Critics’ reviews

Spice World (1997)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 49: 4 positive, 1 mixed, 4 negative.

Back to our review of Spice World

49
Positive
4
Mixed
1
Negative
4

The reviews are sharply divided on Spice World, with praise centred on its cheerful absurdity, celebrity jokes and the pleasure of watching the group together. Supporters find a breezy pop comedy whose self-awareness makes its promotional purpose easier to enjoy. The music sequences earn some credit for their pace, while even an otherwise hostile assessment acknowledges the stars’ energy and good cheer. The Independent goes furthest, treating the film’s self-referential comedy as a sophisticated response to fame.

The main objections concern thin storytelling, uneven technical execution and jokes that fail to land. There is little agreement even about the group’s screen presence: some critics enjoy their collective silliness, while others find them dull. Later appreciations from Den of Geek and /Film favour its entertainment value despite its shortcomings, with /Film also stressing nostalgia. The spread is wide, turning largely on whether the fun compensates for the untidiness.

The Independent
28 December 1997
80*

The critic praises the film as an uproarious, self-referential pantomime that cleverly dramatizes celebrity and fame in a topical, sophisticated way, comparing it favorably to A Hard Day's Night as an important 1990s document of post-modernity.

Read the full review →
Variety
19 December 1997
70*

The bright and breezy movie is as timely but evanescent as the Cool Britannia culture it celebrates and will delight the band's pre-pubescent fans while recalling fond memories of the '60s. Direction is unfussy and the music segments are pacily cut, making it more than just an extended music video.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
23 January 1998
30*

The film is about four months too late and four stars too short to be a four-star movie, with post-production issues leaving it barely competent on a technical level. Cameo appearances and the cast fail to impress or elevate the material.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
26 January 1998 · Anthony Lane
30*

The movie suffers from musical timidity and nearly every scene falls on its nose despite the director's background. It makes no bones about the absurdity of the Spice Girls' success and absorbs any criticism in the course of the picture.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
23 January 1998 · Janet Maslin
30*

The film is essentially a showcase for the Spice Girls' hits, clothes, hairdos and lollipops with only the barest semblance of a story line. It has occasional knowing, funny gags but too often looks washed-out and flat, though the stars radiate energy, color and good cheer.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
20*

The critic finds the film a flappy, silly and ultimately dismal effort that fails to capture any real energy or substance from the Spice Girls, highlighting their dullness on screen and especially criticizing Victoria Beckham's performance.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
6 April 2017 · Simon Brew
70*

The critic enjoys the film as a daft, breezy, shonky and entertaining watch despite its flaws and cash-in origins, praising its fun factor over technical quality.

Read the full review →
/Film
25 February 2018 · Dalin Rowell
70*

The film is not a traditional good movie but holds strong entertainment value as a nostalgic '90s artifact. It praises the movie's fun, meta take on the Spice Girls' rise and its cultural impact despite initial critical pans.

Read the full review →
Collider
23 January 2023 · C · Ross Bonaime
57

The critic finds the film cluttered with too many subplots and ideas that don't cohere, making it a mess despite its ambitions to satirize celebrity like A Hard Day's Night. They single out for praise the fun, goofy moments when the Spice Girls are together front and center.

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