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
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
Its big idea, though vague, is at least a fascinating curiosity. But with its jumble of clichés, its blatant word-bubble declarations, and its hectically rushed impracticalities, the movie—which is based on a comic-book series—invites an air of antic exaggeration and revved-up stylization. It hints frustratingly, throughout, at a comedic impulse that the direction of its actors suppresses.- The New Yorker
- Posted Aug 13, 2019
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The horror flick, at its height, was a lyrical caressing of our fears; by the end of this nonsense, you fear for the well-being of the genre. “It’s dead!” [24 May 2004, p. 96]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
In the end, Dreamcatcher is an abominable-worm picture. The movie is also an unholy mess, a miserably organized and redundant collection of arbitrary scares and thrills without a unifying visual or poetic idea. [31 March 2003, p. 106]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
This disposable date movie is not so much written and acted as cast—just about every young actor in the country is in it.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Levinson is terrific at claustrophobia. In fact, this doesn't resemble any of his previous films so much as it does his gripping TV series, "Homicide."- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The result is clever, and the narrative twistings keep you on your toes, but there's just one hitch: it ain't funny.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
To be honest, I would be perfectly happy to walk with a zombie after ninety minutes of this; it would feel like light relief.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Comes in well under the ninety-minute mark, leaving no room for bombast or overkill.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The first film scored a few palpable hits, but the new one barely makes the effort.- The New Yorker
- Posted Feb 15, 2016
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The director is Bob Spiers, though it's hard to judge whether he actually turned up on the set.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
The Bubble (which Apatow co-wrote with Pam Brady) is a sort of good bad movie, in which the aesthetic falls flat but the personal motive, the emotional core, is authentic, pugnacious, derisive.- The New Yorker
- Posted Apr 6, 2022
- 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
-
- 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
No surprise, then, that Goldblum seems a little lonely and marooned in the latest venture, which suffers from a nagging case of Smithlessness.- The New Yorker
- Posted Jun 27, 2016
- Read full review
-
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
David Denby
There is evidence that at some point this project (which was initiated by Oliver Stone) might have been serious, but Campbell has produced little more than a churning, vivid backdrop for romance. [10 November 2003, p. 129]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The movie is of minimum interest; the story of the movie, however -- or, rather, of the way in which it has been engulfed by its own publicity -- is bound to fascinate connoisseurs of cultural meltdown.- The New Yorker
- 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
Pauline Kael
All we have to look forward to is: When are these two going to discover fornication? The director, Randal Kleiser, and his scenarist, Douglas Day Stewart, have made the two clean and innocent by emptying them of any dramatic interest. Watching them is about as exciting as looking into a fishbowl waiting for guppies to mate. It's Disney nature porn.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
As the lines drone on -- paced with a sledgehammer -- you may feel you could die for a little overlapping dialogue. But with this material you can't even have the frivolous pleasure of derision.- The New Yorker
-
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
David Denby
The self-confident fatuity and condescension of the movie is offensive.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
One of those hyper-articulate messes which inspire awe and a kind of nauseated pity. [3 March 2003, p. 94]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The picture seems to crumble... because the writer and director don't distinguish Loew's fantasies from his actual life... But with Cage in the role we certainly see the delusions at work. This daring kid starts over the top and just keeps going. He's airily amazing. [12 June 1989]- The New Yorker
-
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
Anthony Lane
The mélange of plots, subplots, reveries, gags, cartoons, dirty bits, and hissy fits points to a work that is structurally modelled less on the classic narratives of cinema than on, say, a portion of Russian salad.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
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
David Denby
The movie is all whoosh and whack and abrupt closeups -- jerky digital punctuation. It's alienating experience, without emotional resonance or charm. [28 March 2011, p. 116]- The New Yorker
Posted Mar 23, 2011 -
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Pfeiffer, enormously likable in the role, almost saves the movie. [28 Jan 2002, p. 90]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
I hesitate to ask, but did anyone actually tell McClane, before he arrived, that the Cold War is over?- The New Yorker
- Posted Feb 18, 2013
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by