Critics’ reviews

The City of Lost Children (1995)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 73: 6 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of The City of Lost Children

73
Positive
6
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to The City of Lost Children, with praise concentrated on its surreal imagery, imaginative design and sinister fairytale world. The reviews repeatedly admire the blend of dreams, grotesque humour and Gothic fantasy, finding plenty of invention even when the storytelling proves less satisfying. Performances also draw praise for giving the elaborate surroundings a human centre, particularly through the relationship between the strongman and the orphan thief.

The main disagreement concerns how much emotional weight the story carries. Empire finds the central partnership touching and the plot involving, while RogerEbert.com admires the images but finds less reason to care about the narrative. Other reservations concern disjointed storytelling, visual gimmickry and a sense that the many ideas never quite come together. The spread runs from enthusiastic approval to mixed responses rather than outright rejection: critics largely agree on the visual imagination, but differ over whether it sustains a whole film.

Los Angeles Times
22 December 1995 · Kevin Thomas
90*

The City of Lost Children is a stunningly surreal fantasy and one of the most audacious, original films of the year, with brilliantly realized world-building and strong performances that balance its dazzle.

Read the full review →
Time Out
19 August 2014 · GA
90*

The critic describes the film as a hugely inventive blend of dream, fairytale and myth set in a strange, sinister world with its own crazy logic. They single out the extraordinary visual and narrative inventiveness of Jeunet and Caro.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Kim Newman
70*

The film is a worthy successor to Delicatessen, with a more expansive though no less weird picture set in a fantastical alternate world. It succeeds through its touching team-up between a strongman and orphan thief and an involving, moving plot that supports the astonishing visuals.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
15 December 1995 · Roger Ebert
70*

The film excels in its astonishing visuals and imaginative design but falls short as a narrative, functioning more as a visual exercise than a story one cares about.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
15 December 1995
60*

The film captures a child's fevered nightmare with intense surreal imagery but becomes overly enamored with visual gimmickry, resulting in a disjointed and emotionally chilly story.

Read the full review →
Variety
1 January 1995 · ** · Variety Staff
50*

A vibrant, grotesque adult fairy tale full of breathtaking effects and in-your-face imagery that hits sensory highs but too rarely engages deeper emotions.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
21 November 2006 · Angus Wolfe Murray
90*

The critic describes the film as a work of originality without precedent that is unique and unsafe, enriched by grotesque imagery, labyrinthine sub-plots, desperate romanticism, black-blooded humour, a cornucopia of ideas and dazzling brilliance. They single out its dangerous, imaginative power and Gothic absurdity for praise.

Read the full review →
/Film
8 February 2026 · Witney Seibold
85*

The critic calls the film a visually striking steampunk oddity and a glorious nightmare for kids, blending Tim Burton's Gothic impulses with Terry Gilliam's chaotic storytelling. They single out its dazzling, expressionistic visuals and unique fairy-tale narrative for praise while noting its cult appeal despite narrative complexity.

Read the full review →
The Skinny
16 March 2016 · ★★★ · Michael Jaconelli
60

The critic finds the film a strange, inventive blend of fairy tale, dreams and steampunk that is a visual treat but never fully coalesces into a whole. They single out the eye-catching costumes by Jean Paul Gaultier and atmospheric score by Angelo Badalamenti for praise amid the grisly underworld and influences from Verne, Dickens and Gilliam.

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