this trial suddenly makes another of her secrets clear to him and might help explain why she became a prison guard. His discovery does not excuse her unforgivable guilt. Still, it might affect her sentencing. Michael remains silent.

The adult Michael has sentenced himself to a lonely, isolated existence. We see him after a night with a woman, treating her with remote politeness. He has never recovered from the wound he received from Hanna, nor from the one he inflicted on himself eight years after. She hurt him, he hurt her. She was isolated and secretive after the war, he became so after the trial. The enormity of her sin far outweighs his, but they are both guilty of allowing harm because they reject the choice to do good.

At the film's end, Michael encounters a Jewish woman in New York ( Lena Olin ), who eviscerates him with her moral outrage. She should. But she thinks he seeks understanding for Hanna. Not so. He cannot forgive Hanna's crimes. He seeks understanding for himself, although perhaps he doesn't realize that. In the courtroom, he withheld moral witness and remained silent, as she did, as most Germans did. And as many of us have done or might be capable of doing.

There are enormous pressures in all human societies to go along. Many figures involved in the recent Wall Street meltdown have used the excuse, "I was only doing my job. I didn't know what was going on." President Bush led us into war on mistaken premises, and now says he was betrayed by faulty intelligence. U.S. military personnel became torturers because they were ordered to. Detroit says it was only giving us the cars we wanted. The Soviet Union functioned for years because people went along. China still does.

Many of the critics of "The Reader" seem to believe it is all about Hanna's shameful secret. No, not her past as a Nazi guard. The earlier secret that she essentially became a guard to conceal. Others think the movie is an excuse for soft-core porn disguised as a sermon. Still others say it asks us to pity Hanna. Some complain we don't need yet another "Holocaust movie." None of them think the movie may have anything to say about them. I believe the movie may be demonstrating a fact of human nature: Most people, most of the time, all over the world, choose to go along. We vote with the tribe.

What would we have done during the rise of Hitler? If we had been Jews, we would have fled or been killed. But if we were one of the rest of the Germans? Can we guess, on the basis of how most white Americans, from the North and South, knew about racial discrimination but didn't go out on a limb to oppose it? Philip Roth's great novel The Plot Against America imagines a Nazi takeover here. It is painfully thought-provoking and probably not unfair. "The Reader" suggests that many people are like Michael and Hanna, and possess secrets that we would do shameful things to conceal.

Roger Ebert

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

Now playing

Mary & George

Cristina escobar.

The People's Joker

Clint worthington.

It's Only Life After All

Sheila o'malley.

Steve! (Martin): A Documentary in Two Pieces

Brian tallerico.

Glenn Kenny

Film credits.

The Reader (2008)

Rated R for some scenes of sexuality and nudity

124 minutes

Bruno Ganz as Professor Rohl

Lena Olin as Rose/Ilana

Kate Winslet as Hanna Schmitz

Directed by

• Stephen Daldry

Based on the novel by

• Bernhard Schlink

Latest blog posts

Death Feels Very Close: Ryûsuke Hamaguchi on Evil Does Not Exist

Speed Kills: On the 25th Anniversary of Go

Joanna Arnow Made Her BDSM Comedy for You

The Movies That Underwent Major Changes After Their Festival Premiere

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• 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

Explaining the News to Our Kids

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

Celebrating Black History Month

Movies and TV Shows with Arab Leads

Celebrate Hip-Hop's 50th Anniversary

Common sense media reviewers.

Literary adaptation tackles sex, shame, and guilt.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Extensive discussion of the Holocaust; extensive d

Hannah is a difficult character to place into a po

Some scuffling; a woman slaps a man. Depiction of

Extensive depictions of sexual activity, with freq

Some strong language, including "Nazi" and "whore.

Some mention of brands like Siemens and BASF elect

Extensive smoking; characters also drink hard liqu

Parents need to know that this mature drama revolves around the sexual relationship between a 15-year-old boy and a much older woman. There are extensive sex scenes, full-frontal nudity, and a real, raw sense of sensuality throughout the first half of the film. The woman is later revealed to be an ex-Nazi prison guard…

Positive Messages

Extensive discussion of the Holocaust; extensive discussion of German complicity and guilt during the Holocaust, as well as the nation's attempts to come to terms with the Nazi era in the post-war years. Discussions of morality versus legality .

Positive Role Models

Hannah is a difficult character to place into a positive or negative box. Regardless, her actions have consequences and she is forced to face them.

Violence & Scariness

Some scuffling; a woman slaps a man. Depiction of a suicide. Discussion of prisoners burning to death while trapped inside a burning church, as well as the mass-murder mechanics of the Holocaust.

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

Sex, Romance & Nudity

Extensive depictions of sexual activity, with frequent sex scenes and images of male and female full-frontal nudity. The film revolves around a sexual relationship between a 15-year-old boy and a woman twice his age. That said, she doesn't force him into anything (or vice versa) -- the two consensually embark on their highly volatile, charged erotic relationship.

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

Some strong language, including "Nazi" and "whore."

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

Products & Purchases

Some mention of brands like Siemens and BASF electronics, as well as books like Huckleberry Finn , Tintin , Lady Chatterly's Lover , and more.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Extensive smoking; characters also drink hard liquor and beer.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that this mature drama revolves around the sexual relationship between a 15-year-old boy and a much older woman. There are extensive sex scenes, full-frontal nudity, and a real, raw sense of sensuality throughout the first half of the film. The woman is later revealed to be an ex-Nazi prison guard on trial for her actions during the war; this involves extensive discussion of Nazi Germany's crimes against Jews and other victims of the Holocaust. There's also lots of talk about heavy, complex topics like complicity, guilt, shame, forgiveness, and responsibility. It's worth noting that even with the story's powerful undercurrent of eroticism, the Bernhard Schlink book it's based on is a staple of German high school class reading. 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.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (9)
• Kids say (2)

Based on 9 parent reviews

mixed opinion

I enjoyed it., what's the story.

Beginning in the mid-'90s, THE READER introduces successful lawyer Michael Berg ( Ralph Fiennes ) as he thinks back on the past and struggles with some heavy burden. The film then shifts to 1950s Germany, when young Michael (David Kross) meets and begins a passionate affair with the much older Hannah Schmitz ( Kate Winslet ). Their lovemaking is almost completely anonymous -- her only request is that he read to her before they make love, everything from classics to comic books. The affair ends, but years later, when Michael is in law school, he has the chance to observe the trial of a group of women who served as Nazi prison camp guards -- one of whom is Hannah. As the film flickers between the past and present, viewers learn how Michael reached out to Hannah in her imprisonment -- and what he could, and could not, forgive her for.

Is It Any Good?

The Reader is going to be a tough sell for audiences. It starts out focused on the erotic relationship between a 15-year-old and a woman twice his age before turning into a wordy, wrenching drama about guilt, shame, and responsibility. The film's central dramatic twist is also somewhat unsatisfying, and other films -- like Judgment at Nuremberg and The Night Porter -- have tackled the consequences of Naziism and the intertwining of sex and power in post-war Germany with much greater skill and vision.

At the same time, Winslet's performance is a marvel -- shifting from unsentimental sexuality to thawing affection to terrified guilt and beaten-down remorse throughout the film and spanning four decades in the portrait of a woman's life. If any one thing makes The Reader worth seeing, it's her work. Kross is also quite good as the young Michael, portraying both the callow joys and confidences of boyhood and the uncertain moral questions of the young man he grows to be. Director Stephen Daldry has previously adapted tough, serious literary works for the screen, and The Reader , like his earlier film The Hours , is perhaps a bit too polished and thoughtful when a bit more raw direct force would have made for a better film. (Fiennes, for example, is largely wasted -- a rarity in his body of work.) The Reader is a fine and admirable film, but the curious mix of white-hot sexuality and bitter-cold remorse makes for a curiously unsatisfying dramatic experience.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about the controversy around the film's central relationship. Some commentators suggest that if the genders of the partners were reversed, their relationship would be seen as purely abusive and immoral. Do you agree?

What messages is the movie sending about sex and relationships?

Families can also discuss the film's central question: How can Germans put Nazi crimes and the Holocaust into perspective in the present?

How is this movie similar to and different from other movies that deal with those events/issues?

Movie Details

• In theaters : December 10, 2008
• On DVD or streaming : April 14, 2009
• Cast : David Kross , Kate Winslet , Ralph Fiennes
• Director : Stephen Daldry
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : Weinstein Co.
• Genre : Drama
• Run time : 120 minutes
• MPAA rating : R
• MPAA explanation : some scenes of sexuality and nudity
• Last updated : April 4, 2024

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

Our editors recommend.

The Diary of Anne Frank

Schindler's List

Life Is Beautiful

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

Political movies, best epic movies.

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.

• Become a Critical Movie Critic
• Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: The Reader (2008)

• Caitlin Maggs
• Movie Reviews
• 8 responses
• --> February 1, 2009

Based on Bernhard Schlink’s 1995 Holocaust novel of the same name, The Reader balances brilliantly the dark, menacing undertones of war (and the ugly things one must do to survive) with the innocent purity of first love. This combination of opposites works incredibly well to produce a controversial film that challenges the very beliefs which make us human.

