‘Verity’ Review: A Space Alien’s Approximation of an Erotic Thriller - The Outside Scoop | Scott Mendelson

BowieNot gonna lie, this one caught me off guard: ‘Verity’ Review: A Space Alien’s Approximation of an Erotic Thriller. What's your first reaction?

ReeseThat title alone tells me Scott Mendelson spent more energy crafting a clickable hook than he did analyzing the actual pacing issues in the film. Calling a movie starring Dakota Johnson and Anne Hathaway a "space alien’s approximation" feels like pure engagement bait, especially when the review admits the cast delivers raw sexual charisma but the script lacks real urgency. I’d trust his critique of the plot holes way more than his attempt to brand himself as edgy.

BowieBut look at how well that clickbait actually works, because people are going to click that "space alien" tag purely to see if it’s legit, which drives straight traffic to the movie anyway. The review says the film has zero forward momentum, yet that sharp, weird phrasing is exactly what keeps the conversation alive long after everyone has forgotten about Reminders of Him. You’re right that it prioritizes the hook over the craft, but that hook is why

ReesePeople aren't clicking to watch Verity, they're clicking to roast the reviewer for calling Anne Hathaway a space alien. That confusion between meme traffic and box office sales is exactly why I stopped trusting viral takes years ago; if your main argument is a joke, where's the substance?

BowiePicture a friend scrolling past a clip of that “space alien” quote laughing until she cries; she might never buy a ticket, but that shared moment keeps the title trending all week, which is arguably worth more to the studio than a quiet weekend opening. It turns a lukewarm adaptation into a cultural event just by being funny enough to screenshot.

ReesePicture someone who shares that screenshot in their group chat specifically to mock the studio for wasting stars like Josh Hartnett on a script that goes nowhere. That kind of mockery doesn’t sell tickets, it just cements the idea that Colleen Hoover adaptations are disposable content, which poisons the well for every future release trying to find its own audience without leaning on celebrity names.

BowieWait, you think mocking the star power actually helps the brand? That’s backwards—roasting Hartnett makes him the face of the flop, not the studio.

ReeseHe’s right that Hartnett becomes the visual shorthand for failure, not some abstract corporate entity. But that branding sticks to the actor personally, whereas my point was about the franchise itself getting tagged as low-effort merchandise before audiences even read a single page of the source material. The star gets blamed for the script, but the IP still takes the lasting hit for being perceived as disposable.

BowieYou nailed the distinction between blaming Hartnett and tanking the IP, since actors don’t control the greenlight process. Here’s the piece you skipped though: the review explicitly notes the film has no tangible urgency, so a viral meme about missing tension actually serves the marketing brief better than a boring three-star rating ever could.

ReeseComparing a bad script to free advertising is like saying a broken leg is good luck because it keeps you home from work; the injury is still there. Viral memes amplify the criticism they carry, they don’t erase the lack of tension in Verity, so studios end up paying twice for the same mistake.

BowieDakota Johnson’s career trajectory is the real casualty here, since her name now anchors a film critics openly dismiss as having no stakes. A lead actress can’t outrun the association with a product that fails to deliver the very thrill her casting promised, especially when the next role depends on proving she can carry genuine tension rather than just raw charisma.

ReeseYou’re measuring her damage in engagement metrics again. The actual problem isn’t the algorithm, it’s that the movie fundamentally lacks the pulse you expect from a thriller.

BowieCalling it a missing pulse ignores how the internet works; "boring" doesn't trend, but "overhyped trash" does, and that negative buzz keeps the title searchable long after the reviews stop mattering. The hook isn't the quality, it's the outrage cycle around Anne Hathaway playing the villain, which generates clips a silent masterpiece never could.

ReeseYou're confusing search volume with respect, which is a dangerous trade for any serious project. Just because people type "Verity" into a search bar doesn't mean they want to see another Colleen Hoover adaptation, it means they're looking for evidence of why it failed. That curiosity kills box office faster than indifference ever could.

BowieIndifference lets a project vanish quietly, but active skepticism forces viewers to engage with the narrative even while doubting it, keeping Verity alive in cultural conversations where true obscurity offers zero second chances. That ongoing debate over whether the stars delivered is exactly the kind of friction that sustains search interest long after ticket sales plateau. So yeah, the hate click might be dirty money, but it’s still revenue compared to the silence of total apathy.

ReeseDirty money is still money, sure, but spending it buys you a reputation for being the movie everyone warns their friends about, not the one they recommend. For a franchise trying to prove these adaptations aren't disposable, that kind of sustained negativity is a debt that compounds every time someone shares a clip. Bowie stops calling it revenue and starts noticing how much trust it costs.

BowieBut ignoring the data doesn't change that the next Colleen Hoover film will still need a massive pre-release buzz spike to move tickets, regardless of what critics think. The studio hasn't proved that organic love beats manufactured outrage yet, so until we have a comparable release that succeeded without the hate-click engine, your entire theory remains untested speculation.