--- title: "WHAM!: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/wham/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/wham" critics_score: 69 critics_reviews: 14 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # WHAM! (2023): what the critics said Critics' score 69 from 14 reviews: 10 positive, 2 mixed, 2 negative. Most critics find this an affectionate, enjoyable account of George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley’s partnership, with praise clustering around the archive footage and the pair’s candid voices. The music supplies much of the pleasure, while the friendship gives the documentary its warmth. Several reviews welcome the attention paid to Ridgeley’s support for Michael’s songwriting. Even some less enthusiastic responses find the scrapbook presentation appealing and the celebration of the duo’s early years entertaining. The disagreement is over how much the film reveals beneath that cheerful surface. The Evening Standard finds it illuminating and refreshingly restrained in its praise; The i Paper considers it fawning and shallow, despite enjoying the portrait of the friendship. Digital Spy offers the sharpest objection, finding too little exploration of Michael’s closeted identity and struggles. Reservations elsewhere concern pacing, limited discoveries for established fans and stories left unexplored. The spread is wide, despite the clear positive majority. ## Variety — Owen Gleiberman Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 8 July 2023. Gleiberman finds the documentary joyful and more substantial than a simple nostalgia trip, while tracing George Michael’s artistic ambition. He especially praises how it captures the distinctive energy and musical richness of Wham!’s best songs. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/wham-review-george-michael-andrew-ridgeley-chris-smith-1235664364/) ## Evening Standard — El Hunt Rating 4/5. 17 June 2023. Hunt finds the documentary genuinely illuminating and refreshingly free of exaggerated praise, despite some pacing issues. She particularly praises the candid archived narration from George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/wham-documentary-review-there-s-a-refreshing-lack-of-hyperbole-b1087718.html) ## Total Film — James Mottram Rating 4/5. 23 June 2023. The critic finds the documentary buoyant, joyful, and warmly positive about the band’s friendship. He especially praises how the archival footage and interview audio convey Ridgeley’s support for Michael’s songwriting. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/wham-review-netflix/) ## Los Angeles Times — Noel Murray Fi1m's normalised score 75/100 (inferred from the text). 5 July 2023. Murray finds the documentary an enjoyable treat for fans of 1980s culture, though longtime followers may learn little that is new. He praises the wealth of audio and video that gives both George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley room to share grounded perspectives. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2023-07-05/review-wham-documentary-george-michael-andrew-ridgely-run-rabbit-run-sarah-snook) ## Screen Daily — Fionnuala Halligan Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 17 June 2023. Festival review. The available description presents the documentary as a peppy account of WHAM!’s early days. It highlights George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley recounting their proto-boy-band beginnings; the full review is behind a paywall. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/wham-sheffield-review/5183204.article) ## The New York Times — Ben Kenigsberg Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 5 July 2023. The review presents the documentary as a compact, warmly nostalgic look back at Wham!. It singles out the archival material as a strength. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/movies/wham-review-documentary.html) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 60/100 (inferred from the text). 17 June 2023. Bradshaw finds the documentary entertaining and moving, but frustratingly incurious about the people behind Wham!’s success. He praises the scrapbook framing and the joy of the music while faulting its failure to explore the friendship, sexuality, and music more deeply. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/jun/17/wham-review-netflix-george-michael-andrew-ridgeley-80s-pop) ## The i Paper — Emily Baker Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 5 July 2023. Baker finds the documentary overly fawning and shallow, though she sees it as a fun celebration of Wham!’s era. She praises its warm portrait of George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley’s symbiotic friendship. [Read the review](https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/wham-netflix-review-george-michael-andrew-ridgeley-boring-documentary-2455778) ## The Playlist Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 17 July 2023. The headline presents the documentary as excellent. It singles out friendship and music as taking center stage. [Read the review](https://theplaylist.net/wham-review-friendship-music-take-center-stage-in-this-excellent-chris-smith-made-netflix-doc-20230717/) ## NME — Alex Flood Rating 4/5. 5 July 2023. The review finds the documentary affectionate, intimate and poignant while remaining upbeat. It praises the friendship at the centre of the story and Ridgeley’s importance beyond being a supporting figure. [Read the review](https://www.nme.com/reviews/film-reviews/wham-review-netflix-george-michael-andrew-ridgeley-3465078) ## Paste — Tara Bennett Rating 7.8. 6 July 2023. Bennett finds the documentary an engrossing, intimate time capsule, though it leaves gaps in Andrew Ridgeley’s life and the aftermath of George Michael’s death. She praises how Michael’s archival audio and Ridgeley’s present-day reflections create the feeling of an ongoing conversation between the friends. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/netflix/wham-review) ## Eye for Film — Amber Wilkinson Fi1m's normalised score 76/100 (inferred from the text). 9 July 2023. Wilkinson finds the documentary’s positive portrait of the duo’s partnership refreshing and lively. She particularly praises its archival material and animation, while noting that it leaves some post-split stories unexplored. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/wham-2023-film-review-by-amber-wilkinson) ## Den of Geek — Laura Vickers-Green Rating 3/5. 7 July 2023. The critic finds the documentary a cheerful, enjoyable celebration, though it avoids deeper or more complicated stories. She praises its generous archive footage and the candid voices of George Michael and Andrew Ridgeley. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/netflixs-wham-review-80s-pop-doc-good-vibes-only/) ## Digital Spy — David Opie Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 5 July 2023. Opie finds the documentary hollow and insufficiently serious about Michael’s story. He praises its scrapbook presentation and archive footage, but says it fails to explore Michael’s closeted identity and struggles. [Read the review](https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a44437608/wham-netflix-review-george-michael-gay-queer/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/wham.md