Wicker (2026)

Wilkinson finds the film a charming, intelligent crowdpleaser with a strong central love story. She particularly praises the practical effects and expressive design of the Wicker Husband.

Lawson finds the film a warming, sometimes poignant pleasure, though its ending runs a little long. He particularly praises its lively social survey and peppery wit, as well as Olivia Colman and Alexander Skarsgård’s performances.

Lattanzio finds the film an amusing but overstuffed folk tale that struggles to give its premise a larger purpose. He praises Olivia Colman and Alexander Skarsgård as irresistibly weird and wonderful, especially in their central romance.

Debruge finds the bawdy fable entertaining and tender, though its second act and moral turn feel unconvincing. He especially praises the intimate moments between Colman’s fisherwoman and her wicker husband.

Lee finds the fable inventive but tonally uneven, with a romance that fails to build enough emotional investment. He praises Olivia Colman’s committed performance and the wicker effects, while faulting the underdeveloped relationship.

The review finds Wicker a raunchy, off-kilter delight that remains touching beneath its bawdy humor. It especially praises Alexander Skarsgård’s believable, kind-hearted wooden husband and Olivia Colman’s performance.

The critic calls Wicker bold, strange, romantic, and deeply human, praising it as one of Sundance’s best films. They single out Alexander Skarsgård’s warm, vulnerable performance and Olivia Colman’s dramatic and comedic work.

The critic finds the film flawed but entertaining, praising its quirky folk romance and humor while noting its storytelling feels underdeveloped. Alexander Skarsgård’s lively, convincing performance as the Wicker Husband stands out.

The critic finds the earnest, eccentric fable wearisome and lacking in magic. Peter Dinklage is singled out for stealing his scenes, while the story’s stiffness and predictability draw complaint.