The reviews split down the middle and then some, with more negatives than positives and a spread that runs from warm to openly dismissive. Where critics agree, it is on the leads: most find Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney watchable, and several credit their chemistry with holding the film together. The reservations cluster around the script, which is repeatedly called contrived and short on laughs, and around a supporting cast reduced to plot machinery. The more admiring notices, at IndieWire and Vulture, take the film as a deliberate return to the unembarrassed, sex-forward studio comedy and enjoy it on those terms. The sharpest dissent concerns Sweeney herself: Consequence and Collider find her performance flat and the chemistry unconvincing, which cuts against the one thing most other critics praise. The Hollywood Reporter goes furthest, finding no chemistry and few laughs at all. Even sympathetic critics call it formulaic; the disagreement is over whether that is the point.
I
IndieWire
21 December 2023 · David Ehrlich
80*
The review celebrates the film as an unapologetic, irony-free '90s-style rom-com with screwball energy and Shakespearean plotting that gives new life to the genre. It singles out the leads' charm and the energetic direction for praise.
Read the full review →R
RogerEbert.com
21 December 2023 · Marya E. Gates
80*
The film has the charm, wit, and star chemistry missing from recent rom-coms, with Powell and Sweeney delivering palpable chemistry in a loose Much Ado About Nothing adaptation. It subverts expectations through visual gags, emotional nuance in the finale, and strong character work.
Read the full review →V
Vulture
23 December 2023 · Bilge Ebiri
80*
The critic praises the film for reviving elements of the studio sex comedy through its self-aware handling of rom-com tropes, strong chemistry, and emphasis on the characters' horniness. They single out the hot ensemble and the leads' self-awareness for praise.
Read the full review →V
Variety
21 December 2023 · Owen Gleiberman
75*
The formulaic rom-com is most likable for how its stars channel the age of antipathy through brash banter and insults in a Much Ado About Nothing gloss, with convincing chemistry and a zesty take on modern anti-romanticism. It remains brazenly traditional beneath the hostility.
Read the full review →A
The AV Club
21 December 2023 · B- · Drew Gillis
70
The film succeeds as fun, aspirational escapism thanks to strong chemistry between the leads and an attractive cast in a subtropical setting. The critic notes it is formulaic but executes the rom-com beats competently without winking.
Read the full review →i
The i Paper
27 December 2023 · Matthew Turner
65*
The critic finds the film saved by the white-hot chemistry and charisma of leads Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell but hampered by a painfully contrived script that fails to generate real tension or farcical energy.
Read the full review →S
Slant Magazine
21 December 2023 · Derek Smith
50*
The review notes the strong on-screen chemistry between the leads but criticizes the film for failing to build a compelling world or develop the supporting characters beyond one dimension. It singles out the thin ensemble and lack of depth for complaint.
Read the full review →R
Radio Times
★★ · Kevin Harley
40
The critic finds the film a lacklustre modern take on Much Ado About Nothing despite its charismatic leads, Shakespearean source and scenic locations. The script's strained plotting, bawdy humour and attempts at sexiness fail to engage the leads or deliver wit.
Read the full review →N
The New York Times
21 December 2023 · Amy Nicholson
40*
The floundering romantic comedy has rising stars, a luxurious backdrop, and lots of skin but feels more bawdy than erotic, with a plot that leans on familiar switchback pranks and insults. The director seems to have spent more time on the closing credits karaoke than the actual film.
Read the full review →E
Empire
2 January 2024 · John Nugent
35*
The critic sees the film as a suffocatingly contrived and largely unfunny romcom that leans too heavily on glossy visuals and the leads' appeal while lacking genuine romance, wit or spark.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
21 December 2023
35*
The critic finds the film a glossy but charmless and unconvincing romantic comedy that fails to deliver on the genre's core appeals despite its sleek presentation and attractive leads. The direction and performances are singled out for leaving the central couple unengaging and the material unfunny.
Read the full review →H
The Hollywood Reporter
21 December 2023 · David Rooney
30*
The critic finds the rom-com strained and lacking chemistry and laughs despite the leads' appeal, calling it truly much ado about nothing. They single out the pedestrian writing and bland execution for complaint.
Read the full review →/
/Film
21 December 2023 · 6/10 · Marshall Shaffer
60
The critic praises the frisky, fun rom-com energy generated by the physical chemistry and bodily comedy between leads Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney. They criticize the subpar supporting cast and the way secondary characters are reduced to functional plot devices with stilted dialogue.
Read the full review →C
Consequence
21 December 2023 · C- · Clint Worthing
50
The critic finds it a genial but thin rom-com that coasts on its attractive stars, praising Powell's comic timing while noting Sweeney's passive performance and lack of believable chemistry.
Read the full review →D
Deadline
21 December 2023 · Valerie Complex
50*
The critic calls it a fun but forgettable middle-of-the-road rom-com that comfortably follows genre norms without breaking new ground. It is amusing enough for a casual watch but hindered by padding and length that dilutes its impact.
Read the full review →The critic finds the overstuffed enemies-to-lovers rom-com lacks narrative tension despite its destination-wedding setting and attractive leads. It tries too hard to sell the central conflict while the reunion feels inevitable, falling short of stronger examples in the genre.
Read the full review →C
Collider
22 December 2023 · Maggie Boccella
30*
The critic calls it bad Shakespeare fanfiction, praising Powell's charm but complaining about Sweeney's flat performance and the script's failure to capture the source material's essence.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate