The New Yorker's Scores
- Movies
- TV
For 3,482 reviews, this publication has graded:
-
37% higher than the average critic
-
2% same as the average critic
-
61% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 1 point higher than other critics.
(0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 66
| Highest review score: | Fiume o morte! | |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest review score: | Bio-Dome |
Score distribution:
-
Positive: 1,940 out of 3482
-
Mixed: 1,344 out of 3482
-
Negative: 198 out of 3482
3482
movie
reviews
- By Date
- By Critic Score
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It’s so derivative that it isn’t a thriller—it’s a crude, ghoulish comedy on thriller themes. The director, Joel Coen, who wrote the screenplay with his brother Ethan, who was the producer, is inventive and amusing when it comes to highly composed camera setups or burying someone alive. But he doesn’t seem to know what to do with the actors; they give their words too much deliberation and weight, and they always look primed for the camera. So they come across as amateurs.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The director, Herbert Ross, and the writer, Dean Pitchford, exhaust one bad idea after another, and build up to a letdown: you don't get the climactic dance you expect.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
The director of Rogue One, Gareth Edwards, has stepped into a mythopoetic stew so half-baked and overcooked, a morass of pre-instantly overanalyzed implications of such shuddering impact to the series’ fundamentalists, that he lumbers through, seemingly stunned or constrained or cautious to the vanishing point of passivity, and lets neither the characters nor the formidable cast of actors nor even the special effects, of which he has previously proved himself to be a master, come anywhere close to life.- The New Yorker
- Posted Dec 13, 2016
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
- Critic Score
Though director Vincent Ward used his special-effects budget well -- there are some stunning impressionistic moments -- the film is as gooey and sticky as an overcooked marshmallow.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
The movie collapses into banality. The marriages hang together, but fear and guilt provide the glue. Perhaps the biggest insult to women here is the idea that they can't get better men than these two vacuous guys. [14 March 2011, p. 78]- The New Yorker
Posted Mar 12, 2011 -
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Garofalo has a certain barbed charm, but it's put to shallow use here.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Emmerich’s main achievement is to take a bunch of excellent actors, including Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Woody Harrelson, and to prevent all of them--with the exception of Oliver Platt and a pair of giraffes--from giving a decent performance.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Falls below even minimal standards of dramatic decency. John Q is a trashy, opportunistic piece of pop demagoguery. [4 Mar 2002, p. 90]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
What happened to the Kubrick who used to slip in sly, subtle jokes and little editing tricks? This may be his worst movie. He probably believes he's numbing us by the power of his vision, but he's actually numbing us by its emptiness. [13 July 1987, p.75]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Mike Myers plays Steve Rubell as the druggy epicenter of Studio 54, and his performance gives director Mark Christopher's soapy morality tale its only moments of wanton, hedonistic spirit.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
We should not be surprised, then, if this bellowing beast of a movie looks and sounds like the extended special-edition remix of a Duran Duran video.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The tale begins and ends in a flurry of joke violence; Cameron has decided to spoof what he used to take seriously, and the result, though bright and deafening, feels oddly slack -- he loosens the screws, and our interest drops away.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
Cyrano is a thuddingly dull film that sinks under the ponderous undigested mass of its own bombast, squandering the talents of a fine cast and a fine concept.- The New Yorker
- Posted Feb 28, 2022
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
He hardly bothers with the characters; the movie is a ventriloquial harrangue. He thrashes around in messianic God-love booziness, driving each scene to an emotional peak.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Mel Ferrer smiles his narcissistic, masochistic smiles as the crippled puppeteer who can speak his love to the 16-year-old orphan girl Lili (Leslie Caron) only through his marionettes. Canon is much too good for him, but the movie doesn't know it.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The whole thing does seem preternaturally stained with Weltschmerz.- The New Yorker
- Posted Dec 8, 2010
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
This is the first occasion on which Moodysson has lost his balance, allowing his wrath to outweigh the charity that he used to extend to even the most boorish of his characters.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
The so-called long take serves as a mask—a gross bit of earnest showmanship that both conceals and reflects the trickery and the cheap machinations of the script, the shallowness of the direction of the actors, and the brazenly superficial and emotion-dictating music score.- The New Yorker
- Posted Jan 22, 2020
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
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
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
These basic failures of taste and sensibility are a subset of Hooper’s over-all failure of literal vision: he doesn’t really see what he’s doing, and the virtual invisibility of his own movie to himself is reflected in an odd set of metaphors that result from his casting.- The New Yorker
- Posted Jan 22, 2020
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The whole thing appears to have been designed by some crazed Oedipal wing of the N.R.A. And what are the aliens known as? The Others. I rest my case.- The New Yorker
- Posted Jan 25, 2016
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Reese Witherspoon is a woman, aged thirty-five, with a bundle of grownup roles behind her. Yet in order to retain her slot in romantic comedy, it appears, she must reverse into her teens. What makes the transition yet more depressing is the memory of Tracy Flick. [27 Feb. 2012, p.86]- The New Yorker
Posted Feb 20, 2012 -
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie is slight and vapid, with the consistency of watery jello...It isn't about teenagers – it's actually closer to being a pre-teen's idea of what it will be like to be a teenager. [7 Apr 1996, p.91]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
A rich-meets-rich picture, and worse than one imagines. Al Pacino gives a torpid performance as a spiritually depleted Grand Prix racing-car driver who falls in love with a well-heeled free spirit (Marthe Keller), a metaphysical kook.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Although Premonition is not a frightening movie, it is aimed squarely at an audience of frightened souls.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie is a form of hysterical, rabble-rousing pulp, yet it isn't involving; it doesn't have the propulsion of good pulp storytelling.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
To say that the movie loses the plot would not be strictly accurate, for that would imply that there was a plot to lose, and that Ayer, in a forgetful moment, left it in the glove compartment of his car on the way to the studio.- The New Yorker
- Posted Aug 6, 2016
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by