It all begins with Kate Winslet’s spell-binding performance as Hanna Schmitz, as she seduces a 15-year old Michael Berg (David Kross) in the summer of 1958. This seduction leads to a torrid and secretive romance which abruptly and devastatingly ends at the change of the seasons. The story, told through the unknowing eyes of the heartbroken, love-struck school boy years later when he is an adult (and played by Ralph Fiennes), is a recollection of happenings starting when he bore witness to a trial of several females accused of being SS guards involved with the killing of hundreds of Jewish women during WWII. To his disbelief, he learns that the woman he loved and read to as a young man is one of the accused. However, as the trial progresses Michael comes to know of a closely guarded secret of Hanna’s that could lessen her sentence; but should he reveal it even though she doesn’t want anyone to know of it?

Constantly tampering with the audience’s sympathy and echoing many of the complicated emotional aspects of Joe Wright’s Atonement , The Reader is an unusual Hollywood product. You feel, while watching this film, the pages actually turn as the scenes progress, gradually building up with tension to the unexpected climax. You become attached to the characters and easily identify with their plight throughout the duration of the movie. This is certainly not a strong talent many of today’s film-makers possess, so director Stephen Daldry should be commended for his effort (as should screen writer David Hare for his difficult job of adapting the novel for the screen).

Having similar narrative traits to Stanley Kubrick’s classic A Clockwork Orange , The Reader holds the same uniqueness in being able to tap into the viewer’s mind and debate how far punishments should go in a civilized, “humane” society. If I was to sum-up this understated adaptation in three words, I would use: Romantic; Thought-provoking; Refreshing. It deserves much of the praise the Academy is lauding upon it.

I'm a hopeless romantic and will tend to watch anything in that genre. My favourite shows are Doctor Who, Grey's Anatomy, The Vicar Of Dibley, Charmed and Jane Austen adaptations. Movies I enjoy are Narnia, Indiana Jones, Walk The Line, musicals like Oklahoma and Sound Of Music. X

Movie Review: An Education (2009) Movie Review: The Time Traveler’s Wife (2009) Movie Review: Doubt (2008) Movie Review: Brideshead Revisited (2008) Movie Review: The Duchess (2008) Movie Review: Miss Potter (2006) Movie Review: Hoodwinked! (2005)

'Movie Review: The Reader (2008)' have 8 comments

February 2, 2009 @ 9:46 am straight1

I am telling friends everywhere of this site. Unanimous agreement = positive. I tried to get involved with The Reader, but was distracted and cut it off. After reading this post, I will try again. Thought provoking means just that – be prepared to think. . . a vanishing trait within our “pop” culture.

Log in to Reply

February 3, 2009 @ 11:22 am Jenny Stevens

I have been hearing some really mixed reviews on this movie. Of course most of the negative ones are from those who are opposed to a grown woman being with a teen boy. But they need to remember that this is just a story.

February 4, 2009 @ 8:21 am Alex

Finnaly something different. I am so sick and tired of stupid teenagers in stupid comedies, Transporter type crap movies and so on. I hope it will worth the time. The review looks promising :)

February 6, 2009 @ 11:09 am AliMustafa

This really is something different to what i have seem for the whole year, worth the watch

February 14, 2009 @ 5:07 pm Khan

The movie is really thought provoking, Kate has done as usuall mind blowing job i just liked her more after watching this movie. She really deserve an Oscar for her performance is this movie.

March 4, 2009 @ 7:02 pm Kostya

It is just a typical German tragedy = a former SS offier and a teenage boy not being able to be together. How romantic! I feel so sorry for them. My relatives would have been sorry too, if they would have made it through Auschwitz

July 10, 2009 @ 6:21 pm Winson John

I saw this movie only because Kate was acting in this film. Acting was as usual brilliant by Kate and deservedly she won Oscar for her great performance. Story was very touching and it shows how lucky we are to read and write when there are many who are deprived of this great privilege because of either poverty or life circumstances.

Movie ending was sad with death of Kate, which I never expected. Overall it was a great must see movie. My rating 8 out of 10.

May 16, 2010 @ 4:33 pm Malydala

I really enjoyed this film and it did indeed make the characters very accessible. I feel people should read the book to get the full justice of the story though because many crucial scenes were left out. (I realize you cannot put everything on screen)I feel that the movie overall has a softer edge to it than the novel and that more sympathy is given to Kate’s character Hanna. In the book she is much more cold and I feel it makes the dilemmas that both characters are struggling with that much more complex and deep. Even with that being said, I own the book and the movie both in English and in German and I think they are amazing and a must see/read. Happy movie watching. Maly

Privacy Policy | About Us

 |  Log in

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

T he Reader is an exemplary piece of filmmaking, superbly acted by Kate Winslet, David Kross and Ralph Fiennes, beautifully lit by two of Britain's finest cinematographers (Roger Deakins and Chris Menges) and sensitively directed by Stephen Daldry from a screenplay by David Hare. In certain ways they sharpen Bernard Schlink's bestselling German novel of 1995 which deals with a subject - Nazi concentration camps and the Holocaust - that has hung over my generation since the outbreak of war in 1939, days after my sixth birthday.

In 1940, we were made aware of the camps satirically by Chaplin's The Great Dictator, and sombrely by the Boulting brothers' film about the incarceration of the anti-Nazi cleric Martin Niemöller, Pastor Hall. Five years later newsreel from Belsen and Buchenwald showed us what went on inside those camps.

Since then, there has been an unending stream of Holocaust movies (nearly 300 are dealt with in the third edition of Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust, Annette Insdorf's standard work on the subject), ranging in character and quality from scrupulous documentaries like Claude Lanzmann's Shoah and Alain Resnais's Night and Fog to, for me personally, the two most offensive, Liliana Cavani's near-pornographic The Night Porter and Roberto Benigni's sickly Oscar-winning Life is Beautiful.

Ralph Fiennes made an unforgettable impression as Amon Goeth, the demonic commandant of the Plaszow forced labour camp in Schindler's List, the most widely shown movie on the Holocaust. So a provocative statement of some sort is being made by casting him as Michael Berg, the innocent narrator of The Reader. Born in Neustadt, Germany in 1944, the gifted son of a liberal intellectual, Berg is a successful lawyer who reviews his troubled life from the perspective of 1995 Berlin, and it's immediately clear that his experiences have left him secretive, inward-looking, emotionally stunted in a way that recalls the form and moral tenor of the Losey-Pinter film of The Go-Between.

The movie is in three sections, with a couple of codas. In the first chapter, set in 1958, the 15-year-old Michael (David Kross) meets the voluptuous Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet), a kindly tram conductress more than twice his age. She provides his sexual initiation and sentimental education in the manner of such celebrated Continental novels as Raymond Radiguet's Le Diable au corps. In return she asks him to read to her before and after sex, and he regales her with The Odyssey, Huckleberry Finn, War and Peace and (a book she thinks disgusting) Lady Chatterley's Lover. The eroticism of reading brings to mind Michel Deville's La Lectrice, and the lovers' activities at their trysts complement each other.

If you left the film after 45 minutes at the point when Hanna mysteriously disappears from Michael's life, and were unacquainted with the novel, you'd have thought it a wistful rite of passage, rather like Summer of '42 or The Graduate. But there are carefully planted clues to the tale's subsequent surprises. First, there is Hanna's reluctance to look at any text, be it a book, a travel brochure or a menu, or to write anything. What is she avoiding? The second is the emphasis placed on her uniform as a public transport employee. This gives her an official, military look.

The second chapter unfolds in 1966 when Michael is a law student at Heidelberg, still yearning for Hanna. A sympathetic teacher, Professor Rohl (played by Bruno Ganz, who brings to this impeccable liberal figure a whiff of his Hitler in Downfall) launches a seminar for bright pupils to scrutinise the issues of guilt and crimes against humanity and takes them to a trial in a nearby town.

There, Michael discovers to his horror that Hanna and other Auschwitz guards are in the dock, accused of appalling conduct at the camp and a callous atrocity while escorting a death march of Jewish prisoners away from the advancing Russians. Ironically, it is a book by a Jewish survivor that has occasioned the trial.

Hanna does little to clear her name and it becomes evident to us and to Michael that this is in some way connected - I will say no more - with literacy. She is, apparently out of pride and shame, willing to accept greater blame than her co-defendants, a frumpy collection of middle-aged women, quite unlike the comely Hanna. Moreover, for a congeries of reasons, Michael doesn't come to her assistance. He feels betrayed, morally tainted, ethically disoriented and unforgiving.

The third chapter covers Hanna's lengthy jail sentence, during which Michael communicates with her fervently but only via cassettes of great literary works. Thereafter comes a pair of codas, one concerning the divorced Michael's reconciliation with his estranged daughter, the other a visit he makes to New York to see an Auschwitz survivor, one of the witnesses at Hanna's trial She's played with an icy moral superiority by Lena Olin and most of her excellent dialogue is provided by Hare. "What do you think those places were - universities?" she asks the anguished Michael. "What are you looking for? Forgiveness for her or to feel better about yourself? If you are looking for catharsis, go to the theatre or literature. Don't go to the camps."

This double-edged statement brings into question much of what has gone before. The reflections on guilt, responsibility and the relationship between generations are betrayed by the contrived fiction into which they've been inserted by Schlink, a lawyer born in 1944 who writes detective stories. Scene by scene, we're gripped, but the metaphor is elusive, the narrative unconvincing and the overall effect vague and unpersuasive. The key clicks smoothly in the lock but no doors of perception open up.

I'm also a little troubled by the movie being made in English. And, disconcertingly, the books Michael reads from are English versions. Won't this be odd when, as almost certainly it will be, the movie is dubbed into German?

