Compare Voicemails for Isabelle vs Best of the Best

Despite a teen-accessible rating, the sexual material and strong language raise suitability concerns. Families should not assume the emotional sister story makes it a gentle all-ages watch.

One reviewer calls it a fun family watch and sees little in the content that should worry families.

Tears, humor, attractive leads, and nostalgic romance give the film broad mainstream appeal. The privacy-crossing courtship will sharply reduce its charm for anyone unable to suspend disbelief.

The cultural specificity is repeatedly described as a strength rather than a barrier, with reviewers expecting the film to connect beyond South Asian audiences and especially with younger dance fans.

Sexual references, comic encounters, and suggestive scenes are frequent enough to limit suitability for families. The material feels prominent and relentless rather than occasional.

A reviewer notes some mention of sex but still considers the movie a comfortable family watch, indicating approval of the relatively restrained level.

The sisterhood themes are warm, but frequent sex talk, sexual situations, and strong language limit family friendliness. It is better suited to mature teens and adults.

The film is described as wholesome and, despite a small amount of mature reference, suitable for a family movie night.

The near-two-hour runtime is one of the clearest weaknesses. Trimming workplace detours and repeated setup would create a tighter, more persuasive romance.

The near-two-hour length divides critics: some are entertained enough to want even more, while another says the second-half conflict noticeably bloats the runtime.

The visuals range from glossy and romantic to blandly streaming-generic. San Francisco locations provide the strongest and most distinctive visual asset.

The photography is praised for warm campus imagery and colorful staging that gives the dance numbers visual lift.

The dialogue is strongest when it captures inside jokes, banter, and humor rooted in character history. Its witty, touching exchanges help the relationships feel lived in.

The dialogue draws both praise and criticism: one review finds it natural and current without trying too hard, while another says English-language exchanges can feel noticeably removed from real speech.

Pacing is a frequent weakness: the opening and middle can feel overextended, while Wes’s pursuit develops too quickly. The strongest sections move briskly when focused on Jill and Isabelle.

Pacing ranges from top-notch and rhythmically satisfying to noticeably slower once repeated friendship conflict dominates the second half.

The reveal mechanics are clever and plausible within rom-com logic, but the reassigned-number premise and Wes’s behavior still strain credibility. The sequence of events is clear even when the ethics are not convincing.

The story is generally easy to follow and its many threads come together cleanly, even when the structure is simple.

The blend of grief, broad comedy, and romance often works beautifully when the sisterhood stays central. Comic relief and self-aware sweetness occasionally intrude on the heavier emotions.

The movie is praised for keeping its satire, emotion, songs, and coming-of-age comedy cohesive rather than letting the music-heavy format overwhelm the story.

As a nostalgic rom-com, it delivers familiar pleasures and affectionate nods to the genre’s 1990s peak. The formula also restricts a more serious and psychologically interesting movie.

Dance-movie fans are the core audience: many reviewers see it as a welcome, highly enjoyable throwback, while a few feel its familiar formula keeps it from becoming memorable.

Jill and Isabelle’s bond is established with vivid personality and believable history, giving Jill’s grief real psychological weight. Wes also receives some welcome softness beyond the generic romantic-lead template.

Maya and Anjali are generally viewed as rounded, relatable leads with believable inner conflicts. Several critics say the supporting characters and male arcs are thinner or less reflective.

Zoey Deutch and Nick Robinson are usually credited with easy, palpable chemistry that helps sell the fantasy. A smaller group finds their connection underdeveloped or much weaker than the sisterly bond.

Maitreyi Ramakrishnan and Priyanka Kedia are consistently praised for making Maya and Anjali feel like longtime friends, with natural banter, warmth, irritation, and emotional history.

The romance is sweet, optimistic, and highly watchable, but it is also the film’s most divisive element. Wes’s use of private voicemails can make the courtship feel creepy or unearned.

The romance is secondary to the friendship. Some reviewers find the love interests useful to the leads’ growth, while others reject one pairing as formulaic or unappealing.

The comedy lands through Jill’s rants, inside jokes, and eccentric kitchen characters. Comic relief occasionally interrupts the grief too aggressively.

The comedy is a major strength for most reviewers, with quick banter and culturally specific jokes landing often. A smaller number note that some jokes fall flat.

The drama begins as a tear-jerker and transitions into romance while retaining poignant notes. Its grief remains more convincing than its lighter romantic machinery.

The central friendship conflict often lands emotionally, but one review finds the second-half escalation repetitive and lower-energy.

The plot heavily echoes You’ve Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, Love Again, and other rom-com templates. A few appreciate the voicemail update, but most see the structure as predictable and derivative.

Predictability is the most consistent story complaint, with several reviewers saying the film follows familiar college and dance-movie beats almost exactly.

The screenplay combines sharp, character-based humor with an openhearted treatment of grief. Its self-aware rom-com references can become heavy-handed.

The screenplay earns frequent praise for structure, wit, cultural specificity, and ensemble balance, but critics also point to contrivances, thin supporting characters, and derivative plotting.

