User reviews

It's 1934, you're in London. You go see a play in a theatre. You see an old man writing vigorously in a notebook. This man is a critic, somebody with the power to raise an actress's career to stardom or send it crashing down around them. This is the premise of the newly released British period drama called THE CRITIC. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellan) is a gay theatre critic for the Daily Chronicle, which is undergoing drastic changes since its leader passed away, giving the reigns to the son, David Brooke (Mark Strong). Worried about the old guard being fired, Jimmy does everything he can to keep his job. Actress Nina Land (Gemma Arterton) gets caught up in his schemes, forming a strange relationship. Escalation ensues! In an interview, McKellan has described his character perfectly using only one word, curdled. Jimmy has become rotten to the core, brutally mean in his critiques, manipulative and selfish to the people around him. McKellan does such a great job in the role he made me hate Ian! This movie has some pacing issues for me. It's a very slow burn, and then it rushes too fast near the end. They also don't do a good enough job in establishing the relationships between certain characters. Sometimes I didn't know who was who to who. I heard from somewhere that they had done some rewrites and reshoots, which might explain some things, I just didn't get enough payoff from the slow burn. I still highly recommend this movie simply for seeing Ian McKellan in a very interesting role and having a very fun time doing it.

Greetings again from the darkness. After the lukewarm reception at last year's Toronto Film Festival, and complaints about the ending, director Anand Tucker (SHOPGIRL 2005, HILLARY AND JACKIE 1998) called the cast back for re-shoots. Oscar nominated writer Patrick Marber (NOTES ON A SCANDAL, 2006) adapted the 2015 novel, "Curtain Call", by Anthony Quinn (a former film critic, not related to the two-time Oscar winner with the same name). Although I can't comment on the original version, this one provides a bit of entertainment.

The famous saying, "Everyone is a critic", holds true because everyone has an opinion (reminding us of yet another famous saying). However, this story takes place during a much different time. We are transported back to 1936 London where we find Jimmy Erskine (two-time Oscar nominee Sir Ian McKellen) is the powerful and feared theater critic for "The Daily Chronicle". He's arrogant and brusque, and super-talented with the twisting of words and turning of phrases. His reviews are eagerly awaited and can make or break a show or career - sometimes in a humiliating manner.

Erskine flaunts his ego like the cashmere scarf around his neck. He claims, for critics, "only the greats are remembered", and he fully intends to be remembered. When the proprietor of the paper suddenly passes away, his stuffy son David Brooke (the always dependable Mark Strong) likes the idea of moving on from the old ways and creating a more contemporary publication. With 40 years of loyalty, Erskine is spared, despite his continued bashing of Brooke's favorite stage actor, Nina Land (Gemma Arterton, TAMARA DREWE, 2010). Two things of consequence soon occur. First, Nina confronts Erskine to his face (a rare occurrence). Secondly, Erskine is fired after a public incident exposes the dark secrets of his life.

These two events lead Erskine to invoke a savage scheme of manipulation and deadly blackmail in hopes of regaining his job. This plan entices Nina to cut a deal with the proverbial devil. The film features a strong supporting cast, though most are unfortunately not given enough to do. Nina's supportive mother is played by the always terrific Lesley Manville (Oscar nominated for PHANTOM THREAD, 2016); Alfred Enoch (the "Harry Potter" franchise) plays Tom Turner, Erskine's live-in secretary; Nina's lover Stephen is played by Ben Barnes (who has been off doing TV and music since 2014); Ramola Garai plays Stephen's wife, while Beau Gadsdon and Claire Skinner also appear.

This is pre-WWII London and director Tucker offers nods to the times regarding homosexuality and racism, and even throws in a jab at fascism when Erskine bellows, "fascists come and go, but theater is forever." Tucker also "treats" us to quite a sight: Sir Ian in the bathtub. This is certainly a story about ego and power, but also one of morality. Does talent afford privilege? Of course it did then, as it does now. But no amount of talent or ego should quash the good in people.

Opening in theaters on September 13, 2024.