• Kate Winslet
• The Observer
• Ralph Fiennes
• Period and historical films
• Drama films
• Stephen Daldry

Most viewed

The Reader (2008)

• 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

• Tickets & Showtimes
• Trending on RT

Debating the Merits of The Reader

Oscar-worthy or revisionist whitewashing.

When you read the list of Best Picture nominations for this year’s Academy Awards and saw The Reader nestled in between Slumdog Millionare and Milk, were you surprised? Well, you’re in good company — and for some, the response goes further than mere surprise: There’s a small backlash movement brewing among writers who believe The Reader makes some questionable (to say the least) statements about the Holocaust, and this week, Slate’s Ron Rosenbaum and the Huffington Post’s Rod Lurie used their columns to make a case against the film.

In a piece titled “Don’t Give an Oscar to The Reader ,” Rosenbaum leads off by calling The Reader “the worst Holocaust film ever made,” and goes on from there to build a detailed three-page argument against giving it the highest honor the film industry has to offer — and pauses to scrutinize what he deems similar offenses in Valkyrie . Read the whole article by following the link below.

Offering a similar opinion, Rod Lurie wrote a column titled “The Holocaust Revisionism of Hollywood,” which he leads off by saying The Reader “gives ammunition to Holocaust negationists,” goes on to reference Ron Rosenbaum’s article, and from there proceeds to offer a point-by-point dismantling of the film’s presentation of World War II history. It isn’t as long as Rosenbaum’s article, but it reaches the same conclusion — The Reader doesn’t deserve a Best Picture nomination.

Of course, you could find (or make) an argument against pretty much any nomination — but in this case, the film in question has stirred up feelings that run deeper than simple dislike for a film. Check out both articles, and see what you think: Should The Reader have gone down as one of 2008’s best movies?

Source: Slate (Ron Rosenbaum article) Source: The Huffington Post (Rod Lurie article)

Related News

50 Movies & TV Shows to Netflix and Chill with This Valentine’s Day

40 Fresh Movies and Netflix Originals Streaming in November

RT on DVD: Frank Miller Talks The Spirit , Michel Gondry Releases New Music Video DVD

Weekend Box Office Results: Challengers Takes the Crown

Rotten Tomatoes’ 300 Best Movies of All Time

The Most Anticipated Movies of 2024

Movie & TV News

Featured on rt.

April 29, 2024

30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming

Top Headlines

• Rotten Tomatoes’ 300 Best Movies of All Time –
• Best Horror Movies of 2024 Ranked – New Scary Movies to Watch –
• 30 Most Popular Movies Right Now: What to Watch In Theaters and Streaming –
• All Zendaya Movies Ranked by Tomatometer –
• Video Game TV Shows Ranked by Tomatometer –
• All Alien Movies Ranked –

Review by Brian Eggert December 18, 2008

Asking bold and unanswerable questions about morality and the limits of forgiveness, The Reader presents a Nazi character in three-dimensional terms, refuses to damn its subject outright, and instead considers the entire picture. And not just the horrifying sections therein. Screenwriter David Hare adapts the heavily circulated novel by Bernhard Schlink, retaining its probing themes of conscientious ignorance and the eventual acceptance of responsibility with surprising sensitivity.

The story begins in Berlin around 1958, wholly engulfed in WWII’s shadow. Teenager Michael Berg (David Kross) finds himself sick on the way home from school; he’s rescued by Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet), a woman in her thirties who escorts him home. When finally cured after months with Scarlet Fever, he looks her up to thank her, and the two engage in a sudden affair. Director of Billy Elliot and The Hours , Stephen Daldry constructs honest bedroom scenes that are curiously frank and, like a Rembrandt painting, avoid sexual exploitation to reside in natural and psychological nakedness. Hanna asks that she be read to as their pre-coital ritual, and Michael proceeds, doing everything she asks, always on her terms. But eventually she realizes their affair has held him back from a normal teen life, and she disappears.

Years later, Michael attends a law school seminar under a Socratic professor (Bruno Ganz), who takes his students to witness an ethically perplexing case that will shed light on the course’s theme of morality vs. law. In court, Michael watches as Hanna is placed on trial, much to his shock and revulsion, for her time as an SS Guard at Auschwitz, where she and nine other guards decided who was sent for execution and who lived. Hanna bears a childlike confusion at the trial, responding to the questions with a blind honesty and orderly sensibility. She’s specifically accused of allowing three hundred Jewish victims to burn to death in a church fire; the doors were locked, and if she and the other guards opened the doors to save them, the prisoners would’ve escaped. As a guard, it was her duty to keep order, thus she couldn’t open the doors. Emotion never entered into it—and certainly no inner dialogue about right and wrong.

Drafting Hanna as a human character versus an inhuman Nazi comes at a great price for the film, which is unlike any cinematic exploration of the Holocaust in that it views the events in gray terms. Of course, how can we blindly empathize with a Nazi who failed to prevent the deaths of three-hundred people based on some deranged sense of duty? Then again, what about the rest of her life? Through Michael’s eyes, his version of Hanna is the lover from his memories of adolescence. Her Nazi side is unreal, something he hasn’t experienced or witnessed, therefore he can forget about that aspect of her life and remember her fondly. Hanna plainly says she lives in the moment and resists brooding on the past (not that this is any consolation or redemptive argument for her judgment). Indeed, the film weighs how the postwar generation of Germans live with the darkness of their past, and uses the key of reading, rather illiteracy, as a clear metaphor for how much of the country systematically played ignorant to the Hitler-purveyed atrocities around them.

The film’s structure is told in long flashbacks remembered by an older, emotionally distant Michael, played by Ralph Fiennes. The broken timeline jumps back and forth, flashbacks within flashbacks, which is more distracting than dramatically effective. Shown in the decades following, he remembers Hanna at lonely or ponderous times, sometimes affectionately, but never dismisses or grants her forgiveness for her role during the war. The Reader doesn’t excuse Hanna’s actions, leaving her judgment, however uncertain, up to the viewer. How you feel about Hanna is something you’ll debate with yourself long after the end credits.

Some critics have argued the film invalidates itself when in one of the last scenes Michael visits Ilana Mather, the daughter of the church fire’s sole survivor. Played by Lena Olin, Ilana tells Michael, who in pseudo-confessional has come to explain his relationship with Hanna, “Go to the theater if you want catharsis.” In effect, because it tells a story that treats a Nazi with humanist consideration and spends comparatively little time mourning for the Jewish dead, Ilana waves off films of this sort as unrealistic. And no doubt she would condemn this film specifically for lamenting the death of Hanna. But the story poses big questions to its audience, unlike this year’s very cut-and-dry The Boy in the Striped Pajamas , by asking you to consider individuals over events.

The production recalls The English Patient or The Talented Mr. Ripley in its sensitive yet profoundly complex tone, which makes sense, because the director of those films, the late Anthony Minghella, co-produced this picture along with the late Sydney Pollack ( Out of Africa ). Both Minghella and Pollack, to whom this film is dedicated, specialized in romances of an epic scale; both engaged complicated and often unsympathetic characters with an open mind, and both earned due attention from Mr. Oscar. No doubt Daldry’s film will be acknowledged by Academy voters as one of this year’s best, though the film’s impact rests chiefly on the shoulders of Kate Winslet, whose performance embodies the complex feelings held by the audience.

Winslet’s presence onscreen is simply haunting, leaving the viewer unsure how to feel about her Hanna Schmitz. She displays an omnipresent obsession for control and order, yet underneath resides an evident desire to escape. Exhibiting hints of nuanced complexity and inner disorder amid an exterior of straightforward mechanical regulation, Winslet does what only Claude Rains in Alfred Hitchcock’s Notorious has done before: she creates a Nazi character who, though contemptibly involved in a monstrous faction, still shows evidence of compassionate humanity. Her performance offers some of the finest acting this year; perhaps she’ll finally earn that Oscar that’s eluded her so many times in the past.

The Reader will challenge your humanist views, if they exist, by presenting a moral dilemma under the gravest of circumstances. Whereas the Holocaust has become an easy go-to historical epoch for dramatic storytelling, this story changes convention and curiously offers ignorance as another piece of a puzzle—not as an excuse to the Hannas out there, but as a chief symptom of an atrocity we’re still desperately trying to understand. Our emotional reactions surprise us, especially our empathy for the curious relationship that ensues, despite its clearly disturbing undertones. And although the film offers no solution to the pained questions of culpability and intention, its haunting effect is undeniable and will leave you pondering for days to come.

Related Titles

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• The Beast 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Challengers 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Infested 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Boy Kills World 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Tuesday 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Rebel Moon - Part Two: The Scargiver 0.5 Star ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Sasquatch Sunset 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Abigail 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Civil War 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• LaRoy, Texas 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Blackout 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Monkey Man 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Short Take: Baghead 2 Stars ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 4
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 3
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - 3 movies you need to see in theaters now
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 2
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 1
• MSPIFF 2024
• The Definitives: Ocean's Eleven
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Twelve
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Thirteen
• The Definitives: The Abyss

About this movie

Ratings and reviews.

• Flag inappropriate

• Show review history

7 best Netflix movies with 100% on Rotten Tomatoes

These movies on Netflix have perfect scores on Rotten Tomatoes

It’s not easy to get critics to agree on anything. Even the most revered classic movies usually end up with a handful of dissenting voices on Rotten Tomatoes , the website that aggregates reviews. So it’s rare to find a movie that receives unanimous praise, scoring a perfect 100%  “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes. 

