Swiss Army Man (2016)

The critic describes it as a gloriously inventive fable about humanity that is hilarious, moving and profound, calling it one of the year’s best films. They single out the originality of the images and Radcliffe’s astonishing performance as Manny for praise.

The film is a weird and wonderful, disgusting and demented buddy movie in which one man’s dead body nudges another back to life. It is an impossible-to-categorize, stunningly original mix of the macabre and the magical that creates an atmosphere of effluvial enchantment through acting, music, photography and effects.

The film dares viewers to embrace its singular earnestness as a buddy comedy and love story about bodies, language, and connection in the smartphone era. It achieves a visionary achievement in vitality and transparency from its hero but ends with a disappointing, elusive finale.

The critic calls it a surprisingly moving and very funny black comedy that blends the profound and the puerile. They single out the inventive direction and Radcliffe’s committed, outstanding performance as Manny for praise.

The film poses a critical quandary due to its bizarre premise but the critic recommends it, praising the singular gonzo indie spirit and the energetic performances from both leads.

The critic finds the film sweeter and more sensitive than its premise suggests, with absurd laughs that give way to something deeper and more personal. They single out the emerging friendship between the leads and the emotional payoff for praise.

The film announces itself as the bugfuck American comedy of the year, balancing rubbery slapstick and body horror with existential despair and unexpected emotional investment. It benefits from the stars' full commitment and a hand-made, myopic POV that rescues it from preciousness.

The Sundance review highlights the film's bizarre premise and the strong lead performances amid its surreal buddy-comedy elements.

The critic highlights the film's inventive mix of silliness and sobriety as a body-buddy comedy, praising Daniel Radcliffe's physical performance as the corpse and its exploration of masculinity, embarrassment and the acceptance of death.

Paul Dano discovers all the tools he needs for survival in Daniel Radcliffe's multi-purpose corpse in this wildly weird comedy that imagines “Cast Away” meets “Weekend at Bernie’s.” It represents an iconoclastic personal vision that delivers gonzo foolishness but drags in places despite inventive sequences.

The forcefully quirky “Swiss Army Man” expels a lot trying to convince viewers its bruised-emo wilderness yarn is whimsically imaginative, with its odd pairing of a stranded neurotic and a gaseous cadaver. There is more than a whiff of overwrought dude pity to this spottily amusing absurdist adventure that shows style but ultimately has a limited and cloying emotional palette.

The review describes the film as audacious and oddly emotional but ultimately unsatisfying, noting its wilfully strange take on masculinity and male bonding.

The critic finds the surreal debut enchanting yet irritating and juvenile, but also oddly endearing and audacious in style. Performances by Dano and Radcliffe add tragic fragility and chemistry to the bodily-function humor.

The reviewers find the fart-driven premise ultimately flat and the film self-indulgent, though they acknowledge its originality and the committed performances of the leads.

This excruciatingly cute fantasy lives up to its “farting-corpse movie” epithet as a shipwrecked man drags a flatulent corpse through the wild and harnesses its bodily functions for survival. The directors smother a hint of an idea about responsible masculinity in bland images, wheedling and sentimental performances, and banal emotions.

Radcliffe is game but playing a fart-powered corpse is a step too far in this surreal comedy that ultimately proves discombobulating rather than outrageously funny.

The critic dismisses the film as puerile and infantile, criticizing its reliance on fart jokes and banal emotional core despite the committed cast performances.

The critic finds the film's juvenile subject matter and fart gags insufferable, especially paired with pretensions of philosophical depth. A dead loss overall.

The critic praises the film's unique absurdity and heart, highlighting the chemistry between Dano and Radcliffe in this Sundance debut.

The film is a triumph and the arrival of a strong new cinematic voice, a meditation on life and death that is beautiful, inventive and often hilarious. It singles out Daniel Radcliffe's star-making, odd and subtle performance as the corpse for particular praise.

The film is a poignant masterpiece and one of the most inventive and sensitive of the year, a bold and original debut that has something important to say. It singles out Daniel Radcliffe's perfect, brilliant performance as the corpse and the astounding visuals for praise.

The critic praises the film's originality and ambition as a unique meditation on life and death, highlighting the terrific and fearless performances by Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe that make the strange premise sing despite some overreach in the finale and overly juvenile humor.

The critic appreciates the film's blend of absurdity and beauty, praising Radcliffe's performance and the exploration of loneliness and bodily functions.

The debut feature from the Daniels is visually inventive but more fun to look at than listen to, with an overly earnest script full of familiar indie oddballery and post-adolescent insights. Radcliffe’s physical performance and the directors’ commitment to ambiguity stand out as highlights amid complaints about a precious folk soundtrack and forced sincerity.

The critic finds the film a big swing but ultimately unsatisfying, with committed performances but tonal issues and juvenile elements that fail to connect emotionally.

The film takes chances with lofty themes made digestible through flatulence and delivers occasional visual and auditory highlights via strong music and art direction, but the script fails to sustain its runtime with weak, shallow characters and blunt, boring dialog sequences.