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 5.4 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. It's a paint-by-numbers job of the worst sort, stuffed with more tired old baseball baloney than Harry Caray and about as dramatic as shagging flies in St. Pete.
  2. The urge to laugh is superceded by the urge to slap everybody and command them to stop embarrassing all of humanity.
  3. With a movie like this, there's no risk of spoiling the ending, because the entire plot is merely a formality trudging toward a foregone conclusion. The viewer's biggest challenge is to survive fits of yawning so violent they could disrupt ornithic migratory patterns.
  4. There's little evidence to suggest Schneebaum was one of the great explorers of the 20th century, or even that he was particularly curious.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  5. 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.)
  6. 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.
  7. Renders it a cross between "Three Men and a Baby" and "Monsters, Inc." But it's bereft of the charisma of the former and the energy of the latter; stuck in a frozen wasteland, it possesses all the vigor of a Popsicle.
    • 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.)
    • 57 Metascore
    • 20 Critic Score
    The film feels like what it is: an improvised comedy bit that two friends came up with.
  9. 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!
  10. 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.
  11. What saves the film from utter forgettability are the strong supporting performances, especially from Peter Caffrey as the town atheist, and Tony Doyle.
  12. 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.)
  13. There's nothing more enervating than a stupid film with only random, and perhaps accidental, flashes of smarts; the rare prescient moments only serve to highlight how banal and vacant the rest of the movie is, especially when it stoops to conquer the gross-out market bled dry by the Farrelly Brothers and their myriad acolytes.
  14. The fleeting moments of dry wit are too sparse to hold the movie together, so instead McAbee takes the kitchen-sink approach, hitting us with whatever he's got.
  15. It's just that this clunky, inane vehicle sputters barely a few feet down its quaint English highway before you want to bid it "do zvidániya, dumb-ass!"
  16. Who wants to pay to see a movie so bad the actors and writer-director feel the need to keep reminding us of how bad it is?
    • 50 Metascore
    • 30 Critic Score
    What it offers at its shockingly sappy core is a familiar view of adolescent rebellion as a goofy but inevitable phase.
  17. Most obvious crime is first-degree dullness, giving us a thriller without thrills and a mystery devoid of urgent questions.
  18. Any cassette of "Millennium" would serve up better thrills and chills.
  19. While the whole is diverting, the ending's utter repudiation of reality seems like pissing on the audience; -- we feel like we've been suckers for bothering to care about the characters at all.
  20. This tripe, however, isn't worth your time or our ink.
  21. Final is one big hunh? barely worth the effort; just because it doesn't make any sense doesn't mean it's art.
  22. It's as light on its feet as a dead elephant. It's never clever or smart, nor is it terribly thrilling or engaging during its numerous fight sequences.
  23. The best way to watch it is with a loaded bong, the volume turned down and the Orb cranked up on your stereo.
  24. It punishes rather than entertains; it condescends, it offends, it loathes its audience.
  25. An antiadvertisement for itself.
  26. Feels like an in-joke, a party where everyone on the screen's having a better time than anyone in the theater, and they all couldn't care less. And that's just no fun at all.
    • New Times (L.A.)
  27. 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.
  28. Ultimately, the film amounts to being lectured to by tech-geeks, if you're up for that sort of thing.

Top Trailers