Empire of Light (2022)

Bradshaw finds the film a poignant, humane revival of the cinematic love-letter genre. He particularly praises Olivia Colman’s performance and Roger Deakins’ cinematography.

Hearfield finds the film touching and heartwarming, though its script handles racism and mental health unevenly. He praises the electric chemistry between Olivia Colman and Micheal Ward, along with the film’s technical craft.

The review presents Mendes’s film as an ambitious, personal drama. It singles out Micheal Ward’s performance for warmth and sensitivity.

Debruge finds the film a thoughtful, warmly positive tribute to the people who bring a cinema to life, even as it tackles social issues and mental health. He especially praises Olivia Colman’s performance, while noting that the polished cinematography can feel less intimate than the story needs.

The review presents the film as a sentimental, positive ode to cinema. It singles out Olivia Colman and Micheal Ward for shining in their roles.

The review finds the film visually evocative but uneven, with too many storylines that fail to cohere. It praises Olivia Colman’s performance and singles out Roger Deakins’ warm lighting and the theater’s striking production design.

The URL identifies this as RogerEbert.com’s review of the 2022 film. The page was blocked by a browser check, so its verdict and specific praise or complaint could not be verified.

Linden finds the film crowd-pleasing but uneven, with some contrivances that weaken its themes. She particularly praises Olivia Colman’s stirring performance and the film’s richly realized cinema setting.

The article is identified as a review of the specified film, but its text is unavailable. I cannot determine the critic’s verdict or what the review singles out for praise or complaint.

Nugent finds the film evocative and gorgeously staged, but says it does not quite cohere. He praises the cinematography and period production design while noting that the story seems confused about its aims.

Smith finds Mendes’ film an elegant homage that is less moving than its direction promises. He praises Olivia Colman’s standout scenes but criticizes the film’s schematic construction and clunky metaphors.

Ehrlich finds the film clumsy and stilted, ultimately not worth seeing in a theater. He praises Micheal Ward’s warm performance and the lovingly recreated cinema, especially its meticulous details.

The critic finds the film a muddled, heavy-handed tribute whose romantic and social concerns overshadow its supposed love of cinema. He praises Micheal Ward’s exuberant performance, but says the climactic moviegoing moment fails to feel transcendent.

Asch finds the film mawkish and emotionally unconvincing, with Colman’s performance pushed beyond what the material can bear. He praises the gorgeous cinematography and period production design, while faulting the film’s romanticized vision of the cinema.

Walsh finds the film’s story too scattershot and contrived to deliver the emotional sweep it aims for. She praises Olivia Colman’s performance and Roger Deakins’ beautiful cinematography.

The critic finds the film thematically shallow, with unresolved storylines and clunky dialogue. They praise its evocative cinematography and setting, as well as Olivia Colman’s performance.

Newland finds the film bland and fatally flawed, with themes and plotlines that never cohere. She praises its beautiful visuals, but criticizes its underdeveloped relationship and handling of racial politics.

Brody finds the film’s motives and premises compelling but judges its drama and characterization unsuccessful. He praises the theatre’s distinctive architecture, while faulting the film for lacking nuance and inner life.

Ebiri finds the film drained of life, emotionally uninvolving, and weighed down by underwritten characters. He singles out the eerie, sickly visual atmosphere, but says it cannot compensate for the film’s lack of texture or engaging storytelling.

Hammond gives the film a strongly positive verdict, calling it gripping and satisfying. He especially praises Olivia Colman’s emotionally commanding performance and the film’s loving attention to the old movie theatre.

Milner finds the film an unconventional, cautiously optimistic romance, though its plot languishes and it avoids a traditional happy ending. She especially praises Olivia Colman’s nuanced performance and the chemistry between Colman and Micheal Wardis.

Amidon finds the film overly sentimental, arguing that its reverence for cinema leads to an unconvincing resolution of serious struggles. She praises Olivia Colman’s nuanced performance and notes Michael Ward’s softness and emotional honesty as a strong complement.

Kermode finds the film limited in scope but worthwhile, with its characters gaining depth as the story develops. She particularly praises the sensitive, nonsensational portrayal of schizophrenia and Roger Deakins’s absorbing cinematography.

The critic finds the film moving and visually beautiful, but says it falls short of its potential. Roger Deakins’s cinematography and Olivia Colman’s performance are singled out for praise, while the racism subplot and cinema theme feel underdeveloped.

The available page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. It provides no details about what the critic praised or criticized.

Bonaime finds the film fragmented and aimless, with too many ideas to form a compelling story. He praises the theater employees’ camaraderie and the cinematography, especially a striking rooftop fireworks scene.

The critic finds the film an uneven, unfocused drama that often fails to make its love of cinema resonate. They praise Olivia Colman’s performance and the charm of Hilary and Stephen’s developing relationship, while faulting the handling of mental health and racism.

The critic finds the film beautifully made but weighed down by a clumsy, overstuffed script. They praise Roger Deakins’ cinematography and the performances, while faulting the story’s sentimental treatment of its themes.