Critics’ reviews

Silent Friend (2026)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 77: 8 positive, 2 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Silent Friend

77
Positive
8
Mixed
2
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Silent Friend, praising its patient attention to connections between people and plants. The strongest agreement concerns the sensory craft: tactile cinematography, layered sound and an immersive score make the ginkgo tree and other plant life feel vivid and emotionally significant. Performances also draw praise, with Tony Leung’s restraint singled out for giving the film an emotional centre, while several reviews admire its curiosity and compassion.

The reservations concern pace and the balance between the interwoven stories. Some critics find the slowness absorbing; others describe it as trying, and there are doubts about how convincingly the separate strands fit together. Little White Lies particularly favours the intimate, sunlit 1972 sequences, finding the other timelines stiff by comparison. The spread runs from enthusiasm to qualified appreciation rather than outright rejection, with unresolved questions registering as both a source of wonder and a limitation.

Variety
5 September 2025 · festival review · Guy Lodge
90*

Lodge finds the film enchanting, original and richly sensory, praising Enyedi’s imaginative, patient vision of human connection with plant life. He especially singles out the tactile cinematography and immersive sound and score for creating its vivid, symphonic atmosphere.

Read the full review →
Vulture
6 May 2026 · Bilge Ebiri
90*

Ebiri finds the film mesmerizing and unforgettable despite its slow pace. He especially praises how Enyedi’s cinematography makes the gingko tree’s hidden life feel vivid and emotionally resonant.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
15 May 2026 · Robert Abele
80*

The critic finds the film fluid, charming and quietly poetic, praising its belief in curiosity as a force for progress. He especially singles out the sublime gingko tree and the cast’s entrancing performances.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
8 May 2026 · Justin Chang
80*

Chang finds the film an enchanting, compassionate meditation on human relationships with plants, though its interwoven storytelling can feel arbitrary. He especially praises the performances, singling out Tony Leung and the ginkgo tree as memorable scene partners.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
5 September 2025 · B · Leila Latif
77

Latif finds the film profound and beautiful but sometimes painfully slow. Tony Leung’s magnetic, restrained performance is singled out as its emotional center.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
6 September 2025 · festival review · Jordan Mintzer
75*

Mintzer finds the film an enigmatic, brainy art-house experience that gradually grows on viewers open to its style. He praises its striking cinematography and layered sound design, which bring its unusual connections between people and plants to life.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
5 September 2025 · festival review · Jonathan Romney
70*

Romney presents the film as a contemplative, nature-focused work, suggesting a positive response. The headline singles out its paean to nature and Tony Leung Chiu-Wai’s starring performance.

Read the full review →
Little White Lies
festival review · Sophie Monks Kaufman
65*

The critic finds the film a sophisticated, if meandering, meditation on connection between humans and nature. She especially praises the sun-drenched 1972 sequences and their intimate cinematography, while noting that the other timelines feel stiff by comparison.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
7 May 2026
64*

The URL identifies this as a review of the film. The page is blocked, so the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaints cannot be determined.

Read the full review →
Deadline
5 September 2025 · festival review · Stephanie Bunbury
85*

Bunbury finds the film beautiful, elusive and full of lasting wonder. She praises its sensual images of the ginkgo and germinating seeds, while noting that its stories leave their questions unresolved.

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