Ah, a movie about a theater critic from film producers, not hard to guess where that will lead us. The script for the most part is well conceived and it will hold your attention throughout. Sadly some of the plot devices are 1.) unnecessary and 2.) just plain old cheesy. And that is most unfortunate. The main character is venal, craven, self interested and most certainly immoral (and I am not referring to any sexual orientation) which would easily describe one half of the people in the entertainment business. Ian McKellen was just devastating in his 'deliverance' of the role of the critic and the supporting cast did him justice . My criticism is the unnecessary elements in the plot and how they don't really fit , IE you could have just as easily told the story without them. I recommend the movie without reservation ,(it isn't action or fantasy) McKellen's performance alone along with the witty dialogue from his character make the movie highly entertaining and I promise you will not be bored or impatient watching this movie.

It's a period theater drama set in London, England, in 1934. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellen) is the elderly, acerbic drama critic for "The Chronicle," a national tabloid run by Viscount David Brooke (Mark Strong), the son of the recently deceased owner. Erskine has been writing devastating reviews about 30-something Nina Land's (Gemma Arterton) performances for 10 years. Nina has been the mistress of Ben Wyley (Ben Barnes), an artist doing a painting of 12 of the "Chronicles" stalwarts. Other crucial performances come from Erskine's secretary, Tom (Alfred Enoch), and Ben's wife, Cora (Romola Garai).

Brooke fires Erskine after learning of Erskine's homosexuality. Erskine seeks revenge by manipulating Nina with unforeseen and tragic consequences because Erskine doesn't know about critical relationships. What becomes of Erskine after it all?

"The Critic" is nicely done. Ian McKellen is blustery, unethical, manipulative, and a joy to listen to. Mark Strong is a plummy, arrogant newspaper publisher. Gemma Arterton is trying to follow her dream. The secondary characters behave appropriately. It all depends on McKellen, and I'm glad the film ends as it does. "The Critic" is a little slow at points, which drops it a point.

Convoluted melodrama from Britain, but with a lot of atmosphere and some splendid acting. Especially from Sir Ian, relishing the opportunity to be front and center at 83, and revealing himself to be spry, enthusiastic, and as mesmerizing an actor as ever. He's Jimmy Erskine, a smug drama critic in 1934 London, powerful and feared, and amused by that. Some staff changes at his newspaper compel him to maneuver to remain on top, and that triggers a blackmail scheme rather more complicated than what screenwriter Patrick Marber ("Closer") probably intended. But it does afford some good opportunities for Gemma Arterton, as an ambitious actor who gets caught up in his web, and Mark Strong, as the paper's wealthy new editor, who conjures up some sympathy even as he plays a philandering cad. The 1934 ambience is strong and expert, with some particularly eye-filling interiors, and the morality of the day-Erskine is gay, with an attractive young secretary/custodian, and wants to have his fun even as he's aware of how dangerous that can be-is presented unflinchingly. In the end it's rather conventional and somewhat predictable, and the pacing isn't all it could be. But you'll love watching McKellen, and appreciate the pithiness of some of the dialogue.

What to say? Ian M is a decorated and highly regarded actor, but quite why he decided to make this movie will remain a mystery. He is in virtually every frame, so firstly you have to like him. He has a few good lines, but the script and the story plod along with predictability and hardly any surprises. Its a slow starter, and there were many moments when I yearned for a pillow and a reassuring cup of Ovaltine. Why do directors meander around for half an hour before anything remotely interesting occurs? You risk losing the audience and never getting them back on side. This one not for me, too dull and boring.

Giving this an 7/10 rating

Ian Mckellen is very evil in this fine British post second world war drama set in London theatre land and newspapers. He laps up every moment of his very craft and and despicable critic who just loves his power and what it gives him, until it goes away.

What follows is the great length he goes to get it back and revenge, with horrid consequences to the rest of the cast in this tale of corruption and lack of moral fibre. And it's all rather well done, the cast of Gemma Arterton, Mark Stong, Ben Barnes, Lesley Manville and Alfred Enoch, they all shine, and suffer at the hands of Ian's character.

Great to look at, and it zips along at a good pace, it does the job. Very fine work from director Anand Tucker and a sharp script from Patrick Marber and Anthony Quinn, its a fine bit of film.

This is a very dull movie full of talented actors playing very odious characters. It is a very short movie that unfortunately lasts too long. The plot is boring and has the feel of play turned into a movie. I actually paid to view this at a cinema and wish I had not. It is a period piece but still appears colourblind in some of the casting choices and were not explored satisfactorily to explain the reasoning for this. I believe there is actually an even more dull and boring version of this movie before the actors were recalled to re-shoot scenes. The mind boggles to how terrible the previous version must have been if this is the version that actually escaped into theatres.

