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 0.8 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
Pauline Kael
There are some good silly gags, and the animals look relaxed even in their dizziest slapstick scenes. And the picture certainly never starves the eye; the cinematography is by the celebrated Pasqualino De Santis.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Jarmusch keeps the picture formal and cool, and it has an odd, nonchalant charm; it's fun. But it's softhearted fun--shaggy-dog minimalism--and it doesn't have enough ideas (or laughs) for its 90-minute length.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It's a candied Mean Streets, evenly and impersonally directed by Stuart Rosenberg. It has no temperament -- it doesn't even have any get-up-and-go. But Patrick supplies colorful "ethnic" dialogue, and the actors run with it.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie has a deep-toned flossy and "artistic" clarity and a peculiarly literary tone - the dialogue doesn't sound like living people talking.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This one is really only for Trekkies; others are likely to find it tolerable but yawny.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This epic is a compendium of kitsch, but it’s kitsch aestheticized by someone who loves it and sees it as the poetry of the masses. It isn’t just the echoing moments that keep you absorbed—it’s the reverberant dreamland settings and Leone’s majestic, billowing sense of film movement.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
There isn't a whisper of surprise in Redford's performance, and he's photographed looking like a wary, modest god, with enough backlighting and soft focus to make him incandescent even when he isn't doing a thing.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Based on a script condensed from Robert Bolt's scripts for two projected films about the 1789 mutiny, this misshapen movie doesn't work as an epic -- it doesn't have the scope or the emotional surge of epic storytelling. It's certainly not boring, though.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The film's nostalgic fixation on the ambiance of the war years seems to exclude any real interest in the lives of the women workers; this feminist fairy tale sees the characters as precursors of the women's movement of the 60s and 70s rather than as people.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It's a strange, elating movie with the Iceman at its emotional center; his mystical fervor takes hold. The director, Fred Schepisi, is working with a weak script, yet he and his two longtime collaborators, the composer Bruce Smeaton and the cinematographer Ian Baker, achieve that special and overwhelming fusion of the arts which great visual moviemaking can give us.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This slapstick adventure comedy is in the commercial genre of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it's a simpler, more likable entertainment than Raiders; it doesn't leave you feeling exhausted.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
In the film's second half, Hudson twists the story into knots in order to deliver his "statement" that apes are more civilized than people; the movie simply loses its mind, and dribbles to a pathetically indecisive conclusion.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The picture isn't enough of anything; there isn't a thing in it that you can get excited about or quarrel with.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This romantic comedy-fantasy about a mermaid (Daryl Hannah) who falls in love with a New Yorker (tom Hanks) has a friendly, tantalizing magic.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The attraction of the movie is its friendly, light tone, its affectlessness, and its total lack of humanity. [6 Aug 1984, p.72]- The New Yorker
-
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
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This version isn't a total dud, but it's a coarser piece of slapstick, and not at all memorable.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Shot in grainy black and white, the material is rather unformed. It's dim and larval, like Danny. Allen leaves us in the uncomfortable position of waiting for laugh lines and character developments that aren't there. The picture has a curdled, Diane Arbus bleakness, but it also has some good fast talk and some push. Allen plugs up the holes with gags that still get laughs; he remembers to pull the old Frank Capra, cutrate Dickens strings, and he keeps things moving along.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
This comedy has some wonderful gags and a lot of other good ideas for gags, but it was directed by Arthur Hiller, who is the opposite of a perfectionist, and it makes you feel as if you were watching television.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
It has a distinctive and surprising spirit. It's funny, delicate, and intense -- all at the same time.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
- The New Yorker
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The whole thing is so obvious that people in the audience applaud and hoot; it might be mistaken for parody if the sledgehammer-slow pacing didn't tell you that the director (Eastwood) wasn't in on the joke.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
Mariel Hemmingway tries hard as Dorothy, but she's all wrong for the part - she's simply not a bunny type. Fosse must believe that he can make art out of anything - that he doesn't need a writer to create characters, that he can just take the idea of a pimp murdering a pinup and give it such razzle-dazzle that it will shake people to the marrow. He uses his whole pack of tricks - flashbacks, interviews, shock cuts, the works - to keep the audience in a state of dread. He piles up such an accumulation of sordid scenes that the movie is nauseated by itself.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Richard Brody
Borden’s exhilarating, freely assembled story stages news reports, documentary sequences, and surveillance footage alongside tough action scenes and musical numbers; her violent vision is ideologically complex and chilling.- The New Yorker
- Read full review
-
Reviewed by
-
-
Reviewed by
Pauline Kael
The movie has the happy, enthusiastic spirit of a fanfare, and it's astonishingly entertaining considering how divided it is in spirit...Whatever one's reservations, the film is great fun to watch.- The New Yorker
-
Reviewed by