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
-
- Pauline Kael
Often underrated, Jerry Schatzberg can make viewers feel the beauty and excitement of everyday grit.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
- Pauline Kael
A good-natured and engaging minor novel by Steinbeck, turned into a good-natured and engaging (though corny and quaint and picturesque) film at M-G-M.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The movie is so ornate and so garrulous about telling the dirty truth that it's a camp classic: a Cinderella story in which the prince turns out to be impotent.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
It's a Velveeta comedy, processed like a Neil Simon picture, with banter and gags and an unctuous score. All its smart talk is low-key and listless. It stays on the surface, yet it's dissatisfied with the surface; it's a deeply indecisive movie.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The facetious dialogue is a wet blanket, and De Palma isn't quite up to his apparent intention -- to provide cheap thrills that are also a parody of old corn.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Expensive pop disaster epic, manufactured for the market that made Airport a hit. Ronald Neame directed, with dull efficiency.- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
This ghost movie has an overcomplicated plot, but it has a poetic feeling that makes up for much of the clutter.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
It's more languidly paced than his mid 30s work, and the dialogue is spoken in stage rhythms, but there are inventive moments.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The movie has a deep-toned flossy and "artistic" clarity and a peculiarly literary tone - the dialogue doesn't sound like living people talking.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
One of Edna Ferber's heartfelt, numbskull treks through the hardships and glories of the American heritage.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The film isn't just about the widow -- it's about family, community, America, and Christian love. But Benton's gentle, nostalgic presentation muffles this. His craftsmanship is like an armor built up around his refusal to outrage or offend anyone; it's an encrusted gentility.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
It has so many unpredictable spins that what's missing doesn't seem to matter much. The images sing. [10 July 1989]- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The one element Zeffirelli removes that the other bowdlerizers also removed is Shakespeare's language. Only about half the play is left, and what's there doesn't build up the rhythm of a poetic drama. Heard in isolated fragments, the lines just seem a funny way of talking that is hard to understand.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
There's too much metaphysical gabbing and a labored boy-gets-girl romance, but audiences loved this chunk of whimsey.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Most of the plotting is ingenious, and soft-faced Mary Steenburgen, as the woman from 20th-century San Francisco who is charmed by the Victorian Wells, makes it all semi-engaging.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
This spoofy black comedy is thin-textured and it's sedated; it doesn't have enough going on in it -- not even enough to look at. The nothingness of the movie is supposed to be its droll point, but viewers may experience sensory deprivation.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Visceral though it is, “Honey Don’t!” whips up a merely decorative frenzy, concealing the well-worn tropes (hectic criminal ventures and blunders toward justice) on which it relies. Yet something of substance remains, even if it takes a long, clattery while to show itself.- The New Yorker
- Posted Aug 21, 2025
- Read full review
-
- Pauline Kael
It's something of a mess, but this mess--and The Entertainer, also a mess--are possibly the most exciting films to have come out of England in this period.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The film is trite, and you can see the big pushes for powerful effects, yet it isn't negligible. It wrenches audiences, making them fear that they, too, could become like this man.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Moonstruck isn't heartfelt; it's an honest contrivance – the mockery is a giddy homage to our desire for grand passion. With its special lushness, it's a rose-tinted black comedy. [25 Jan 1988, p.99]- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
For all the nippiness in the dialogue (the script is by Jim Kouf) and the comic interplay of the actors, the picture doesn't leave you with anything.- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The picture, rousingly directed by William Wellman, was indeed a success, but Cooper, horribly miscast as a dashing young British gallant...was embarrassingly callow, almost simpering, and he looked too old for the part.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The elements are all there, and Mitchum, looking appropriately square-headed, tries hard and has some good scenes. But you get the impression that the dialogue is moving faster than the action.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Neither the contemplative Zhivago nor the flux of events is intelligible, and what is worse, they seem unrelated to each other...It's stately, respectable, and dead.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
Fanny Brice is herself, though she isn't on screen enough to vitalize this lavish, tedious musical biography; it goes on for a whopping 3 hours.- The New Yorker
-
- Pauline Kael
The movie doesn’t stick together in one’s head; this thing is like some junky fairground show—a chamber of horrors with skeletons that jump up.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
- Pauline Kael
There's always something bubbling inside Arthur--the booze just adds to his natural fizz. This was the only film directed by Steve Gordon (who also wrote the script); he was a long way from being able to do with images what he could do with words, but there are some inspired bits and his work has a friendly spirit.- The New Yorker