My rule of thumb of what to expect when a movie starts is when there are more than two production companies credited it usually is a stinker. Clothes pegs at the ready for this multi-produced toilet blocker.

If you saw Sir Ian McKellen with fellow thesp Sir Derek Jacobi in the television sitcom "Vicious" from around ten years ago, you'll be able to anticipate the gist of his characterisation of the acerbic theatre critic "Erskine" who is way more famed for distributing bile rather than bouquets. His new boss (Mark Strong) wants the newspaper to appeal to an altogether more wholesome family audience and so wants him to tone things down a bit. "Yeah, right" thinks he - and then his own behaviour gets him into trouble with the police and given one month's notice from his job. Facing looming ignominy, he determines to get the lowdown on his ostensibly pure as the driven snow aristocratic proprietor and to that end recruits aspiring actress "Nina" (Gemma Arterton) of whom he has been much less than flattering in the past. Rather gullibly, she agrees to become a pawn in his manipulate game that leads to a series of misadventures and thence to a tragedy that maybe puts the role of opinionated curmudgeon into perspective. This starts of quite entertainingly with plenty of pith and ghastliness from the star, but very quickly it descends into an entirely far-fetched and rather disappointing affair (no pun intended) that plays to just about every stereotype as it rather sadly sets out to prove that the best bits are all in the trailers. At it's best, the writing does make you smile and writhe a little uncomfortably in your cinema seat, but for the most part it's just predicable with characters that it's fairly easy not to like - except, maybe, Alfred Enoch's factotum "Tom" whom at least starts off with some shred of human decency to counter "Erskine" and his selfishness. Ben Barnes shows he is ageing well but again hasn't really enough of a part to work with developing his lovestruck character and Strong is really anything but. It does look good, but it's too reliant on a shock factor that isn't so very original and that soon peters out.

'The Critic' is a 2024 period drama slash romance film directed by Anand Tucker and written by Patrick Marber.

Jimmy Erksine (played by Sir Ian Mckellen) is a 1930s theatre critic who writes for a right wing paper, the Daily Chronicle. However, when he is arrested for his homosexual proclivities, he conspires with up and coming theatre actress Nina Land (played by Gemma Arterton) a plan of blackmail and sinister manipulation against the new head of the newspaper (played by Mark Strong) to keep his prestigious job.

When I went to see 'The Critic' I was expecting a witty historical piece with some commentary on criticism of the arts or at least something along those lines, and with Ian Mckellen stealing the show. Maybe it is my fault for wishing for something along those lines, but the film certainly didn't deliver the former. Whilst Mckellen is good (as he always is), the film drags awfully after the admittedly engaging first half an hour.

It saddens me really. The first thirty minutes did so well in establishing characters and motives from the start and convinced me that I was going to watch a thoroughly entertaining period drama. I loved the characterisation of this overly satirical critic that Sir Ian plays at the beginning, and I felt that if they just capitalised on that golden performance and wrote this film to be a message that you can't accurately judge art through how subjective it is. Everyone knows that the most important element of art is how it makes someone feel, and no critic can emulate that for a reader; that should've been the main point of the movie.

Unfortunately, 'The Critic' dulls the initial hook it had me on and let me wriggle away from its engagement by divulging into this overly complicated melodrama of adultery and false romance. The whole narrative just becomes unnecessarily convoluted and neatly files all the characters into either dislikable or boring.

From a technical standpoint the movie is on the mark. It's shot well, scored fine and acted wonderfully - but I really can't say that it lived up to my expectations in any true capacity.

I felt that the movie focused more on the story of Gemma Arterton's character, and for that I felt almost cheated by the advertising of the movie. As I said, I was expecting a focus of Mckellen here but he just sort of becomes the crooked puppet master of events after the thirty minute mark and just grows more detestable and less interesting as the film continues. For all the better this film should have been titled "The Actress". It delivers quite a poignant albeit underdeveloped message of exploitative practices of the theatre industry in the 1930s, and I felt that should've been more of a focus than what the film is.

In short, 'The Critic' is disappointing. While Sir Ian Mckellen's performance was good, the film didn't live up to the admittedly engaging first half and instead delved into overly complicated melodrama. I concede that the technical aspects were great, but overall, it didn't meet my expectations and should have been advertised as a completely different film than the one I watched this evening.

Rating: A dissatisfied 4/10.

