Chicago Reader's Scores
- Movies
For 6,312 reviews, this publication has graded:
-
42% higher than the average critic
-
2% same as the average critic
-
56% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 4.9 points lower than other critics.
(0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 60
| Highest review score: | I Stand Alone | |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest review score: | Old Dogs |
Score distribution:
-
Positive: 2,983 out of 6312
-
Mixed: 2,456 out of 6312
-
Negative: 873 out of 6312
6312
movie
reviews
- By Date
- By Critic Score
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Through its first two-thirds it is as perfect a myth of adolescence as any of the Disney films, documenting the childlike, nameless heroine's initiation into the adult mysteries of sex, death, and identity, and the impossibility of reconciling these forces with family strictures.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Ford's admirers have rightly tended to play this down in favor of his later and more personal westerns, but there's much to admire here in Gregg Toland's sun-beaten photography and Henry Fonda's meticulous performance as Steinbeck's dashboard saint, Tom Joad.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Jonathan Rosenbaum
Along with Dumbo, which immediately followed it, this 1940 classic, the second of the Disney animated features, is probably the best in terms of visual detail and overall imagination as well as narrative sweep.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
The loose, graceful script is by Preston Sturges (one of his last before he turned to directing), and it partakes of a softness and nostalgia that seldom surfaced in his own films. Mitchell Leisen, the director, serves the material very well with his slightly distanced, glowing style.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Hawks’s great insight—taking the Hecht-MacArthur Front Page and making the Hildy Johnson character a woman—has been justly celebrated; it deepens the comedy in remarkable ways.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
A critic-proof movie if there ever was one: it isn't all that good, but somehow it's great.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Interwoven with subplots centered on the other members of the shop's little family, the romance proceeds through Lubitsch's brilliant deployment of point of view, allowing the audience to enter the perceptions of each individual character at exactly the right moment to develop maximum sympathy and suspense.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
The material makes no demands on the talents of James Stewart and Marlene Dietrich, but they enter gamely into the farcical tone set by director George Marshall.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
This 1939 release is still watchable, though the spirit is now sitcom.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
This is classic Capracorn, with the greatest girl cynic of the 30s, Jean Arthur.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Jonathan Rosenbaum
By common consent, this is 1939 drama is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s poorest and least personal works, though it has some compensations.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
I don't find the film light or joyful in the least—an air of primal menace hangs about it, which may be why I love it.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Certainly it's the weakest of Ford's major westerns, burdened with a schematic and pretentious Dudley Nichols script (the "cross section of society" on board the stagecoach), but its virtues remain intact.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
The picture is amazingly compact (70 minutes), and the swift pacing helps temper the goo. The film is no classic, but it's a good example of its type.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
This is vintage Hitchcock, with the pacing and superb editing that marked not only his 30s style but eventually every film that had any aspirations whatever to achieving suspense and rhythm.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Time has revealed its brilliance, as well as the apparent impossibility of its like ever being seen again.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Made in 1937 by a relatively young and innocent Alfred Hitchcock, this British feature tends to be overshadowed by The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes, but actually it’s only the uncharismatic casting that holds it back from being one of the most entertaining of Hitchcock’s English films.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Though the film isn't as psychologically penetrating as some of Disney's later work, it retains the Freudian ferocity of the Grimm brothers fairy tale, as well as a fair measure of the scatological humor of the Disney shorts. David Hand was the supervising director, but Uncle Walt passed on every frame.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
The issues deepen in a subtle, natural way: the film begins as a trifle and ends as something beautiful and affirmative. A classic.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
It’s pretty much all genre and no nuance, though Michael Curtiz’s direction is surprisingly soft and light.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Freely adapted from Conrad's The Secret Agent, this 1936 study of murderous intimacy is ripe for reevaluation as the masterpiece of Alfred Hitchcock's British period.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
The most elegant title for a sequel in film history belongs, happily, to one of the most elegant sequels.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
Gregory La Cava's improvisational style received its highest critical acclaim for this 1936 film, a marginally Marxist exercise in class confusion during the Depression.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Arlene Croce has called it a movie about the myth of Astaire and Rogers and the world they lived in, and that's about as good a description as any.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Jonathan Rosenbaum
James Whale’s brilliant and surprisingly delicate 1936 rendition of the Kern and Hammerstein musical, which was based on an Edna Ferber novel, is infinitely superior to the dull 1951 MGM Technicolor remake and, interestingly enough, less racist.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
It’s amazingly dull, even with William Powell in the lead and guest appearances by the likes of Ray Bolger and Fanny Brice, so of course it won the Best Picture Oscar for 1936.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Michael Curtiz, the most polished of Warner's studio technicians, starts Flynn off royally.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Dave Kehr
As with most Thalberg projects (the director of record was Frank Lloyd, but he barely matters), it's tainted by a fair amount of middlebrow stuffiness, but it's a fleet piece of storytelling and serves to enshrine one of the great ham performances of all time, Charles Laughton's Captain Bligh.- Chicago Reader
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by