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 0.9 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: 1,940 out of 3482
-
Mixed: 1,344 out of 3482
-
Negative: 198 out of 3482
3482
movie
reviews
- By Date
- By Critic Score
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
This movie makes one grateful that a serious European art cinema still exists. [15 April 2002, p. 88]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
A seriously scandalous work, beautifully made, and it deserves a sizable audience that might argue over it, appreciate it -- even hate it. [1 April 2002, p. 98]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
There is something horribly apt in the way Fincher closes the drama in joyless exhaustion, leaving you certain that there will be a sequel to these events, not onscreen but in someone's home, tonight. [8 April 2002, p. 95]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
There is plenty to inflame in this picture and nothing to corrupt. [18 Mar 2002. p.152]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Yet as art this revisionist movie, grimly effective as some of it is, doesn't hold a candle to the remarkable cycle of pictures in the late seventies and the eighties which captured the discordant character of a tragic war. [11 Mar 2002, p. 92]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
The sensibility of the movie is naggingly adolescent -- less erotic than squeamish and giggly. [11 Mar 2002, p. 92]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
A scruffy, thick-grained piece of work, shot in thirty days and scrawled not with luscious coloring but with the tense and inky markings of a society that is fighting to keep its reputation for togetherness, and wondering what that reputation is still worth. [18 & 25 Feb 2002. p. 199]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
What it's really about, of course, is the very delicate marketing problem of turning a super-bland pop star into an acceptable human being onscreen. [4 Mar 2002, p. 90]- 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
David Denby
Judged both as reporting and as art -- many of Wiseman's films have a poetic density of structure -- it is a series without parallel in movie history. [11 Feb 2002, p. 92]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The urge to make viewers squirm is fair enough, but when it runs ahead of the urge to entertain -- when the jokes trail in the wake of the embarrassments -- you can't help leaving the theatre sad and soured. [4 Feb 2002, p. 82]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
You leave the film like one of Giovanni's patients rising from the couch -- far from healed, but amused and pacified by the sympathy that has washed over you. [4 Feb 2002, p. 82]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
I've rarely seen so selfless a collection of performances and, in a war movie, so general an absence of rhetoric or guff. [25 & 31 Dec 2001, p. 127]- The New Yorker
-
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
David Denby
Altman achieves his dream of a truly organic form, in which everyone is connected to everyone else, and life circulates around a central group of ideas and emotions in bristling orbits. [14 Jan 2002, p. 92]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Michael Mann is a fluent, evocative filmmaker, and the movie is well written, expertly staged, and beautifully edited. [24 & 31 Dec 2001, p. 126]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
In the movie's best moments, the misery has a comic lilt to it. [28 Jan 2002, p. 90]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Crowe astounds with his technical skill. [7 Jan 2002, p. 82]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Carrey, unable to pretzel himself in this role, has to do a normal job of characterization, but he never fills in the blank spaces in Peter Appleton. [28 Jan 2002, p. 90]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Consistently beautiful and often exciting -- despite some dead passages here and there, it's surely the best big-budget fantasy movie in years. [24 & 31 Dec 2001, p. 126]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Spend an eveing with some of Edward Gorey's writings and drawings, rub against the velvet of his lugubrious wit, and you will be ready for Royal and the clan. [17 Dec 2001, p. 97]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Never quite shrugs off its literary manners. [18 & 25 Feb 2002, p. 200]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
The most confidently professional work Soderbergh has ever done, but it's also the least adventuresome and emotionally vital. It vanishes faster than a shot of bourbon. [Dec 10 2001, p. 110]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Looking back at the film, I don't buy all this, but no matter; Channing is so stormy, so keen to unleash her resentments, that for an hour or so you do believe in Julie. [17 Dec 2001, p.98]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
The movie is, literally, a tough act to follow, thanks to the brusque, undemonstrative way in which Haneke chops from one subplot to the next. [3 Dec 2001, p.105]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
A film that cannot, in the normal sense of the word, be enjoyed, but it can be endured in a spirit of tempered anticipation -- The movie becomes an anguished demand that the dream be fulfilled. [26 Nov 2001, p. 122]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
David Denby
Field achieves so convincing a picture of everday normality that when violence breaks out one feels the same disbelief that one feels when it breaks out in life. [26 Nov 2001, p. 121]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Anthony Lane
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is, despite its trickery, that plainest and least surprising of artifacts; the work of art that is exactly the sum of its parts, neither more nor less. [19 Nov 2001, p. 78]- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by