Often those movies are hidden gems that critics have discovered, but that wider audiences don’t necessarily know about. The best Netflix movies with 100% Rotten Tomatoes ratings represent a mix of genres and tones, from low-budget dramas to effects-filled horror. What they all have in common is that the people who evaluate movies for a living agree on their worthiness. That’s more than enough reason to stream these five movies now.

The horrors in His House come from the expected apparitions that plague a couple after moving into their new home, but they really begin before that. Sope Dirisu and Wunmi Mosaku play a husband and wife who flee from the dangers of war in South Sudan. Their journey to the U.K. is just as treacherous, and their young daughter doesn’t survive. 

The couple are treated with barely veiled contempt as refugees, and when they’re finally granted a place to live, it’s a dirty, damaged home that seems to be haunted. The nature of the supernatural presence is a bit more complicated, and the filmmakers connect it back to the guilt and trauma of leaving a war-torn homeland behind. His House is effectively creepy, using its paranormal visions to comment on the equally devastating horrors of reality.

Watch on Netflix

It’s not necessary to have seen the first Creep to enjoy this sequel, which once again stars Mark Duplass as the title character, an eccentric recluse who lures in unsuspecting victims to record their own murders. This time, he recruits struggling vlogger Sara (Desiree Akhavan), who initially doesn’t believe him when he admits that he’s a serial killer and says that he will let her live if she documents his life story.

Like the first Creep, which featured director Patrick Brice as the killer’s victim, the sequel is a found-footage movie with essentially only two onscreen characters and Duplass and Akhavan have a playful chemistry that fits with the off-kilter story. Although the plot is largely the same, Creep 2 never feels like a rehash of the first movie, instead finding a new darkly funny central dynamic to explore.

Sign up to get the BEST of Tom’s Guide direct to your inbox.

Upgrade your life with a daily dose of the biggest tech news, lifestyle hacks and our curated analysis. Be the first to know about cutting-edge gadgets and the hottest deals.

The Pez Outlaw

You wouldn’t expect the niche hobby of collecting plastic candy dispensers to involve international intrigue, but that’s exactly what this clever and amusing documentary delivers. Filmmakers Bryan Storkel and Amy Bandlien Storkel tell the story of Steve Glew, an unassuming collector from Michigan who briefly ran a lucrative business illegally importing foreign Pez dispensers from Europe in the 1990s. 

Glew’s battle with the American Pez corporate office makes for an entertaining underdog story, which the Storkels depict via slick re-enactments in the style of various cinematic genres, featuring Glew as himself. He’s a compelling and sympathetic oddball, and his account of exploiting loopholes to undermine the company policies of the greedy “Pezident” is as exciting and satisfying as any actual heist movie.

There have been plenty of movies made about the pioneering men who were the first Americans sent into space by NASA, but this documentary tells a parallel story of 13 equally dedicated and skilled women who underwent the same training but were denied the chances offered to their male peers. Since that training was conducted unofficially, by NASA medical specialist Dr. Randy Lovelace, the women never got the proper recognition until decades later.

Filmmakers David Sington and Heather Walsh make up for that, interviewing the surviving participants and the family members of those who are no longer around, showcasing their formidable abilities and determined personalities. Mercury 13 is a straightforward documentary with interviews and archival footage, but it doesn’t need anything fancier than that with such a compelling true-life story to tell.

Mr. Roosevelt

Actress  Noël Wells never quite got the spotlight she deserved during her brief time on Saturday Night Live, and with this movie, she creates a proper vehicle for her talents. Wells writes, directs and stars as Emily Martin, an aspiring comedian and actress who’s spent two largely unproductive years in Los Angeles hoping for her big break. She returns to her hometown of Austin, Texas, when she learns that her beloved cat (the title character) is dying.

While in Austin, Emily awkwardly reconnects with her ex-boyfriend, who’s now in a new long-term relationship, and she generally reassesses her direction in life. It’s familiar indie-dramedy material, but Wells handles it with charm and style, shooting on earthy 16mm film that recalls the character-driven movies of the 1970s. She makes the most of her creative freedom.

The Battered Bastards of Baseball

A documentary about the Portland Mavericks, an independent minor league baseball team owned by Hollywood actor Bing Russel. The film covers the foundation of the team, the misfits and outcasts who joined, and the trials they faced to be taken seriously in the face of the big dogs of the baseball world.

The movie was made by member's of Russel's family. Two of his grandsons, Chapman and Maclain Way directed, while Russel's son Kurt (yes that Kurt Russel) stars in the movie alongside other big names from the baseball world.

Mixed by Erry

An Italian biographical comedy film based on the real life story of three Neapolitan brother that started their own pirate record label in the 1980s and ended up becoming the best-selling record label in Italy in the process. 

All through smuggling self-made mix tapes, if you can believe it, which naturally ended up with them landing on the wrong side of the law. The music business does not mess about when money is concerned.

Mixed by Erry was directed by Sydney Sibillia and start Luigi D'Oriano, Giuseppe Arena and Emanuele Palumbo.

More From Tom's Guide

• What to watch in November: 11 new shows and movies
• I would cancel Max this month — here's why
• 5 best Prime Video documentaries to watch right now

Josh Bell is a freelance writer and movie/TV critic based in Las Vegas. He's the former film editor of Las Vegas Weekly and has written about movies and TV for Vulture, Inverse, CBR, Crooked Marquee and more. With comedian Jason Harris, he co-hosts the podcast Awesome Movie Year.

New on Netflix in May 2024 — all the new shows and movies to watch

One of the best thrillers you haven’t watched yet just crashed the Netflix top 10

This survival horror is more confusing than scary, but I can't stop playing — here’s why

• Fox Tread3 With all due respect to Mr. Bell the author of this article. I suggest he use a review source other than the proven to be compromised Rotten Tomatoes. Which has been proven to publish inflated numbers, and cheery picked "reviews" to make various TV series and movies appear more popular than they actually are. Reply
• View All 1 Comment

Most Popular

• 2 New on Prime Video and Freevee in May 2024 — all the new shows and movies to watch
• 3 7 reasons you keep waking up at night — and how to start sleeping through instead
• 4 Best Buy weekend sale slashes prices on games and handheld PCs — 7 deals I'd buy now
• 5 Stardew Valley creator shares more on when major Version 1.6 update will hit consoles

• Newsletters

Site search

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

Filed under:

Rotten Tomatoes, explained

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

Share this story

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

Share All sharing options for: Rotten Tomatoes, explained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is a Rotten Tomatoes score calculated?

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

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

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

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

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

What does a Rotten Tomatoes score really mean ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do critics often get frustrated by the Tomatometer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2017’s highest grossing movies in the US

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As box office analyst Scott Mendelson wrote at Forbes :

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

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

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

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

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

Next Up In Culture

Sign up for the newsletter today, explained.

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

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

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

Harvey Weinstein’s overturned conviction, explained by a lawyer

The AI grift that can literally poison you

Everything’s a cult now

We could be heading into the hottest summer of our lives

How today’s antiwar protests stack up against major student movements in history

What the backlash to student protests over Gaza is really about

Trend Chaser

40+ Films That Received Low Ratings on Rotten Tomatoes

Posted: April 29, 2024 | Last updated: April 30, 2024

Do you like watching movies? Sure, we all do. But sometimes, even with the highest standards set by the industry, some films just don't make the cut - they're so bad that everyone agrees their quality is abysmal!

Read on through this infamous list and take a look at these terrible titles and find out why they are considered to be among the worst ever made.

Cats' Star-Studded Cast Still Didn't Deliver

Based on the 1981 stage musical of the same name by Andrew Lloyd Webber, the 2019 film was directed by Tom Hopper and is his follow-up film to the successful Les Miserables.

Even the film's ensemble cast couldn't redeem it, as it was viewed negatively for its borderline frightening use of CGI, plot, and tone, with many calling it the worst move of 2019. On top of that, the film didn't do nearly as well as expected and is believed to have cost Universal Pictures as much as $114 million.

The Fog Was An Underwhelming Remake

The Fog was a remake of a classic John Carpenter film and was released in 2005 to critical disdain. Starring Tom Welling, the movies tells the story of a town suddenly engulfed in a deadly fog.

While the original film was full of creepy atmosphere and chilling music, the remake lacked everything and got a rotten score of four percent. There were no scares or suspense, leading only a few critics to give it good reviews.

The Disappointments Room Earned Itself A Zero Percent Score

The Disappointments Room was directed by D.J. Caruso and could not have been a bigger missed opportunity. The man behind the camera for Disturbia and Eagle Eye should have hit a home run with the psychological thriller starring Kate Beckinsale.

Instead, the movie was awarded a zero percent score with the consensus, "The Disappointments Room lives down to its title with a thrill-free thriller that presumably left its stars filled with regret - and threatens to do the same for audiences."

Rollerball Took Itself Too Seriously

Another remake, other terrible Rotten Tomatoes score. Rollerball was released in 2002 and earned a tomato meter score of three percent. The new version took itself too seriously, and despite an all-star cast fell flat.

Critics didn't know what to make of Rollerball , which seemed to just exist without any real reason, "Removing the social critique of the original, this updated version of Rollerball is violent, confusing, and choppy. Klein makes for a bland hero."

