The New Yorker's Scores
- Movies
- TV
For 3,481 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 1.1 points 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: 1,939 out of 3481
-
Mixed: 1,344 out of 3481
-
Negative: 198 out of 3481
3481
movie
reviews
- By Date
- By Critic Score
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the Belasco of science fiction. The special effects—though straight from the drawing board—are good and big and awesomely, expensively detailed. There’s a little more that’s good in the movie, when Kubrick doesn’t take himself too seriously. [Harper's]- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie is no more than a novelty, but it may surprise you by making you laugh out loud a few times.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Michael Sragow
No one could seethe better than Mifune, but what gives the movie equal shares of exhilaration and heartbreak is the feeling that pours out of him when his son finds happiness in his own marriage.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie doesn't find a way to give us the emotional texture of the interrelationships and dependencies in the book (one can probably enjoy the film much more if one knows the book) but the principal actors (Marlon Brando, Brian Keith, Elizabeth Taylor, Julie Harris) were able to do some startling things with their roles.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Intermittently dazzling, the film has more energy and invention that Boorman seems to know what to do with. He appears to take the title literally; one comes out exhilarated but bewildered.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- Critic Score
Bonnie and Clyde could look like a celebration of gangster glamour only to a man with a head full of wood shavings. These two visibly have the life expectancy of dragonflies; their sense of power and of unending gang fun is a delusion, and to see them duping themselves is as harrowing as the spectacle of most other hoaxes.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
- Critic Score
The film is essentially a primitive rah-rah story about an underdog's triumph over a bully, and in the times that Americans are living through now the things in it that are merely simple seem simplified to the point of odiousness...In the Heat of the Night seems to be made up of a great deal of attitudinizing and very little instinct. [5 Aug 1967, p.64]- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
In movies like this one, Poitier's self-inflicted stereotype of goodness cancels out his acting.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Probably the most consistently entertaining of the Bond packages up to the time - not as startling as parts of "Goldfinger" but much superior to "Thunderball."- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
Director Howard Hawks makes a familiar plot resound strangely with new sexual overtones.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
An all-star send-up of the Bond films, with multiple Bonds and multiple directors, has some laughs, but it makes one terribly conscious of wastefulness. Jokes and plots and possibilities are thrown away along with huge, extravagant sets, and famous performers go spinning by.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The film is a near masterpiece. Welles' direction of the battle of Shrewsbury is unlike anything he has ever done--indeed, unlike any battle ever done on the screen before. It ranks with the finest of Griffith, John Ford, Eisenstein, Kurosawa.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Most movies give so little that it seems almost barbarous to object to Bergman's not giving us more in Persona, but it is just because of the expressiveness and fascination of what we are given that the movie is so frustrating. There is, however, great intensity in many of the images.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It wants to be a jaunty heist-caper movie, like Topkapi, of 1964, but it's of quintessential mediocrity: not hip enough to sustain interest, not dreary enough to walk out on.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
When the film came out, Michelangelo Antonioni's mixture of suspense with vagueness and confusion seemed to have a numbing fascination for some people which they associated with art and intellectuality.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The jokes get rather desperate, but there are enough wildly sophomoric ones to keep this pop stunt fairly amusing until about midway. It would have made a terrific short.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
There's something to be said for this kind of professionalism: the moviemakers know how to provide excitement and they work us over.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
A sour, visually ugly comedy from director Billy Wilder and his co-writer, I. A. L. Diamond, which gets worse as it goes along -- more cynical and more sanctimonious.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
There are some good ideas tucked away inside scrambled unpleasantness.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It's a meditation on sin and saintliness. Considered a masterpiece by some, but others may find it painstakingly tedious and offensively holy.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Caine brings out the gusto in Naughton's dialogue and despite the obvious weaknesses in the film (the gratuitous "cinematic" barroom brawl, the clumsy witnessing of the christening, the symbolism of the dog), he keeps the viewer absorbed in Alfie, the cold-hearted sexual hotshot, and his self-exculpatory line of reasoning.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Sloppy, clumsy Hitchcock thriller. Brian Moore is credited with the original screenplay, but probably his friends don't mention it.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Uneven and it has unresolved areas, but it also has a 60s charge to it.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Frank Tashlin directed this attempt at a stylish comedy-thriller; it goes very wrong--there's no suspense, because we have no idea what's going on, and the spoofy, slapstick embellishments are almost painfully self-conscious.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Paul Newman in a bungled attempt to recapture the Bogart private-eye world of The Big Sleep. Shelley Winters gives the picture artificial respiration for a few minutes, but it soon relapses. A private-eye movie without sophistication and style is ignominious.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This lyrical tragicomedy is perhaps Godard's most delicately charming film.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by