Pauline Kael
Select another critic »For 828 reviews, this critic has graded:
-
26% higher than the average critic
-
2% same as the average critic
-
72% lower than the average critic
On average, this critic grades 2.8 points lower than other critics.
(0-100 point scale)
Pauline Kael's Scores
- Movies
- TV
| Average review score: | 63 | |
|---|---|---|
| Highest review score: | The Lavender Hill Mob | |
| Lowest review score: | Revolution | |
Score distribution:
-
Positive: 372 out of 828
-
Mixed: 406 out of 828
-
Negative: 50 out of 828
828
movie
reviews
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The James Bond series has had its bummers, but nothing before in the class of this one.- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The film is too cadenced and exotic and too deliriously complicated to succeed with most audiences (and when it opened, there were accounts of people in theaters who threw things at the screen). But it's winged camp--a horror fairy tale gone wild, another in the long history of moviemakers' king-size follies. There's enough visual magic in it for a dozen good movies; what it lacks is judgement.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The aviation footage is still something to see, with great shots of zeppelin warfare...But the First World War story, involving two brothers...is plain awful.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
There are some good silly gags, and the animals look relaxed even in their dizziest slapstick scenes. And the picture certainly never starves the eye; the cinematography is by the celebrated Pasqualino De Santis.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The scenes inside the Institute have a chill, spectral beauty, yet the spookiness doesn't explode. The movie seems a little too cultivated, too cautious.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The picture is stupid and often perfunctory; at the same time it's moderately enjoyable.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
All we have to look forward to is: When are these two going to discover fornication? The director, Randal Kleiser, and his scenarist, Douglas Day Stewart, have made the two clean and innocent by emptying them of any dramatic interest. Watching them is about as exciting as looking into a fishbowl waiting for guppies to mate. It's Disney nature porn.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
As the lines drone on -- paced with a sledgehammer -- you may feel you could die for a little overlapping dialogue. But with this material you can't even have the frivolous pleasure of derision.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The picture seems to crumble... because the writer and director don't distinguish Loew's fantasies from his actual life... But with Cage in the role we certainly see the delusions at work. This daring kid starts over the top and just keeps going. He's airily amazing. [12 June 1989]- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
This is a certifiably loony picture; it's so bad it puts you in a state of shock.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Travel-folder footage of Rio mixed with father-daughter incest (in a disguised form)...Most of the movie is an attempt to squirm out from under its messy erotic-parental subject.- The New Yorker
Posted Jun 28, 2017 -
- Pauline Kael
This picture seems ingenious at the start, but Crichton can't write people, and he directs like a technocrat. This is the emptiest of his pictures to date.- The New Yorker