Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Lazic calls it a thrilling, expertly constructed action movie that succeeds without oppressive patriotism. She praises its precise explanation of the rig’s logistics and the realism of its effects.

The critic calls it a gripping, realistic disaster drama and a worthy tribute to the victims and survivors. They praise the visceral, terrifying destruction, heightened by disorienting camerawork and stunning sound design.

Johnston gives the film a favorable four-star assessment. He praises its realistic depiction of oil-rig professionals, while noting that the technical dialogue can be impenetrable.

The critic calls it a gruelling, effective disaster movie and a worthy tribute to the men involved. He praises its tense, clearly delivered technical detail and its forceful focus on BP’s responsibility.

Chang finds the film gripping and emotionally forceful, praising its harrowing disaster sequences and compassion for the workers. He singles out Kurt Russell’s performance and the realistic, beautifully filmed inferno, while noting the film leaves larger environmental questions unexplored.

McCarthy finds the film an effective, fast-moving disaster drama that vividly recreates the rig’s catastrophe. He especially praises the convincing physical production and seamless technical execution, which keep the action from feeling artificial.

Hewitt finds the film an efficient, compelling depiction of the disaster, though it loses momentum once the explosion begins. He particularly praises the first hour’s meticulous detail, pacing, and realism.

Sexton finds the film a taut, effective disaster movie, though its first half struggles to explain the technical causes of the catastrophe. He praises the dynamically filmed explosions and fires, which heighten the crew’s terrifying sense of having no escape.

Lane finds the film an efficient, thrilling disaster movie, though its excitement comes with a troubling sense of shame. He praises the grounded performances, especially Kurt Russell’s, and the visceral intensity of the disaster sequences.

Debruge finds the film remarkably thrilling and its disaster spectacle viscerally effective, despite confusing technical action and disorienting editing. He praises the convincing heroism and sound design, while faulting the film for largely ignoring the disaster’s environmental aftermath.

Edelstein finds the film thrilling and moving, while criticizing it for falling short as a muckraker. He praises the sound design and the momentous, immersive staging of the disaster.

The URL indicates this is a New York Times review of the film. The page content is blocked, so the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be verified.

The page could not be accessed, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. No specific praise or criticism can be verified.

The page identifies this as a review, but its critical verdict is not visible in the accessible text. No specific praise or complaint can be confirmed from the excerpt.

The critic finds the disaster film workmanlike and dramatically weak, despite its effective real-life premise. He praises the convincing details of rig workers’ daily routines and the horror-like atmosphere once the disaster begins.

The review presents the film as a straightforward real-life disaster movie. It singles out its remembrance of the 2010 explosion, which killed 11 men and caused a devastating oil spill.

Kohn finds the film a noisy but shallow disaster movie that fails to justify revisiting the tragedy. He praises its fiery detail and suspenseful recreation of the rig’s chaos, while faulting its underdeveloped characters and limited perspective.

Cole finds the film’s focus on Mike Williams’s heroism weakens its force as a critique of corporate negligence. He praises the chaotic disaster sequences but faults the shift away from the larger outrage and consequences of the catastrophe.

The critic finds the film to be Peter Berg’s most accomplished work in some time and an effective dramatization of the disaster. They particularly praise its slow-building opening and focus on the 11 men who died.

Goldberg finds the film both infuriating and horrifying, praising its realism without a comforting Hollywood sheen. He singles out the immersive, nightmarish depiction of the explosion and the workers’ understated heroism.

Roffman calls the film a success, praising its humane, harrowing commemoration of the disaster’s victims. He especially singles out Berg’s visceral direction and the performances for making the rig’s destruction feel terrifying and immediate.

The review finds the film an exciting, effective disaster drama despite some Hollywood embellishment. It praises the tense suspense and the painstakingly authentic recreation of the rig and its catastrophe.

Collins finds the film an efficient, satisfying disaster movie, but says its focus on action leaves the tragedy and its broader implications underexplored. He particularly praises the detailed, convincingly choreographed depiction of the rig’s escalating failure.

Crump finds the film effective as suspenseful action but underwhelming as a story, with its narrow focus weakening its treatment of the disaster’s human cost. He praises Peter Berg’s tense staging of the catastrophe and singles out Kurt Russell’s charm, while criticizing the film for neglecting the victims who died.

The critic finds the film thrilling but morally and politically troubling, especially in how it profits from a real disaster without sufficiently honoring those affected. The action set pieces and performances are praised, but the film’s treatment of the spill’s aftermath draws the strongest complaint.

Hammond finds the film explosive but not compelling, with its spectacle overwhelming the human story. He praises the action and technical work, while criticizing the jargon-heavy first half and the distance from the tragedy’s human cost.

The review is largely negative, finding the film confusing and its sentimental interruptions unhelpful. It praises the seamless CGI and convincing post-explosion chaos.