The Laundromat (2019)

Soderbergh delivers a playful, uneven globetrotting comedy that surveys financial chicanery with wit and self-aware trickery, but it lacks a fully satisfying resolution or depth.

The critic sees the film as a star-powered experimental wake-up call on offshore accounts that chutes-and-ladders its way to distraction but keeps its eyes on the prize.

Soderbergh delivers a patchwork of comic vignettes on the Panama Papers that is fun while it lasts but feels haphazard and doesn't fully land, though the final direct plea for change is striking.

The film tries to enliven its urgent subject of global financial corruption with breezy irreverence and skits, but ends up feeling like a textbook lark rather than a deep exploration.

Soderbergh and Burns opt for a light-hearted comedy approach to the Panama Papers scandal rather than a straight exposé, but the result is wispy and uneven with flailing humour that undercuts its muckraking aims.

The film is a muddle trying to make sense of the Panama Papers scandal through episodic stories and fourth-wall breaks, feeling self-satisfied and frustrating despite some charm and a righteous message. Streep's widow anchors it but is sidelined among cameos.

Soderbergh attempts a Big Short-style exposé of the Panama Papers but delivers a flippant, incoherent film that loses its grip early. Streep's widow performance nearly saves it amid cartoonish turns from Oldman and Banderas and bland vignettes.

The critic finds the film messy, unsatisfying and dramatically redundant as a satire on the Panama Papers scandal. It faults the patchwork structure, lack of focus and phoned-in star performances despite its righteous subject.

Soderbergh lets the villains (Banderas and Oldman) dominate the narrative and enjoy themselves too much, causing the satire to revel in the very outrages it condemns while sidelining the meek victims like Streep's character.

Soderbergh delivers a rare misfire with this bumpy satire that uses too many celebrity cameos and lacks narrative glue, resulting in tonal whiplash and a glib treatment of the Panama Papers scandal.

The critic calls the film scattershot, sophomoric and digressive, faulting its lack of coherence and amateurish execution despite ambitions as an informative satire. It criticizes the multiple disjointed tales and uneven tone.

Soderbergh's comic-didactic take on the Panama Papers features Oldman and Banderas as leering hosts and Streep as a widow seeking justice, but the episodic film amounts to an indignant lecture that ends with a direct harangue.

Soderbergh's self-indulgent take on the Panama Papers is poorly conceived and executed, relying on showboating stars and confusing vignettes that drown its good intentions in razzle-dazzle.

The critic sees the film as a short, sharp and diverting take on tax avoidance and money laundering in the style of The Big Short. It praises the loose, comic approach but finds it scattershot and slight by comparison, better suited to home viewing than a festival.

The critic finds the film an eccentric, slap-happy but tonally unsteady account of the Panama Papers scandal, with an arch comic tone that clicks only part-time. Streep's performance as the determined truth-seeker is praised, but the satirical aim does not fully measure up to the ambitions.

The critic calls it a broad agitprop comedy that is labored in parts but sensationally valuable overall, a convoluted but breezy and fun take on the Panama Papers that explains and delights while highlighting how the meek are screwed by the rich.

The critic calls it a sly, cheerful shaggy dog tale that is breezy and unsubtle yet better than expected, with infectious energy from its cast and impeccable filmmaking. It singles out the witty use of the villains as guides and the infectious fun despite the cynical subject matter.

The critic finds it an uneven but undeniably ambitious explainer on the Panama Papers, with strong emotional throughlines and a powerful final monologue from Streep. It singles out the fourth-wall-breaking structure and the way it ties personal stories to systemic issues.

The film is a largely compelling, often funny, and ultimately infuriating ensemble piece that uses star power, direct address, and a strong final shot to make its political point about the Panama Papers scandal. It functions well as dramatized infotainment suited to Netflix.

The film showcases Soderbergh’s high-wire energy through colorful vignettes and a charming cast, with Streep as the standout in her main role, but its righteous anger folds into knots and includes a notable misstep with one of her performances. It is slick and self-satisfied but ultimately mixed in effectiveness.

The critic views the film as the least personal of Soderbergh's post-retirement works, with a format that prioritizes system critique over character stories. It is praised for strong performances, particularly Streep's central role, but faulted for disconnecting from its more engaging personal angles.

The film is a maddeningly good-not-great Issues Movie that loses focus on its star Meryl Streep amid too many explanations and vignettes, though it delivers some caustic wit and a memorable closing moment from her. It frustrates by sidelining its ostensible main character.

The critic finds the film a lecture that falls short, trying too hard to inspire and enrage while sidelining its main character despite a strong cast.

The film is sloppy and self-indulgent, with its mix of farce, information, and grandstanding feeling muddy and hollow despite amusing moments and solid performances from the cast. Its execution fails to match its ambition or intent.

The critic says the story is worth telling but the film is uneven and tonally off. Streep's performance as the wronged widow stands out as the best element.

The critic calls it a well-intentioned hot mess that fails to achieve dramatic traction despite good intentions and a strong cast. The narrative's frequent zigzagging and odd casting choices are singled out for criticism.