Christian Science Monitor's Scores

  • Movies
  • TV
For 4,492 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 55% higher than the average critic
  • 2% same as the average critic
  • 43% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 2 points higher than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 67
Highest review score: 100 'Round Midnight
Lowest review score: 0 Couples Retreat
Score distribution:
4492 movie reviews
  1. The one full-fledged inspiration of Outrageous Fortune is the pairing of Long and Midler into a team that adds up to even more than the sum of its parts.
  2. The director, Bruce Beresford, is so eager to crowd the screen with eccentric details of behavior and setting that the verbal subtleties and rhythms get twisted out of shape. Sissy Spacek, Jessica Lange, and Diane Keaton give all-out performances that occasionally jell into true ensemble work. [12 Dec 1986, p.35]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  3. Sex, drugs, delirious camera work, and a great deal of noise are the foundations of this aggressively bizarre Australian production. [9 Oct 1987, p.21]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  4. Although he gave the plot real momentum on the stage, director Saks has fudged and fuzzed things by translating it so listlessly to the screen. [2 Jan 1987, p.25]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  5. What keeps The Mosquito Coast from being a great movie is too much caution.
  6. The movie's most original features are the awfulness of the dialogue and the hamminess of Richard Jordan's performance as a Nazilike policeman. He seems to have given up on the project long before director Alan Johnson ran out of film. [28 Nov 1986, p.39]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  7. Gene Hackman is solid as the hero, and Dennis Hopper does his best screen work ever. [6 Mar 1987, Arts & Leisure, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  8. Humans, it seems, weren't meant to tamper with some things. This picture makes you wonder if cinema is one of them. [14 Nov 1986, p.27]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  9. There are some good laughs and ironic twists in the story, along with a nagging vulgarity. Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas make a terrific team, and director Jeff Kanew gives them free rein to amuse us. [3 Oct 1986, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  10. Surely the best fiction film ever made on a jazz subject.
  11. Edwards's mess isn't so fine. In trying to revive the great tradition of rough-and-tumble farce, he strains so hard for vigorous slapstick and wild gags that he forgets to be funny...In the end, there's something basically askew when a movie gives its heroes a valuable piano to move -- a classic Laurel and Hardy situation -- and then makes it an easy job, without a single teetering bridge to carry it across! Stan and Ollie, where are you when we need you?
  12. It's refreshing to find a comedy that deals with such resonant material. True, there's nothing profound in the screenplay by Rick Podell and Michael Preminger, and director Garry Marshall wraps most of the emotions in bundles as tidy as a Thursday-night sitcom. But the story has serious things on its mind, relating to intimate areas of family life and sexuality. [30 July 1986, p.21]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  13. The director, Roman Polanski, is often at his weakest in the comedy field, and the insipid vulgarities of this picture are poor substitutes for inventive gags. Yet he shows some of his erstwhile ingenuity when he crowds the screen with sumptuously filmed images of richly costumed characters, much in the manner of his underrated ''Dance of the Vampires'' a number of years ago. [25 July 1986, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  14. The unchanneled energy of Robin Williams can't redeem this messy yarn.
  15. A reasonably bright and original movie -- with enough good-natured star performances to make up for glitches in the screenplay, which never quite decides if it's more interested in laughs, chills, or romance.
  16. The profoundly strange presence of Rodney Dangerfield triumphs over sloppy writing and lumpy editing in this sometimes raunchy farce about a middle-aged dad who joins his son as a freshman at college. The theme of father-son loyalty is attractive, and the supporting cast is strong.
  17. Bob Hoskins doesn't succeed at making the hero's wild mood swings credible, but Cathy Tyson makes the most stunning screen debut in recent memory. The movie seems genuinely saddened, moreover, by its own nasty view of London lowlife. [13 June 1986, p.25]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  18. The new remake has several strikes against it: self-indulgent dialogue, uneven performances, stupid shock effects, and a paranoid view of space exploration. It's also about 20 minutes too long. Yet it packs a strong wallop about half the time, if you see it as a child's-eye-view story that taps directly into preteen fears and fantasies.
    • Christian Science Monitor
  19. Scott Wilson gives a surprisingly lively performance as the apparent villain of the story, while good guys Judd Nelson and Ally Sheedy strive to out-bland each other. The action is generally vicious, vulgar, and vapid. [9 May 1986, p.25]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  20. Very broad, very brash ''film noir'' satire...The action is fast, flashy, sometimes funny, always loud. [13 June 1986, p.25]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  21. While the story has few surprises, parts of it are amusing and the performances are convincing.
  22. The movie seems sincere in wanting to explore rather than exploit its subject, but any potential insights are cut off by too-obvious characterizations and plot twists. [04 Apr 1986, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  23. The action ranges from mildly humorous to merely vulgar; and far too many of the laughs revolve around racially crude confrontations between sweet, blond Goldie and denizens of the big, bad ghetto. [10 March 1986, p.33]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  24. Robin Williams plays the main character with his usual air of repressed hysteria, and Kurt Russell is a good foil for him. But between the very funny beginning and the good-hearted finale, the story grows scattered and the tone is often ragged. [31 Jan 1986, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  25. The action is fast and involving until the three-quarter mark, when the David Himmelstein screenplay loses its focus and everything muddies up. [31 Jan 1986, p.23]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  26. Rarely has a film poured so much energy into generating fiery emotions, yet remained so icy cold in its effect...Revolution has been dazzlingly shot by cinematographer Bernard Lutic in a process called System 35, but so much visual grandeur seems more embarrassing than engaging when the dramatic element is such a mess.
  27. It's big, beautiful, and imposing. But there isn't much to it, and pretty pictures -- replacing ideas, not supporting them -- are its only real attraction.
  28. The stagebound setting gets boring; the action doesn't build a steady momentum; and the characters do far too much hanging around until the camera's ready to point at them again.
  29. This time the feelings don't build much momentum, though, and the action is generally slack. Robert Altman directed, showing his usual healthy disdain for standard storytelling styles, but never quite getting a handle on his characters or their bizarre situation. [6 Dec 1985]
    • Christian Science Monitor
  30. Many episodes have an appealingly old-fashioned air, but the classic mood is disrupted by some violent hallucination scenes with jarringly modern special effects. [27 Dec, 1985 p.19]
    • Christian Science Monitor

Top Trailers