Entertaining performances but everything was a bit contrived to support the leads self indulgence. And it leaves you wondering whats the point? Hard to know.

Ians performance was exceptionally engaging but there was nothing likeable about the character, and there is some sort of redemption in the final 2 minutes with the stroke of a pen. This was perhaps the weakest element of the movie. Its fine to portrary the dark side of a character to the point of repulsion but when you have the audience on the hook and ready to go on the journey, don't end it in such a trivial manner, almost with a footnote. So the major failing was story structure.

Worth a watch to see one of the finest stage performers over the past 50 years but go in with low expectations around the story.

The script - and the sepia-saturated cinematography - give this movie the quality of an Oscar Wilde revival. The acting from almost everybody is in over-drive. Ian McKellen's Jimmy, builds on his character in TV's VICIOUS ten years ago (alongside Derek Jacobi). I did not take to the TV series (two tired old 1960s queens still camping away in contemporary London), but the style is perfect for this period piece, which could also very aptly be called "VICIOUS". At 85 McKellen is a bundle of kinetic energy.

To be honest, THE CRITIC feels more than a little dated, but the sheer pace of the direction and the OTT edginess of all the cast make this a welcome change from CGI-saturated superheroes.

I wasn't convinced I actually wanted to see this. I had heard bits about it and not great reviews overall. The praise when it did come tended to focus on the performances, which I do agree with.

This may sound a weird thing to say/obvious but it is definitely a film in which everyone is 'acting'. It's not naturalistic or raw in the way films by Ken loach or Andrea Arnold for example. It is put together in the traditional idea of a British movie. It is polished, the cast are all excellent at doing exactly what they're meant to. The story was far more engaging and compelling than I expected.

While I completely appreciate It is not anything that's not been done before, nor will it particularly stand out in my mind- it was a perfectly entertaining, and I am glad I saw it. I would recommend to certain friends and family who I suspect will like it. I felt that sometimes it was perhaps a little 'confused' in what it was trying to 'be'/do. I think IMHO it's best consumed as a light, entertaining film that repeats back to us the well known warnings and truths.....no one likes a narcist apart from the narcist. Spite and greed, selfishness and self grandiose only result in pain and suffering. Hurt people, hurt people.

There are some important acknowledgements of the not so long ago horrendous treatment of anyone loving someone of the same sex received. The homophobia within law, and throughout society is sickening.

However, the fact that's and realities it does 'walkabout are not done so as obvious 'themes'. It doesn't feel like it has an agenda/aim os to moralise or judge. It simply reflects the worst parts of human nature in a very aesthetically beautiful, light handed way, I'm not a big Ian McKellen fan (I do though, definitely appreciate him and can see why he is acclaimed), but I heard some criticise him as making this a vanity project. I disagree. For that kind of thing I'd refer you to The Mule (Clint Eastwood lost his way up him own bottom!?!) Or Blackbird (Lord of the dance acts out his 007 fantasy)!

The critic is satisfying if you are happy to be entertained by a story well told by an excellent cast and crew, but then forget you'd even done so a day later!

Through the cinematic train wreck that is "The Critic," starring the usually formidable Sir Ian McKellen. One would expect a film featuring such a prestigious actor to at least offer something of quality, but instead, we were served a pitiful mishmash of uninspired dialogue, hollow characters, and a painfully convoluted plot that felt like an insult to both the audience and the craft of filmmaking.

From the very first scene, it became painfully clear that the script was an unmitigated disaster. The dialogue was stilted and cringe-worthy, lacking any semblance of the wit or insight one might hope for from a film exploring the world of critics. Instead of showcasing clever banter or poignant reflections, we were bombarded with repetitive lines that felt more like a series of poorly constructed one-liners than anything resembling genuine conversation. Even McKellen, with all his gravitas, struggled to breathe life into the words, and instead felt like a talented actor trapped in a dismal and juvenile script. Why did we need to constantly see him naked in the bathtub? The gay scenes??

Character development was woefully absent. Every character was a one-dimensional caricature, lacking depth, motivation, or any capacity for growth. The protagonist, a self-important film critic played by McKellen, was insufferable and utterly unrelatable, not to mention just down right awful. Instead of eliciting empathy or even mild interest, he came off as an arrogant, pretentious figure-an embodiment of the very traits most audiences would find repugnant. In trying to explore themes of art, criticism, and representation, the film failed spectacularly to give voice to anything meaningful.

