A Cure for Wellness (2017)

The review finds the film an intoxicating blend of mystery, surrealism and gothic asylum thrills. It praises the exquisite gothic trappings and the way the setting reflects modern anxieties about money, status and mortality.

Dowd finds the film too long and narratively unsatisfying, but praises its singular, excessive weirdness. He singles out Verbinski’s fantastical visual style and atmospheric spectacle as the film’s lasting pleasures.

Lund finds the film visually inventive and ultimately worthwhile, though its themes are muddled and its story more conventional than its influences. He especially praises the anticipation of Verbinski’s camera movements and the film’s striking set pieces.

The visible page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its standfirst describes the film as an extended Gothic psycho-horror, but offers no specific praise or complaint.

The review text is unavailable, so its verdict cannot be established. No specific praise or complaint can be identified from the page provided.

Ide finds the film weirdly impressive but says its lack of pacing and focus undermines its atmosphere. She praises the production design and sound, while criticizing the plot’s incoherence and excessive length.

Turner finds the film flawed but ultimately worth seeking out for its sheer weirdness. He praises its escalating atmosphere and eccentric final half hour, while criticizing its excessive length and muddled plot.

The review finds the film an inventive, dread-filled horror that ultimately falters with a thin plot and a disappointing final act. It praises Verbinski’s tension-building and the film’s craft, but faults its pacing and convoluted turns.

O'Sullivan finds the film visually stylish and initially intriguing, but ultimately judges it a failure that betrays the viewer's trust. She praises the Gothic atmosphere and striking location, while criticizing the illogical, overfocused third act.

Debruge finds the film overlong and unwieldy, with an underdeveloped lead and a disappointing explanation for its mystery. He praises its atmospheric setting and sustained sense of suspicion and dread.

Chang finds the film visually striking but overlong, undisciplined and ultimately tedious. He praises its vivid atmosphere and visual craft, while faulting its protracted second half and arbitrary shocks.

McCarthy finds the film overlong, foolish, and devoid of satisfying genre pleasures or thematic resonance. He praises the bold cinematography and resourceful production design as its two strong achievements.

Brody pans the film as a tasteless, self-indulgent failure whose parts never cohere. He criticizes its elaborate visual style as empty virtuosity and singles out its sexualized depiction of the young Hannah as especially disturbing.

Goble finds the film an inventive, high-art horror thriller and a return to form for Verbinski, despite some loose ends. He especially praises its richly staged visuals, eerie atmosphere, and bold cinematic flair.

The critic finds the film an absorbing, contemporary horror that sustains its mystery and unease. They single out Verbinski’s visceral sensory detail and the discomfort created by Lockhart’s vulnerability.

Nayman argues that the film’s commercial failure matters less than its unapologetically strange vision. He praises its spectral cinematography and audacious, grotesque imagery, even as he notes the story’s predictability.

Salveggi finds the film uneven but intriguing, with its excessive length and false climaxes weakening the impact. He praises its creeping atmosphere, mesmerizing visuals, and horror that builds suspense without relying on shock scares.

The URL identifies this as a review of the 2017 film. The article text is unavailable, so its verdict and specific praise or criticism cannot be determined.

Goldberg finds the film an enjoyable, wildly imaginative ride, despite its overstuffed story and unsatisfying ending. He especially praises its gorgeous look, highlighting the cinematography and production design that create a waking-nightmare atmosphere.

Lambie finds the film visually sumptuous but overlong, self-indulgent, and ultimately disappointing. He praises the eerie castle setting and occasional suspense, while criticizing the flat lead character and the film’s obvious, distasteful ending.

The critic finds the film overlong and increasingly ludicrous, with predictable twists that arrive after viewers have stopped caring. The art direction and cinematography earn praise for making the sinister spa visually handsome.

Hammond finds the film overlong, confused, and poorly executed. He praises its lavish visuals, production design, and especially its gorgeously creepy score.