New Times (L.A.)'s Scores

  • Movies
For 639 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 52% higher than the average critic
  • 1% same as the average critic
  • 47% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 5.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 60
Highest review score: 100 Donnie Darko
Lowest review score: 0 Rollerball
Score distribution:
639 movie reviews
  1. An amusing trifle. There are few comic staples less convincing or more timeworn than charming lunatics in love, and the only thing that lifts this film beyond TV-movie quality is Jones' performance.
  2. Not just another disposable romantic comedy, but an ambitious, overreaching mess.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  3. The film is overwrought, slow, and portentous, with confusing surreal elements and a narrative time scheme that's impossible to keep track of.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  4. Which leaves Witherspoon, that delicious pastry, to heave the movie on her small shoulders and carry it home. The load is light -- the movie weighs no more than a glass of flat champagne -- but even she can't withstand the burden.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  5. The predominantly amateur cast is painful to watch, so stilted and unconvincing are the performances. Poor Roth has nobody to play against and flounders in trying to keep the ship upright. Herzog aims for a kind of operatic sweep that he fails to achieve.
  6. What do you get when you cross a passé "swinger" (Will Stewart), an exhausted "lost in L.A." setting, a sloppy "screenplay" and dull "direction" (by Paul Duran)? This!
  7. Every plot point is obvious a mile away to anyone who's ever seen a film, and made even more obvious by the fact that the camera blatantly points out clues shortly before they're put to use.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  8. If only director Walter Hill and his coscreenwriter David Giler had scribbled a punch line for all these punches, this rage-in-the-cage redux would be more than merely a limp showcase of machismo so passé as to embarrass your average Australopithecus.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  9. There is something distinctly self-satisfied about Amy's Orgasm that rubs the viewer the wrong way. The film should come with a warning label: Vanity project ahead!
    • New Times (L.A.)
  10. Numbingly feeble -- The dialogue is witless, the situations are lame, the humor juvenile and the chemistry between the stars nonexistent.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  11. Only Quaid, as a semiretarded horny robot, and Cleese as a fussy chauffeur hologram seem to get it. Even Murphy, as the titular nightclub big shot in outer space, forgets to be actually funny until the climax.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  12. Not strong enough to stomach this leather-clad jerk-off session, which Miramax dumped onto Paramount in a rare case of common sense.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  13. Mostly this happy train wreck feels like a longer, better movie that was chopped up and reassembled by retarded monkeys; what should have been a rush instead feels rushed.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  14. What it lacks are solid performances, save Slater's game attempt to take everything seriously.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  15. Lansdown has a pretty good score by Atli Orvarsson... Nope, nothing else nice to say.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  16. A torturous, mawkish, ill-conceived remake.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  17. This limp gender-bender-baller from a first-time director and rookie screenwriter steals wholesale from that 1982's "Tootsie," forgetting only to retain a single laugh.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  18. Warner Bros. is presumably aiming this movie not at children but at full-grown dopers with bad munchies glued to the Cartoon Network. Dude, pass the Scooby snacks.
  19. If this it supposed to be comedy, why isn't it ever, for one second, funny?
    • New Times (L.A.)
  20. You probably saw this film the last time around, when it was called "Sleeping With the Enemy." This one merely adds a better car chase and more ass-kicking.
  21. It's an exceptionally dreary and overwrought bit of work, every bit as imperious as Katzenberg's "The Prince of Egypt" from 1998.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  22. Boll uses a lot of quick cutting and blurry step-printing to goose things up, but dopey dialogue and sometimes inadequate performances kill the effect.
  23. Even those looking to catch a few Diane Lane tit shots will be so exhausted by the endless nothingness between each one that it won't be worth it.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  24. An ugly-duckling tale so hideously and clumsily told it feels accidental. Surely, no one PLANNED something this disastrously unfunny.
  25. What's particularly scary about Hollywood Ending, however, is that its flaws are exactly the sort of problems that often afflict aging directors, flaws that we've never seen in Allen before -- bad comic timing, slack pacing, an unsteady control of tone, a reliance on jokes that have long since become clichés.
  26. Mandel Holland's direction is uninspired, and his scripting unsurprising, but the performances by Phifer and Black are ultimately winning.
  27. Say what you want about Hollywood losing its way in recent years, there's something beautiful about moviemakers who paint themselves into corners this tight.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  28. It's Tommy's job to clean the peep booths surrounding her, and after viewing this one, you'll feel like mopping up, too.
  29. The acting tends toward the cartoonish (not in a good way), and the story is built on a series of illogical motivations.
  30. There is nothing particularly interesting about either the people or the situations. Barrial might as well have filmed ANY body.

Top Trailers