The Legend Of Hercules Was Just Boring

If you're going to make a movie about Hercules, you should try and make it as epic as possible. In 2014, Kellen Lutz starred at the mythic hero in The Legend of Hercules , a movie so bad it only got a four percent score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Critics were brutal to the boring action pic, "heap-looking, poorly acted, and dull, The Legend of Hercules is neither fun enough to qualify as an action movie nor absorbing enough to work on a dramatic level."

Redline Was Comically Bad

The synopsis of Redline sounds like a really bad attempt at creating the next Fast & Furious franchise. Natasha (Nadia Bjorlin) is an aspiring singer and an ace driver. A bunch of guys fight over getting Nathasha on their team and one of those guys eventually kidnaps her.

The movie was directed by stunt coordinator-turned-director Andy Cheng. Even as a first-time director, critics couldn't forgive him for the movie's horrible acting and dialogue that will make you laugh out loud, not because it's funny but rather because it's that bad. The movie is also super misogynistic with numerous critics echoing this critics sentiment: "The cars in the film are treated with more respect than the women." Cheng hasn't directed a movie since Redline .

Problem Child Did Great At The Box Office

A couple's life is turned upside down after adopting a mischievous young boy who pushes them to the limit in the 1990 black comedy Problem Child . Despite almost all negative reviews by critics, the movie gained $54 million domestic and $72 million worldwide at the box office.

The box office success led to two more sequels in 1991 and 1995, but the original remains with a zero percent score on Rotten Tomatoes. Audiences may recognize John Ritter as the father, Amy Yasbeck as the mother, and Gilbert Gottfried as the boy's nemesis at the orphanage.

3 Strikes Came From The Mind Of The Guy Who Co-Wrote Friday

The movie Friday became an instant classic that's still fun and relevant today. That movie was co-written by hip-hop producer DJ Pooh, who made his directorial debut with the comedy-drama, 3 Strikes .

Sadly, the movie not only lacked the charisma of his Friday effort but also any semblance of humor. One critic called the movie, "butt-numbingly dull and almost entirely laugh-free." Other critics noted that the movie relied on using the same gags repeatedly, even after they failed to land the first time. Apparently, running from the cops to avoid your third strike and life in prison isn't the best setup for a comedy.

A Thousand Words Wasn't Eddie Murphy's Finest Moment

Eddie Murphy and Kerry Washington are two Hollywood names that should be able to carry a movie. Instead, A Thousand Words is a mess of a movie that receives a 0% critic rating and a 47% positive rating from viewers. The words used to describe the film into "disastrous," "not funny," "poorly conceived" and one review that just used one word to describe the film, which we can't include here.

The premise is also pretty insane. Jack McCall (Eddie Murphy) is a self-centered literary agent who uses his fast-talking ways to close deals. A magic tree eventually appears and any time he says a single word a leaf falls, when all the leaves fall, he dies. No thanks.

Vampires Suck Was A Fitting Name

If you thought a movie from a minds behind Date Movie , Epic Movie , and Meet The Spartans had a good movie in them, you were wrong. Vampires Suck was there spoof on the Twilight franchise and was aimed squarely at teenage boys.

Critics may have hated the film, but they did feel it hit a high point for the directors, "Witlessly broad and utterly devoid of laughs, Vampires Suck represents a slight step forward for the Friedberg-Seltzer team."

Fred: The Movie Is Painful On The Eyes And Ears

Lucas Cruikshank started out as a YouTube phenomenon. He was so popular, in fact, that Nickelodeon made an entire movie surrounding his character Internet personality, Fred. The film tells the story of Fred who is infatuated with his neighbor Judy, and when she moves away, he embarks on a journey to go find her and sing a duet together.

The film earned a deserving 0% on Rotten Tomatoes with critics and audiences finding the film extraordinarily annoying. One critic even paired it with the highly controversial A Serbian Film as his least favorite viewing experience of the year.

Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star Is As Uncomfortable As It Gets

Produced by Happy Madison Productions, Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star follows a small-town bag boy named Bucky Larson who discovers his parents were famous adult film stars in the 70s. He decides to move to California to follow in his parent's footsteps to be the next big star.

All 35 critics that reported on the film gave it terrible reviews with one noting that it is a "severely misguided and inept comedy incapable of even telling its single joke properly." Critic Matt Singer went so far as to say that the movie was "soul-crushing."

Dark Tide Led To Dark Times

In 2012, Halle Berry mistakenly starred in Dark Tide, which follows a marine biologist struggling to stay in business after a few of her crew are eaten by sharks. Scarred from her experience, she refuses to go back in the water until she takes an offer from a millionaire for one last dive.

Earning a 0%, critics weren't shy to share their opinion either. One commented that "no amount of breathtaking cinematography can save Dark Tide from its poor plot and dire dialogue." Looks like it's risky business to make a shark movie these days.

Staying Alive Disgraced Saturday Night Fever

Staying Alive stars John Travolta, with Sylvester Stallone behind the camera as well as co-writing and co-producing with Saturday Night Fever producer and writer Robert Stigwood, and Norman Wexler.

A sequel to Saturday Night Fever, it was one of the two films Stallone directed and did not star in, although he has a cameo appearance. Somehow, the film was a commercial success, grossing almost $65 million at the US box office. However, it was trashed by critics who deemed it one of the worst sequels ever made.

Gotti Missed The Mark For A Mobster Film

Released in 2018 and starring John Travolta, Gotti is a biographical film about the New York City mobster John Gotti. Overall, the film was a commercial and critical blunder, grossing just $6 million against its production budget of $10 million.

The film was criticized for its choppy editing, resulting in the movie being described as sloppy and boring. Some critics have even suggested that Travolta should have never taken the doomed role in the first place. The film was nominated for six Razzies, including Worst Picture and Worst Actor.

The Last Airbender Was Incredibly Disappointing To Fans Of The Show

Co-produced by M. Night Shyamalan, The Last Airbender is an action-adventure film based on the first season of the animated television series Avatar: The Last Airbender. Although production began in 2007, the film wasn't released until 2010 due to numerous hang-ups.

Upon its release, the film made a mere $16 million on its opening and was panned by critics and especially fans of the original television series. There were few things anyone had to say about the film as a whole.

The Bad News Bears Go To Japan Was Embarrassing For The Cast

Sequels don't always have to be far worse than the original film, but that's exactly what happened with The Bad News Bears Go to Japan. The third film in the Bad News Bears trilogy, the movie takes the team to test their skills across the Pacific Ocean.

Described by Rotten Tomatoes as "horrendous" and receiving a 0%, even members of the cast knew that the film was terrible. Jackie Earle Haley, who plays Kelly Leak in all three films even called it "the worst movie ever made."

Precious Cargo Wasn't Willis' Brightest Hour

Although Bruce Willis may be one of the biggest actors of his time, that doesn't mean every one of his movies is guaranteed to be a success. This was the case for the 2016 film Precious Cargo. The movie follows Bruce Willis as Eddie Filosa, who convinces a crime boss to steal diamonds from another game in exchange for a woman.

Receiving a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes for its unoriginality, critic Peter Sobczynski commented, "You will be hard-pressed to remember anything about it even only a few minutes after watching it, which should come as a relief to everyone involved with its production."

Daddy Day Camp Shouldn't Even Be Compared To The Original

Directed by former child star Fred Savage, Daddy Day Camp is a sequel to the successful Eddie Murphy family comedy Daddy Day Care . In the sequel all the actors have been replaced, with the story being set at a summer camp. Replacing Eddie Murphy with Cuba Gooding Jr. was just the first hit this film took.

Daddy Day Camp scored a measly one percent on Rotten Tomatoes for dozens of reasons. One of the biggest failings of the movie was that it relied too heavily on unsightly bodily functions and cheap gags that were used for comedic effect.

The Garbage Pail Kids Movie Is Sickening

Released in 1987, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is a live-action film adaptation of the trading cards series. The film features seven of the Garbage Pail Kids who befriend a regular boy and try to assimilate into human society. The film was a box office fail, earning just $1.6 million compared to it's $1 million budget.

With a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, there was also an almost unanimous agreement among critics that it was easily one of the worst movies ever made. Caryn James from The New York Times claimed the film was "too repulsive for children or adults of any age."

Police Academy 4: Citizens On Patrol Was The Beginning Of The End of The Franchise

The fourth film in the Police Academy franchise, the 1987 film follows the Police Academy graduates as they're put in charge to train a new class of recruits. One of the worst-rated Police Academy films, it was also the last appearance made by Steve Guttenberg as Carey Mahoney.

With a score of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, it's clear it didn't live up to the success of the franchise's previous films. Aside from receiving a 0%, Rotten Tomatoes went even further, calling the film "utterly, completely, thoroughly and astonishingly unfunny."

Pinocchio Is Downright Scary

In 1997, Roberto Benigni made a name for himself starring in the film Life is Beautiful which went on to win Best Actor, Best Foreign Language Film, and Best Score at the Oscars. The film put Benigni on the map, leaving many excited about his future career as an actor.

However, things took a turn for the worst when Benigni starred in the live-action Pinocchio in 2002. The English-dubbed version was panned by critics with the film being called "an oddity that will be avoided by millions of people" by the New York Times.

The Postman (Unfortunately) Won Five Golden Raspberry Awards

Starring Kevin Costner, The Postman hit theaters on Christmas Day, 1997 and was quickly labeled dreadful by both critics and audiences. The post-apocalyptic film cost $80 million to make, but only brought in $20.8 at the box office, according to The Numbers. The reason? It was a total downer!