But what truly sealed the fate of "The Critic" was its erratic pacing and disjointed narrative. The film juggles numerous subplots, none of which come together in a coherent or satisfying manner. Scenes felt unnecessarily drawn out while others rushed by, leaving the audience with whiplash rather than intrigue. The editing was chaotic and poorly executed, amplifying the sense that the filmmakers had no idea what they were trying to achieve. In a nutshell, this movie serves as a painful reminder that even talent as exceptional as Sir Ian McKellen cannot salvage a film that is fundamentally flawed from the ground up. It is a tedious, gross and disappointing experience that leaves viewers questioning how such a promising concept could devolve into such a lackluster execution. I walked out of the theater feeling not only frustrated but also saddened by the wasted potential of what could have been a brilliant exploration of art and criticism. Save your time and skip this train wreck-your intelligence will thank you.

Like many people under the age of 40, I first encountered Ian McKellen as the villain Magneto in X-Men. From then on, I admired him as an actor, and a person, with a commanding presence. I always thought he cannot be unlikeable.

So when I tell you that Jimmy Erskine is one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever seen, believe it. He weaves his way through the film making bad decision after bad decision, and McKellen plays this villain perfectly. There's no hint on remorse for the people he drags into his schemes.

This is absolutely McKellen's film but the rest of the cast deserve a mention too. Gemma Arterton is great as the aging actress who just wants Erskine's praise. Mark Strong as Erskine's boss is perfectly understated (though him playing Romola Garai's father was a big surprise; I automatically assumed they were siblings). I wished Ben Barnes, Alfred Enoch and Lesley Manville had more to do but they were brilliant in their respective parts.

Polished but unambitious Brit-crime-drama "The Critic" boasts a superb lead performance from Ian McKellen as the feared & revered theatre critic for a leading late-'30s UK newspaper. When Mark Stone inherits the paper tho, McKellen's position is threatened, so he stoops to plotting with assistant Alfred Enoch & actress Gemma Arterton (good yet again) to fight back... from where events spiral. Anand Tucker directs with rich polish, the likes of Lesley Manville support well, but experienced writer Patrick Marber's screenplay never twists & darkens as it should - it's ultimately too simplistic. Looks good, McKellen excels, and yet it still falls a tad flat.

The director, fully aware of how bad the movie is, had 350 people from the Philippines give it a 10/10 rating (check the voting statistics if you like).

The Critic keeps a respectful distance from its material, favoring neat dramatic ironies over shocking twists or raw, anguished revelations. Perhaps the harshest criticism one could level against it-something Jimmy, the self-proclaimed judge of creative genius, might find particularly insulting-is that the film is far too polite and cautious for a portrayal of such a ruthless character.

Movie is thankfully short, yet it still feels drawn out. Its appeal will likely be limited to older audiences drawn by McKellen's name and the subject matter, offering them mildly engaging streaming content.

Set in 1930's London, this is more of a vignette than anything . The settings are all kept to period, but cliche pervades and London is often foggy. Because of the story, everything is gloomy too. The story references, a little, the politics of the time, and can be seen referring to well known British newspaper magnates.

So, the challenge, when you have well known actors who "act", is that any film they're in, in my view, looses a degree of authenticity and believability. I think this film suffers from that.

The main actors (Arterton, Mckellen) and the rest of the ensemble do a decent job, and the writing is of better quality than normal. However, I kept thinking that this is a stage play that doesn't translate well to film. I think the target viewer demographic are the sort of people who like to see serious stuff in the theatre, so this isn't one I would recommend, unless you like vaguely depressing, serious, cinema/theatre.

With a script by playwright Patrick Marber and a starry cast that includes Ian McKellen, Lesley Manville, Gemma Arterton and Mark Strong, one has every right to expect The Critic to be at least competent and passably entertaining. But no. The story is far-fetched and implausible at almost every turn. The script is a listless, shapeless, rambling mess. The characters are all odious, and their actions fatally under-motivated. And in the attempts to breath some life into the proceedings McKellen gives a fruity, mannered, desperately arch performance that, while supremely skilled, does nothing to make his character palatable, much less engaging. If you enjoy watching accomplished actors pushing s*** uphill, then you might find some entertainment value in the critic. The art direction is also admirable, but the direction is lumbering and claustrophobic (most likely covering a limited budget and fudged locations). Seriously painful.