The direction handles grief, comedy, and romance with confidence and sells individual emotional moments. Polished cuteness occasionally blunts the darker implications of Wes’s behavior.

Lena Khan is repeatedly praised for energetic, clear direction that lets performers and dance routines breathe while keeping the tone buoyant.

The sisterhood, loss, and farewell scenes are the film’s clearest triumph, repeatedly prompting tears without losing warmth. Even mixed reviews acknowledge the opening’s emotional force.

The friendship story frequently lands with real feeling, from painful arguments to a finale that several reviewers found genuinely moving or uplifting.

The grief-and-sisterhood story gives familiar rom-com material uncommon heart and meaning. The film becomes lighter, staler, and less convincing whenever the romance overwhelms that core.

The friendship-centered story is widely seen as warm, relatable, and effective even when simple. The biggest weakness is that several reviewers find the formula too familiar or the later conflict too simplified.

The film’s message is that grief does not disappear, love cannot fix everything, and moving forward is not the same as forgetting. Its feminist emphasis on Jill’s self-recovery is also warmly received.

Reviewers respond well to its messages about friendship, self-definition, living fully in the present, and choosing a life on your own terms.

The finale is moving, uplifting, and satisfyingly full-circle. Its weakest point is how quickly Wes is forgiven and how lightly his actions are punished.

Most reactions to the ending are positive, especially the final dance and reconciliation, though a few critics find the climax abrupt or the resolution too convenient.

The film finds substantial depth in grief, identity, sisterhood, workplace sexism, and the fear of moving forward. Those serious ideas sometimes deserve more space beyond the rom-com framework.

The film gets strong marks for friendship, identity, and sisterhood, but one critic argues that deeper cultural pressures on South Asian women are raised without being fully explored.

The early chop-chop editing gives the kitchen scenes energy, strengthens jokes, and mirrors Jill’s frantic routine. Momentum becomes less consistent once the central deception takes over.

Editing gets sharply split reactions. Some praise clean, generous cutting, while another critic says frequent cuts prevent viewers from fully appreciating the choreography.

Robyn and Taylor Swift cues give the movie a strong emotional identity and help key scenes soar. The needle drops can also feel overused, overly obvious, or distracting.

The soundtrack is repeatedly praised for strong needle drops, varied Indian music, and crowd-pleasing songs that add momentum to the dance sequences.

The central cast elevates the familiar premise, with the leads and younger performers carrying both comedy and grief. A few dramatic choices wobble, but the ensemble remains a major strength.

The cast is widely praised for lively, committed work, especially in the dance-heavy material. The main dissent says some exchanges can feel less natural than intended.

San Francisco provides a glossy, romantic backdrop, and several scenes are beautifully framed. The saturated streaming look can also appear bland and generic.

The best dance set pieces and cinematography are described as colorful, theatrical, and visually striking, though one reviewer says the overall direct-to-streaming look can feel cheap outside the showcase numbers.

The overall production is polished and carefully made, giving the Netflix release more presence than routine streaming fare. Its glossy finish supports the romantic fantasy.

The UCLA setting is praised for feeling like a real social ecosystem rather than a generic campus backdrop.

The movie is funny, moving, and easy to enjoy despite evident flaws. Its emotional warmth and magnetic lead performance make it a strong comfort-watch candidate.

Most reviewers find the movie funny, joyous, and easy to watch. Lower scores come from critics who feel the derivative story or slower second half drains too much energy.

Cathartic emotion, humor, memorable music, and comfort-romance familiarity give it strong repeat-watch potential. Its warmest scenes are built to be revisited.

Several reviewers see it as an easy comfort rewatch, helped by the friendship, music, dance routines, and upbeat spirit.

Costumes are singled out as part of the film’s vibrant identity, helping both the campus world and performance sequences feel distinctive.

The campus and South Asian dance community feel specific and lived-in, with tradition and experimentation presented as parts of the same evolving culture.

Most reviewers celebrate the specific South Asian-American setting, dance traditions, and female friendship at the center. A minority argue that parts of the writing feel out of touch or would benefit from deeper female authorship.

Choreography is the clearest consensus strength: reviewers call the routines electric, inventive, culturally varied, and exciting enough to carry even the most familiar story beats.

Profanity and rude sexual dialogue are harsher and more frequent than the rating may suggest. The language is unsuitable for anyone seeking a restrained romantic comedy.

The recurring friendship theme is designed to connect emotional scenes and, according to the composer, gives the score cohesion without competing with the many songs.

The two leads are one of the strongest points of agreement, with Priyanka Kedia and Maitreyi Ramakrishnan repeatedly praised for charisma, energy, and emotional credibility.

One critic says the movie is less of the raucous comedy promised by its synopsis, especially once the more dramatic second half takes over.

The ensemble is generally seen as lively and memorable, with several comic standouts. One negative review says many supporting players fade into the background because they are underdeveloped.

One highly enthusiastic response says the film would have justified a theatrical ticket, not just a streaming click. Its emotional and entertainment payoff can feel unusually strong for Netflix rom-com fare.