Author David Brin said the message he was trying to send was, "if we lost our civilization, we'd all come to realize how much we missed it, and would realize what a miracle it is simply to get your mail every day. The film won five Golden Raspberry Awards, including "Worst Picture". Ouch.

Jack And Jill Had Big Stars, But Horrible Reviews

Adam Sandler has made numerous movies over the last few decades. Some have been massive box office hits, while others majorly flopped. One that audiences probably want to forget is 2011's Jack and Jill . Even with an all-star cast of Al Pacino, Katie Holmes, and Sandler, this film completely missed the mark.

It received a three percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes with completely negative reviews from critics. Brian Gill from Mad About Movies Podcast stated, "I'm not saying we should take Pacino's Oscar away from him because of this movie. I'm just saying that's a conversation I'm willing to have."

Jaws: The Revenge Destroyed The Franchise

Jaws: The Revenge, otherwise known as Jaws 4, is the third sequel to Steven Spielberg's Jaws, and the final installment in the Jaws franchise. Released in 1987, the film follows a now-widowed Ellen Brody, who is convinced that a great white shark is seeking revenge against her family, even following them to the Bahamas.

Unsurprisingly, the film was not received well by critics and was finished at lightning speed in just nine months. The film received a score of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, with Roger Ebert commenting that "it is not simply a bad movie, but also a stupid and incompetent one."

The Slugger's Wife Was A Strikeout

The Slugger's Wife stars Michael O'Keefe and Risky Business actress Rebecca De Mornay. The 1985 film tells the story of a baseball player who falls in love with a singer. Yet, they aren't meant to be, as their lives are heading in different directions.

Written by the renowned screenwriter Neil Simon, it was assumed that the film was going to be a hit, but audiences weren't impressed. On top of a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, TV Guide regarded the movie as "one of the most disappointing, least credible films about baseball in recent memory."

American Anthem Did Not Stick The Landing

When an Olympic gold medal-winning gymnast plays the role of a gymnast in the film, you'd figure that it would vastly improve the movie. Unfortunately, that didn't happen at all in American Anthem, when gold medalist Mitchell Gaylord played Steve Tevere, an ex-football star who gives up gymnastics to work as a motorcycle mechanic.

The film turned out to be a disaster, scoring a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Gaylord earning a Razzie for his performance. At least in 2007, he was named the seventh-best US gymnast of all time.

Return Of The Living Dead II Was Too Tongue-In-Cheek

The Return of the Living Dead had a total of four sequels with the second part receiving a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. This zombie comedy film was actually a minor box office success, but critics thought the story was too tongue-in-cheek and seemed like a repeat of the previous film.

The Return of the Living Dead II starred Michael Kenworthy, Marsha Dietlein, Dana Ashbrook, and more in a plot about a zombie outbreak in Louisville, Kentucky. The curious teenagers discovered barrels that were used to revive zombies and must deal with the consequences.

Folks! Made Fun Of Serious Topics

Tom Selleck earned a Razzie Award for Worst Actor for his role in the 1992 comedy Folks! . The film is about a successful stockbroker (Selleck) who has it all with a great wife and kids. Later, he must take care of his elderly parents (Don Ameche and Anne Jackson) who cause all sorts of chaos in the household.

The poor performances in Folks! are what gave it a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Many critics thought the movie tried to make despicable jokes over serious subjects such as car accidents and dementia.

The Ridiculous 6 Turned Out To Be Controversial

It's no secret that Adam Sandler's films have taken a turn for the worse in recent years, and one of the best examples of this is The Ridiculous 6. The film follows six strangers coming together in the Wild West after discovering they have the same father and wanting to find him.

Rotten Tomatoes called the movie "a lazy and offensive attempt at a film," stirring controversy over their depiction of the Apache culture. Released on Netflix in 2015, the film was surprisingly viewed more in 30 days than any other Netflix release, but that didn't save it from the critics.

Return To The Blue Lagoon Is As Uncomfortable As It Sounds

Starring Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause, Return to the Blue Lagoon is a sequel to the 1980 film, The Blue Lagoon. Based on the novel The Garden of Wrath, the film follows two children stranded on an island in the South Pacific.

As they mature, they become emotionally and physically attracted to one another and eventually fall in love. Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a 0% and commented: "Despite its lush tropical scenery and attractive leads, Return to the Blue Lagoon is as ridiculous as its predecessor, and lacks the prurience and unintentional laughs that might make it a guilty pleasure."

Epic Movie Wasn't Epic At All

Released in 2007, Epic Movie is a parody film directed and written by Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer and produced by Paul Schiff. The movie makes references to many epic films, such as The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Harry Potter, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Pirates of the Caribbean, just to name a few.

Although the song "Ms. New Booty" gained commercial attention for being in the film, it was essentially the only good thing to come out of it.

Wagons East Was Influenced By Mel Brooks' Work

Wagons East was the last film John Candy worked on before he passed away from a heart attack. He starred alongside Richard Lewis in this Western adventure comedy released on August 26, 1994. The movie did poorly at the box office and received a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

It was apparent that Wagons East was influenced by Mel Brooks' Western comedies, but it didn't come close to the success of those. Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader said, "A stridently unfunny western comedy that is equally lame in its writing and direction."

A Low Down Dirty Shame Was A Comedian's Attempt At An Action Film

In 1994's A Low Down Dirty Shame , Keenen Ivory Wayans of the Wayans brothers played a private detective who is on the lookout for the millions of dollars stolen by a notorious criminal. The movie also starred Jada Pinkett Smith, Charles S. Dutton, Salli Richardson-Whitfield, and Andrew Divoff.

The film was also written and directed by Wayans, but this didn't seem to help. A Low Down Dirty Shame currently has a zero percent score on Rotten Tomatoes with critics who thought Wayans should stick to comedy and leave action films behind.

Serving Sara Was A Flop For Matthew Perry

With the success of Friends and The Whole Nine Yards on his resume, Matthew Perry took the plunge to become a romantic lead with Serving Sara . The movie served no one and received a four percent score on Rotten Tomatoes.

Co-starring Elizabeth Hurley, the movie failed to find any footing with critics or audiences. On Rotten Tomatoes, the critical consensus reads, "A romantic comedy that's neither funny nor particularly romantic, Serving Sara is a forgettable time waster."

Exorcist II: The Heretic Was An Awful Sequel

Directed by John Boorman and written by William Goodhart, Exorcist II: The Heretic is a sequel to William Friedkin's 1973 and based on the 1971 novel by William Peter Blatty and the second installment in the franchise.

The film is set four years after the original film, as Regan MacNeil still recovers from her possession experience. After being panned by both audiences and critics, it has been referred to by many as one of the worst films ever made and was the last film to feature Paul Henreid.

The Apple Is One Of The Worst Musicals Of All Time

The Apple is a 1980 science fiction musical comedy that deals with the themes of conformity vs. rebellion by referencing the Bible, specifically the story of Adam and Eve.

Written and directed by Menahem Golan, the movie stars Catherine Mary Stewart, who lives in a futuristic 1994 and signs to an evil record label called Boogalow International Music. The film was torn apart by audiences and critics and is referred to as one of the worst movies/musicals ever released.

Ishtar Was A Stunning Failure

Ishtar is an American action-adventure-comedy film starring Dustin Hoffman that follows a duo of bad comedy writers that travel to Morrocco for a show, only to find themselves caught up in a Cold War standoff.

Apparently, the production of the film was a nightmare in which nobody got along, and a change in studio management during post-production resulted in a whole new set of problems. The movie bombed at the box office, although in recent years, the film has become more accepted.

Parting Shots Was Highly Controversial

Parting Shots is a 1999 British dark comedy film that stars Chris Rea, Felicity Kendal, Oliver Reed, Ben Kingsley, among others. Upon the film's release in the United Kingdom, there was a major controversy over the plot and storyline and was widely criticized by the national press.

For this reason, it is considered to be one of the worst movies ever made and is strongly disliked for creating so many issues surrounding its release in theaters.

The Master Of Disguise Was Too Juvenile

After his time on Saturday Night Live , comedian Dana Carvey broke out in some leading film roles. Although he was well-liked during his early days, The Master of Disguise was the beginning of his downfall. The film is about a goofy waiter who must defeat a criminal mastermind with his inherited powers of disguise.

The Master of Disguise received a one percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes with most critics giving it bad reviews for a juvenile tone and witless jokes. The only thing audiences thought had some merit were the special effects makeup and costumes.

Hobgoblins Is Considered To Be A Low-Budget Rip-Off

Hobgoblins is a low-budget independent comedy horror film written, directed, and produced by Rick Sloan, who also served as the cinematographer and editor. The film includes small demon-like creatures.

Considered as a rip-off of essentially "every other small monster movie," specifically Gremlins, it's a far more low-budget film. However, it has become a cult film because of its poor quality, although came back into popularity after it was featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Look Who's Talking Now: A Failed Talking Dog Movie

Look Who's Talking Now is the third and final movie in the franchise and had Kirstie Alley and John Travolta reprise their roles. This time, it's Danny DeVito and Diane Keaton doing the voiceovers of the family's talking dogs. The film was also a box office fail because it only made $10 million with a $22 million budget.

It received a zero percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. During the time of its release, famous movie critic Roger Ebert exclaimed, "It looks like it was chucked up by an automatic screenwriting machine." The Washington Post wrote, "Take the 'dle' out of 'poodle' and you've pretty much got the leitmotif of Look Who's Talking Now."

Max Steel Was Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots Without Any Of The Fun

It's a story as old as time. A 16-year-old is the fish out of water when he moves to a new town. Then the teen discovers that his body can produce the most powerful energy source in the universe. The kid when meets Steel, an extraterrestrial who wants Max to use his power to save the universe. Yes, it's that dumb.

Movie critic Allen Adams summed up the entire movie in a single sentence: " Max Steel is what happens when the sole rationale for your film is 'People used to like this toy.'"

Cabin Fever Is A Feverishly Bad Remake

Let's just start with the 800-pound gorilla in the room. The original 2002 version of Cabin Fever wasn't great, scoring a 62% favorability rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's probably not a surprise that the remake was even worse with critics given it a "perfect" 0% rating.

The movie, about a group of recent college graduates who face a flesh-eating virus while staying at a remote cabin, was boring and contrived. One critic summed up our opinion perfectly, "I watched it so you don't have to." If you want to watch this movie hunt down the original, as another critic pointed out, "This dud sets a new standard for the term 'pointless remake."

Madhouse Tried Way Too Hard

Madhouse is a 1990 film starring Kristie Alley and John Larroquette. The film follows a stockbroker and his television reporter wife as they live the California dream. However, their lives are turned upside down when they are faced with a number of unwanted house guests.

The couple then teams up to rid themselves of their guests and achieve normality once again. The film received a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes as was described by LA Times critics Michael Wilminton as a film that "grabs you by the lapels and tries to shake the laughs out of you."

The Last Days Of American Crime Skipped Theaters For A Good Reason

Neftlix makes a lot of movies. Some are really good, and others are disastrously bad. The Last Day of American Crime falls in to the latter category. Despite a star studded cast, the high-concept crime film was dubbed a "crime of punishment" by critics.

The movie, which follows a group of crooks trying to commit one last heist before "government signal wipes out crime forever" received a zero percent score and was quickly ignored by Netflix subscribers.

One Missed Call Is A Remake You Can Afford To Miss

After the success of J-horror remakes The Grudge and The Ring , every movie studio was stomping at the bit for the next hit horror film. One Missed Call came out in 2008, starred Shannyn Sossamon and Ed Burns and was called frightless by critics.

Those who watched it panned the performances and stereotypical scare tactics. The shoddily put together film earned a zero percent on Rotten Tomatoes and was labeled one of the worst J-horror remakes of the era.

Dark Crimes Couldn't Survive Even With A Very Committed Jim Carrey

When a detective realizes that a hit novel resembles the inner-workings of an unsolved murder, he tries to close the case by investigating the novel's writer. The premise wasn't bad and critics had some nice things to say about Jim Carrey's performance but the niceties ended there. One critic called it an "artless slog" and we can't find a reason to disagree with that opinion.

The film picked up a 0% critics rating and an unimpressive 30% from audiences. The film was called too moody by critics who believed over-production led to a bogged down film experience that was almost unwatchable.

Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever Is Completely Inept

Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever scored the worst possible ranking it could receive from Rotten Tomatoes, a "perfect" 0% from critics. The film has been called overblown, incoherent, and lacking any originality. Audiences were much more kind, providing a 19% ranking and some less than kind words for the movie.

Starring Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu, the film features two former federal agents who square off while searching for the most deadly weapon on earth. A Boston Globe review summed up the decisions of the movie's director perfectly, "Director Wych Kaosayananda -- or Kaos, to you -- is stupendously inept, unable even to properly light a combat sequence." Ouch.

Highlander 2: The Quickening Was A Pointless Add-On

This sequel to the well-received original movie takes place at a time when Earth is protected by a massive shield that keeps out solar radiation. Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert) is an aging man who regains his youth after killing two assassins. His assassinations leads him into a battle with General Katana (Michael Ironside). He soon receives help from the noble Juan Ramirez (Sean Connery). The excellent cast didn't stand a chance thanks to the movie's idiotic plot, horrible dialogue, and general lack of direction.

Roger Ebert ripped into the movie: " Highlander 2: The Quickening is the most hilariously incomprehensible movie I've seen in many a long day -- a movie almost awesome in its badness." ALMOST.

London Fields Bungled Its Source Material

Amber Heard and Billy Bob Thornton starred in London Fields in 2018. The movie was an adaptation of the beloved book, and was a failure on all accounts, earning a zero percent score on Rotten Tomatoes.

London Fields is about a clairvoyant who learns how she is going to die. The critic's consensus reads, "London Fields bungles its beloved source material and an intriguingly eclectic cast, leaving audiences with a would-be neo-noir of interest only to the morbidly curious."

Baby Geniuses Was Embarrassing For Everyone Involved

Baby Geniuses has the type of premise that makes us believe anyone can write a movie and a studio executive somewhere will believe it's a great idea. The movie focuses on the premise that babies are born knowing the "secrets of the universe" and they use their knowledge to fight the evils of our world.

Critics said the actors in the movie seemed embarrassed to be on screen. They also noted the obvious flat directing, the lack of humor, and the "brain rotting" feelings of the overall flick. Despite a 2% Rotten Tomatoes rating several other movies were released, also with poor ratings.

BloodRayne Had No Bite

Directed by Uwe Boll and released in 2004, BloodRayne was a high profile video game adaptation that fell victim to the genre trend. Few movies based on video games have been critical darlings, but not many got worse reviews than the four percent rotten vampire flick.

Critics said, "BloodRayne is an absurd sword-and-sorcery vid-game adaptation from schlock-maestro Uwe Boll, featuring a distinguished (and slumming) cast. Shockingly, several sequels were made and went straight to video.

More for You

Jake Paul vs Mike Tyson rules finally revealed as ‘knockout’ decision is made

Popular Frozen Pizza Recalled for Potential Health Hazards

The lowest-earning college major in America, according to data—and the see runners-up

CBS makes major changes to 'NFL Today': Phil Simms and Boomer Esiason out

5 Types of Homes That Will Plummet in Value in 2024

17 Phrases Older People Use That No One Else Gets

Taco Bell Receives Massive Pushback on New Unpopular Menu Change

8 Netflix shows with a perfect Rotten Tomatoes score you need to watch

D.C. police just schooled a university on freedom of speech rights

Practical invention - How To Quickly Remove Rust

10 in-demand remote jobs companies are hiring for right now—many pay over $100,000

How Much You Take Home from the Average Salary in Each State

We Ordered 7 Fast-Food Breakfast Sandwiches to Find the Best One

Here is the true value of having a fully paid-off home in America — especially when you're heading into retirement

Russia Loses Control of Key Island

The films everyone should see at least once before they die, according to critics

Genshin Impact: Praetorian Golem Locations

7 weird jobs that are well-paying but nobody knows about, according to a viral Reddit thread

Netflix thriller dubbed ‘Irish Avengers’ welcomes Game of Thrones icon out of retirement

4 Hidden Money Traps New Parents Need To Avoid

Screen Rant

Dark matter star & producer explain how apple tv+'s new multiverse show is different from the mcu.

Exclusive: Dark Matter's Joel Edgerton and Matt Tolmach explain how the series' multiverse is different from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

• Matt Tolmach and Joel Edgerton explain how Dark Matter 's multiverse is relatable and grounded, unlike the superhero-filled MCU.
• Edgerton describes the series as "multiverse for the middle-aged man," focusing on human introspection over flashy effects.
• The show delves into deep human themes about the road not taken, inviting viewers on a thought-provoking journey.

Dark Matter star Joel Edgerton and executive producer Matt Tolmach address how the series' multiverse differs from the multiverse in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Adapted from the novel of the same name by Blake Crouch, Dark Matter follows physicist Jason Dessen (Edgerton), who finds himself in an alternate reality and must find a way back to his own to protect his family from an alternate version of himself. Along with Edgerton, the star-studded cast includes Jennifer Connelly in the role of Jason's wife, Daniela Dessen, and Jimmi Simpson as the character Ryan Holder.

In an interview with Screen Rant , Tolmach and Edgerton discuss what makes Dark Matter 's multiverse not only distinct from the MCU and other popular multiverse stories like the Academy Award-winning Everything Everywhere All at Once , but also how the series even makes the high concept feel relatable. Check out their comments below:

Tolmach: This, to me, is a [show] about all of us. This is a very grounded group of characters and despite the number of worlds, it lives in our world. I think part of the appeal of it, originally to me as a reader, was how easily I could identify with these characters. It isn't a universe inhabited by superheroes, which we all love; this is our world. I think that creates a different experience for the viewer. It comes with this sci-fi conceit, but it's really a very grounded story about a man trying to come to terms with who he is, the choices he made, and the mistakes he made. I see it as a cousin to all of that, but in a very different context. Edgerton: I call it the multiverse for the middle-aged man. In all seriousness, I loved Everything Everywhere All At Once. I love this general concept of being able to explore alternate realities. Quite often they become big, expansive things that explore these crazy visual effects worlds. And we do a little bit of that, but for the most part, we're using this multiverse alternate reality concept as a way to look inward to ourselves about the road not taken, about what ifs, about all of these deep human things that we think about. I think we all wonder about key decisions in our life, and how we would've evolved down that road instead of the road we chose. So true. We use that concept, and I joke about multiverse for the middle-aged man, [but] alternate realities in a suburban, every person, average human being way become a really interesting story to tell. We don't need to have capes flying off our backs and laser guns in order for it to actually be a really rich narrative.

The 25 Best TV Shows On Apple TV+ Right Now (April 2024)

A grounded multiverse makes dark matter unique.

