--- title: "Icarus: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/icarus/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/icarus" critics_score: 70 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Icarus (2017): what the critics said Critics' score 70 from 10 reviews: 8 positive, 1 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics come down in favour, and they agree on why: the film gets better once it stops being about Fogel’s own doping experiment and becomes about Grigory Rodchenkov. The praise clusters on Rodchenkov’s testimony, on the access Fogel has to him, and on the way the account of Russia’s state-sponsored doping programme arrives with the pace of a thriller. Several reviewers admit they were unsure of the film for its first stretch and were won over in the second. The reservations are about shape. Critics call the structure uneven, padded or scattershot, and more than one thinks Fogel keeps himself on camera longer than the story needs. The Guardian also wants more distance from its subject. The spread is narrow, with most scores in the seventies; the one firm dissent comes from Slant Magazine, which finds the film heavy-handed and unfocused and says the filmmaker’s self-involvement never goes away. ## The New York Times — Jeannette Catsoulis Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 3 August 2017. The review finds the documentary gripping as it expands from a filmmaker’s doping experiment into a major sports scandal. It singles out that unexpected expansion as its central strength. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/movies/icarus-review.html) ## Screen Daily — David D'Arcy Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 21 January 2017. The standfirst presents the documentary as an explosive, compelling account of Russian sports doping. It singles out the marathon of allegations and evidence as its defining strength. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/icarus-review/5113930.article) ## The Guardian — Gwilym Mumford Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 4 August 2017. Mumford finds the documentary flawed but fascinating, with a powerful and revelatory account of Russian state-sponsored doping. He praises the remarkable access to Grigory Rodchenkov’s detailed testimony, while faulting the film’s uneven structure and lack of critical distance from its subject. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/04/icarus-review-netflix-doping-wada-russia) ## Variety — Peter Debruge Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 20 January 2017. Festival review. Debruge finds the documentary compelling and game-changing, though its Putin-focused approach limits its broader investigation. He praises how it humanizes whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov while exposing corruption around Russian Olympic doping. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2017/film/reviews/icarus-review-sundance-1201964494/) ## Los Angeles Times — Glenn Whipp Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 3 August 2017. Whipp finds the documentary ragged and occasionally scattershot, but ultimately compelling. He praises the immediacy with which it reveals the scale of Russia’s Olympic doping scheme. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-icarus-review-20170803-story.html) ## The Hollywood Reporter — Todd McCarthy Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 20 January 2017. Festival review. McCarthy finds the documentary flawed but revealing, calling it a winner despite its indulgent, padded feel. He praises the revelations from Grigory Rodchenkov, whose story proves more compelling than the director’s on-camera presence. [Read the review](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/icarus-review-965854/) ## Time Out Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 24 April 2017. The available page identifies this as a review but does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its description highlights the documentary’s investigation of the doping scandal, with no specific praise or complaint available. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/icarus) ## Slant Magazine — Clayton Dillard Rating 1.5/4. 30 July 2017. Dillard finds the documentary heavy-handed, unfocused, and weakened by the filmmaker’s continued self-involvement. He faults its reliance on chronological montages and says it fails to center the scandal’s most significant figure. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/icarus/) ## The Wrap Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 20 January 2017. Festival review. The critic finds the documentary timely, engrossing, and essential despite its unwieldy scope. They praise the shift into a whistleblower thriller, especially Rodchenkov’s account of Russia’s doping system. [Read the review](https://www.thewrap.com/icarus-sundance-review-doping-documentary/) ## Collider — Matt Goldberg Rating B. 22 January 2017. Goldberg finds the documentary initially muddled but ultimately riveting, praising its transformation into a pulse-pounding account of Russian Olympic doping. He singles out the revelations from Grigory Rodchenkov and Fogel’s skill in reshaping the story as its strengths. [Read the review](https://collider.com/icarus-review-russian-doping-documentary/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/icarus.md