Washington Post's Scores

For 11,478 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 46% higher than the average critic
  • 2% same as the average critic
  • 52% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 5.3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 60
Highest review score: 100 Oppenheimer
Lowest review score: 0 Dolittle
Score distribution:
11478 movie reviews
  1. Flowers in the Attic is slow, stiff, stupid and senseless, a film utterly lacking in motivation, development and nuance, and further marred by embarrassingly flat acting and directing.
  2. Perhaps their quest had a mythic significance in Richard Sale's original novel that has somehow eluded his screenplay in which it's impossible to believe that the movie heros are doing anything more than beating on a dead prop. [03 Jun 1977, p.B1]
    • Washington Post
  3. Ninja III quickly falls off track.
  4. Animated in form but completely listless in content.
  5. Nielsen earns a few giggles with his big entrance and later on his even bigger belly, but he can't overcome the lousy material.
  6. [A] strained, clunkily orchestrated and dismally retrograde film.
  7. The lowest common denominator of smutty amusement [03 Aug 1983, p.B2]
    • Washington Post
  8. While in theory this seems like an altogether valid notion, in practice it falls apart because Fred is such an obnoxious boil of a character. Instead of wanting to release him you want to deposit him in a Davey Tree Grinder. Painful death, that's what this trickster deserves.
  9. Really two movies in one, and there's not enough breathing room for both of them.
  10. It is horrible. Time curls up and dies while this Hilary Duff vehicle wheels its weary, conventional way along.
  11. The problem is not the credulity-stretching script. Or even that much of the movie just isn't all that funny. The problem is that it thinks it's freakin' hilarious.
  12. A fairly straightforward, if preachy, tale about environmentalism.
  13. Here's the best thing about Stealing Harvard: A dog bites Green in the crotch for a really long time. Priceless.
  14. A dud that squanders a decent cast and succeeds neither as the comedy nor the action film it purports to be.
  15. Reprises all the tedium of slasher flicks.
  16. A gruesome tale of obsessive love and mutilation, it's less a work of art, however, than a luridly stylish expression of female self-loathing...A prettied-up snuff movie.
  17. A protracted and only sporadically imaginative menu of ways to be murdered.
  18. Hatched by screenwriters watching "The Sixth Sense" on methamphetamines
  19. After watching this movie, which stars Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Kathy Bates and Gabriel Byrne, I was moved only to find my own bridge to leap from.
  20. Cro-Magnon-dumb...Less funny than your own funeral.
  21. Monday at 11:01 a.m. would probably work well as a half-hour television episode or a short story. As a feature film, unfortunately, it feels a bit like clock watching.
  22. This suspense drama, which stars Sally Field, Kiefer Sutherland and Joe Mantegna, tries desperately to press your vigilante buttons. But its manipulative agenda is so transparent, you don't know whether to take exception or laugh it off.
  23. Its main purpose -- and no, you are not experiencing ocular breakdown -- is spiritual.
  24. This film is just a coarser, dumber, smuttier remake of the 1983 Eszterhas-penned "Flashdance," throbbing music, working-class Cinderella and all.
  25. Most of the comedy, such as it is, consists of the uppity Chase acting "street" and the ghetto-fabulous Tiffany putting on moneyed airs. But, if you've seen the trailers, you already know that.
  26. In terms of actual social conscience, the movie gets a demagogic, rabble-rousing F. It also gets a failed grade for honest writing.
  27. Ed
    Ed...is thrown together with such little concern for originality or its audience, it's appalling.
  28. The director, J. Lee Thompson, was once a proficient craftsman. Not all that long ago he and Quinn were associated on the prestigious hit The Guns of Navarone. You can't help wondering what they, along with Mason and Neal, talked about between the takes of this howler. [29 Mar 1979, p.D15]
    • Washington Post
  29. Not that much deep thinking went on here.
  30. Although the film is little more than a slapstick showcase for the nosey-neighbor character Varney has played in TV commercials, it's not the slapped-together piece of work you might expect. The movie is fairly inoffensive, and younger kids may get a real boost out of its us-against-the-world spirit.

Top Trailers