Critics’ reviews

Death Becomes Her (1992)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 58: 5 positive, 3 mixed, 3 negative.

Back to our review of Death Becomes Her

58
Positive
5
Mixed
3
Negative
3

The reviews are divided on Death Becomes Her, but praise repeatedly centres on Meryl Streep and Goldie Hawn, whose acerbic performances give the dark comedy much of its appeal. Admirers enjoy the celebrity satire and the stars’ willingness to mock themselves, with Bruce Willis’s comic ability also drawing notice. The special effects attract praise across otherwise differing assessments, while the more enthusiastic reviews find sharp dialogue and a cynical streak beneath the spectacle.

The split concerns how often that spectacle produces a laugh. Variety admires the effects and performances but finds the satire too cold to inspire much enthusiasm. The Los Angeles Times argues that the effects derail a promising setup and cannot compensate for weak comic writing. Other reservations concern gruesomeness and an old-fashioned approach. The spread is wide: supporters find the excess entertaining, while detractors see an overblown comedy that struggles to be funny.

Radio Times
★★★★ · Sue Heal
80

The review praises the film’s dark comedy, despite finding Zemeckis’s direction under-rehearsed. It singles out Streep and Hawn’s acerbic performances, along with the script and casting.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · William Thomas
78*

Thomas finds the film highly enjoyable, praising its pitch-black comedy and celebrity satire. He also singles out the leads’ willingness to mock themselves and Willis’s unexpected comic skill.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
31 July 2018 · Jeff Menell
75*

Menell finds the film dark, over-the-top and entertaining, with a chance to draw audiences through its stars. He especially praises the makeup and special effects, though he says some effects are too gruesome to enjoy.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
64*

The article could not be accessed, so its verdict is unavailable. No praise or complaint from the critic could be verified.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
31 July 1992
58*

The URL identifies this as a review of the film, but the page text is inaccessible. The headline suggests a complaint about the film’s humor, though the critic’s verdict cannot be verified.

Read the full review →
Variety
27 July 1992 · Todd McCarthy
50*

McCarthy finds the dark comedy fascinating but more likely to earn admiration than enthusiasm, with its cold satire limiting its broad appeal. He especially praises the seamless, astonishing special effects and the performances of Meryl Streep and Goldie Hawn.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
40*

The review finds the black comedy oddly old-fashioned. It singles out its resemblance to 1940s screwball comedies and horror spoofs rather than Zemeckis’s better-known films.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
31 July 1992 · Kenneth Turan
30*

Turan finds the film ambitious but ultimately flat, saying its dark comedy often forgets to be funny. He praises the early prologues’ nervy setup, but argues the impressive effects derail the film and cannot replace clever writing.

Read the full review →
Vulture
16 April 2020 · David Denby
10*

Denby condemns the film as contemptuous of its audience and itself. He singles out Meryl Streep’s skill and apparent enjoyment as a rare escape from its overblown, demeaning comedy.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
9 October 2014 · Sarah Dobbs
85*

The critic wholeheartedly recommends revisiting the film, finding it clever, dark, and more cynical than it first appears. She especially praises its still-impressive special effects and memorable, creepy score.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
17 September 2021 · Jennie Kermode
85*

Kermode finds the film tremendously entertaining and praises its confident comic direction. She singles out Streep and Hawn’s performances and the sharp dialogue that lets them unleash their personalities.

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