Critics’ reviews

The Housemaid (2025)

16 reviews from 16 publications. Critics’ score 71: 9 positive, 1 mixed, 2 negative.

Back to our review of The Housemaid

71
Positive
9
Mixed
1
Negative
2

Most critics enjoy The Housemaid as trashy, knowing fun, and the praise clusters on the two leads. Amanda Seyfried’s unhinged employer is the performance almost everyone singles out, with several reviews calling her shrill meltdowns the main reason to watch; Sydney Sweeney is admired more evenly, with The Times preferring her resilient housemaid. The twists are widely liked, as is Paul Feig’s willingness to let the film be a 90s-style erotic thriller played for camp. The reservations are about pacing and plot: a slow first half, an overlong runtime, and a mystery several reviewers find thin, with Collider finding the film uneven until a wild finale rescues it. The spread is wide. Screen Daily and Little White Lies call it dull and ludicrous, saying the gloss cannot hide weak writing, and Empire and Slant judge it toothless and slack. The consensus is that it works if you accept the hokum, and not at all if you do not.

Variety
16 December 2025 · Owen Gleiberman
85*

The critic describes it as an over-the-top yet clever domestic thriller that fools expectations and features standout performances from Sweeney and Seyfried. It appreciates the hyperbolic edge and stylish trickiness.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
18 December 2025 · Katie Walsh
80*

The review highlights Paul Feig's skill in delivering soapy, female-driven thrillers with comedy flair, calling it indulgent women's entertainment. It commends the lead actresses for embodying the film's steamy, twisty mystery.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
17 December 2025 · ★★★★ · Terry Staunton
80

The review praises the film as a satisfyingly scary chiller that benefits from not taking itself too seriously. Amanda Seyfried is singled out for her wild-eyed, versatile performance as the unhinged employer.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
16 December 2025
80*

The critic finds the film an outrageously enjoyable psycho-suspense thriller in the style of 90s erotic noir, with over-the-top acting and clever twists. Feig and the cast deliver it with terrific gusto as an innocent holiday treat.

Read the full review →
The Telegraph
26 December 2025 · ★★★★ · Tim Robey
80

The absurd psycho-thriller is a scream thanks to combative lead performances from Sweeney and Seyfried, who rule the roost in turn. Seyfried steals scenes with her fabulously shrill meltdowns and knowing embrace of the hokum.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
18 December 2025 · Alissa Wilkinson
75*

The critic praises the film's twisty narrative and strong performances by Sweeney and Seyfried in a psychological thriller about secrets and empowerment behind facades. It notes the effective use of erotic thriller tropes updated for contemporary audiences.

Read the full review →
Little White Lies
26 December 2025 · 2/2/2 · Hannah Strong
40

The critic finds the adaptation ludicrous and unentertaining, a cut-and-paste thriller that fails to turn its flaws into camp appeal. Seyfried delivers a decent over-the-top performance amid otherwise weak writing and wooden leads.

Read the full review →
Screen Daily
16 December 2025
30*

The critic calls the film a dull, style-over-substance schlocky adaptation of a problematic book, with a threadbare plot and obvious beats. It singles out the glossy visuals and kitschy vibe as insufficient to mask the thin characters and ill-advised central conceit.

Read the full review →
Empire
16 December 2025 · Olly Richards

The critic calls it glossy nonsense and a tacky, ridiculous bargain-bin cousin to Feig's earlier thrillers, with weak mystery plotting and a passive lead that fails to build tension. Seyfried's manic energy as Nina stands out amid the slack pacing and overlong runtime, though the deranged final half-hour adds some chaotic fun.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
16 December 2025 · Anzhe Zhang

The review criticizes the film as toothless and tonally incongruous, praising the twist but noting it falls short of deeper themes, with unconvincing performances.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
16 December 2025 · David Rooney

The critic finds the twisty thriller entertaining holiday fare with strong performances, especially from Amanda Seyfried, but notes it holds back on camp and is too long.

Read the full review →
The Times
24 December 2025 · ★★★★☆ · Kevin Maher

This is hugely enjoyable guilty-pleasure film-making, with Sweeney shining as the resilient housemaid in a daft domestic thriller full of pleasing touches and an audacious volte-face leading to a Grand Guignol finale.

Read the full review →
The Wrap
16 December 2025
85*

The critic finds it a winking comedy-thriller with genuine suspense and kitschy humor that delivers glorious, angry, hilarious, nail-biting fun. The review singles out the cast's enjoyment and Feig's assured handling of the high-camp tone and clever script.

Read the full review →
Deadline
16 December 2025 · Pete Hammond
80*

The critic calls it a trashily entertaining, dizzying guilty pleasure that turns Amanda Seyfried and Sydney Sweeney into modern-day Davis and Crawford in a heightened operatic ride full of twists. He praises the audacity of the story, Feig's direction of the female stars, and the over-the-top performances as delicious fun.

Read the full review →
/Film
16 December 2025 · 8/10 · Witney Seibold
80

The critic praises Paul Feig's assured direction of a tight, wicked script, noting the strong performances by Sydney Sweeney and Amanda Seyfried and the film's focus on class, abuse, and female solidarity. It is described as an immensely enjoyable thriller with effective twists and among Feig's best work.

Read the full review →
Collider
16 December 2025 · Jeff Ewing
65*

The film is uneven overall, with a slow and predictable first half that feels like a slog, but it delivers one of the year's most entertaining twists and a wildly campy, fun finale. Amanda Seyfried's stellar, wide-ranging performance stands out as a highlight amid the mixed results.

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