In the Marvel Cinematic Universe and in other superhero universes, the multiverse is largely used to allow alternate versions of popular characters to interact with each other . This enabled the versions of Spider-Man played by Tom Holland , Tobey Maguire, and Andrew Garfield to interact in Spider-Man: No Way Home , along with bringing back memorable villains Maguire and Garfield's Spider-Men faced, including Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin and Alfred Molina's Doc Ock. Non-superhero stories like Everything Everywhere All at Once have leaned into the weirdness of the multiverse, featuring universes populated by googly-eyed rocks and people with hot dog fingers.

Dark Matter , on the other hand, is going to make its iteration of the multiverse feel unique through making it grounded. Instead of being a vehicle for bringing in alternate versions of superheroes and supervillains, or for the absurdist comedy-drama of Everything Everywhere All at Once , Dark Matter 's multiverse will be unique for how grounded it will feel. This version of the multiverse is intended to be a metaphor for exploring regrets and the different lives that could've unfolded if different choices were made.

The 2016 Dark Matter novel predates Everything Everywhere All at Once and the proliferation of multiverse stories in superhero films and television shows, but the novel's approach is for the best, as it will help the Apple TV+ series to feel unique. With series including Severance , Silo , For All Mankind , and Constellation , Apple TV+ has proven it is one of the best streaming platforms for compelling science-fiction stories , which is a good sign for doing justice to Dark Matter and its version of the multiverse.

Dark Matter (2024)

Based on his novel of the same name, Dark Matter is a sci-fi drama-thriller television series created for Apple TV+ by Blake Crouch. The series follows a physicist who is kidnapped and thrown into an alternate reality where he witnesses one potential path his life could have taken. However, he learns that the lives of his family are in jeopardy by an alternate version of himself.

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

Why It’s Never Been Easier to Land in Director’s Jail

Filmmakers who work on the (ever smaller) slate of major studio movies are dealing with risk-averse execs and a still wobbly distribution environment, with their films sitting in the larger ecosystem of publicly traded parent companies. And if a movie flops with critics or at the box office, they’re the first to get sentenced to movie jail. 

By Mia Galuppo

Mia Galuppo

Film Writer

• Share this article on Facebook
• Share this article on Twitter
• Share this article on Flipboard
• Share this article on Email
• Show additional share options
• Share this article on Linkedin
• Share this article on Pinit
• Share this article on Reddit
• Share this article on Tumblr
• Share this article on Whatsapp
• Share this article on Print
• Share this article on Comment

“I have no illusions,” Oscar winning-director Damien Chazelle said on a podcast in March. “I won’t get a budget of Babylon size any time soon, or at least not on this next one.”

Related Stories

Studio profit report: a year of major transition, disney bets $60b its parks will power the future.

That ambivalent sentiment isn’t an outlier. Directors — from Oscar winners like Chazelle to up-and-comers — are in a precarious position when it comes to major studio projects. Not that this is new. Stripped of nuance, the definition of movie jail has always been: Lose the studio a lot of money and you don’t get to do another studio feature for a while, if ever. 

But because of current market conditions, there is increasingly little margin for error for directors. More than a dozen industry insiders, speaking with The Hollywood Reporter , say studio filmmakers are now dealing with a particularly inhospitable environment, even when compared with a couple of years ago. 

Fewer films are being made, from big-budget movies ($120 million-plus tentpoles) to even fewer midbudget offerings ($45 million to $60 million plus), which traditionally gave filmmakers more opportunities for financial success. Those features that are being greenlit, especially IP-driven ones, are being micromanaged by exceedingly risk-averse studio executives who are still trying to navigate how to release a film post-pandemic while making hiring decisions amid belt tightening and staggered layoffs that have netted shifting management teams.

“[Everyone] went on strike and came back to a different industry,” says a studio head, speaking anonymously. “Everything lost momentum, everything is being scrutinized and everyone has a new boss.”

Insiders say that nonwriting directors are having a particularly difficult time. Because of the limited number of studio films, open directing assignments that would normally be within the grasp of younger filmmakers are going to higher-level talent. Elsewhere, up-and-coming directors, those who have a festival movie or two under their belts and are looking for the next step up, are getting boxed out. Long gone are the days of Colin Trevorrow making the jump from Sundance darling ( Safety Not Guaranteed ) to Jurassic World .

Now, new talent must deliver multiple successful projects in a row, sans slip-ups, before being afforded the grace (albeit only so much) to fail at the studio level. Says a top manager with a stable of studio directors of the gauntlet for filmmakers, “You basically get one shot [at proving yourself], three times in a row.” 

For their part, executives offer that there is a dwindling number of working directors, even those with a bomb or two, that can be trusted with bigger budgets to deliver on time, on budget and on brand. Stuntperson turned director David Leitch is at the top of studio wish lists as someone who is able to direct entertaining films while having a great relationship with talent.

Without box office figures to tout in a pitch meeting, another supposedly quantitative measurement has been wielded to boost or demote directors: Rotten Tomatoes. The industry has a love-hate (mostly hate) relationship with the review aggregator whose measurements have long been called into question and are susceptible to distortion . “Critical acclaim is now gamified,” says one director rep. “The Rotten Tomatoes score is the first thing people look at when I go pitch a director. It inevitably affects decision-making around hiring a director.” Offers an exec: “When you hire a director, all you have is their past work and a meeting.”

Directors unable to find work in the studio system can seek refuge in prestige TV. Post Birds of Prey — a 2020 film that faced reshoots and box office underperformance — director Cathy Yan landed episodes of the HBO series Succession , netting her an Emmy nomination. Still, episodic work will only get you so far. Offers one producer of studio films, “When you get handed the keys to a Ferrari and you drive it a few blocks without crashing, no one cheers for you.” And directors can write themselves out of presumed jail, packaging independent directorial efforts. (Of course, producer-financiers who could back indie efforts are facing financial headwinds in 2024. See: Bron’s collapse.) Last year, it was announced Yan will direct the indie sci-fi love story The Freshening , a movie that she also wrote. 

Insiders also lament a lack of turnover at the highest echelons of the studio system. Michael De Luca, at 29, was running New Line and breaking young and exciting filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson. He then headed MGM and, now, leads Warners, working with those same filmmakers.

Everyone who spoke to THR for this story, from filmmakers to reps and executives, note that the perilous state of the studio feature and potential filmmaker fallout is likely to disproportionately affect female directors and and filmmakers of color, as movie jail often has. In 2023, of the 116 directors evaluated in 2023, 12.1 percent were women, according to the USC’s Annenberg Inclusion Initiative which noted that this number has remained flat for the past several years. So far in 2024, of top 25 grossing films released so far this year, three were were directed or co-directed by women.

“You used to be able to go on a run as a working a filmmaker where, if you didn’t shit the bed, you could work for 20 years,” says a rep whose clients have several theatrical releases this year. This person adds, in 2024, filmmaker clients may find themselves out of work — not necessarily sent to movie jail, but because of decidedly uncreative market forces, “they just got squeezed out.” 

How to Succeed as a Director (by Really, Really Trying)

Is it the worst time ever to be tasked with shepherding a studio’s big-budget movie, or are things actually looking up for you right now? Consult the board, Chutes and Ladders-style, to scale up your game …

A version of this story first appeared in the April 24 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.  Click here to subscribe.

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Kevin macdonald’s ‘klitschko’ to open sheffield docfest, roger ross williams is guest of honor, golden globes screeners go digital-only as organization teams with indee on streaming platform (exclusive), zack norman, actor in ‘romancing the stone’ and henry jaglom films, dies at 83, jerry seinfeld brings back classic ‘seinfeld’ characters, takes jab at ‘friends’ in promo for his pop-tarts movie, karen gillan and zoë chao to star in mrc comedy ‘let’s have kids’, ‘mufasa: the lion king’: first trailer released by disney.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

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

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

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

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

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

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

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

OK, got it!

Movies / TV

No results found.

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

Movies in theaters

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

Movies at home

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

Certified fresh picks

• Challengers Link to Challengers
• I Saw the TV Glow Link to I Saw the TV Glow
• Música Link to Música

New TV Tonight

• Shardlake: Season 1
• The Veil: Season 1
• Hacks: Season 3
• The Tattooist of Auschwitz: Season 1
• A Man in Full: Season 1
• Acapulco: Season 3
• Welcome to Wrexham: Season 3
• John Mulaney Presents: Everybody's in LA: Season 1
• Star Wars: Tales of the Empire: Season 1
• My Next Guest Needs No Introduction With David Letterman: Season 4.2

Most Popular TV on RT

• Baby Reindeer: Season 1
• Fallout: Season 1
• Shōgun: Season 1
• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• Knuckles: Season 1
• The Sympathizer: Season 1
• Goodbye Earth: Season 1
• Ripley: Season 1
• Them: Season 2
• 3 Body Problem: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1 Link to Dead Boy Detectives: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

Rotten Tomatoes’ 300 Best Movies of All Time

Best Horror Movies of 2024 Ranked – New Scary Movies to Watch

Asian-American Pacific Islander Heritage

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Weekend Box Office Results: Challengers Takes the Crown

The Most Anticipated Movies of 2024

• Trending on RT
• Challengers
• The Fall Guy
• Play Movie Trivia

Macbeth: Ralph Fiennes & Indira Varma

Cast & crew.

Simon Godwin

Ralph Fiennes

Indira Varma

Lady Macbeth

Audience Reviews

More like this, critics reviews.