San Francisco Chronicle's Scores

  • Movies
  • TV
For 5,344 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 53% higher than the average critic
  • 2% same as the average critic
  • 45% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 0.1 points higher than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 62
Highest review score:
Critic Score 100
Lowest review score:
Critic Score 0
Score distribution:
5,344 movie reviews
    • Metascore: 53
    • Critic Score 25
    It's a ho-hum-er, almost a complete bummer. [6 Jan 1989, Daily Datebook, p.E1]
  1. In concept alone, Ravenous is anything but appetizing, but in execution it's worse than you'd imagine.
  2. It's one of those self-consciously cute pictures, about as hard to take as a person who stands in front of a mirror and preens all day. [23 Mar 1990, Daily Datebook, p.E1]
  3. A self-indulgent mess.
  4. Gets everything wrong, starting with a title that indicates a somewhat innocent romantic transgression.
  5. The picture, for all its slickness and style, is empty, empty-headed and emotionally false… [It] has no more depth than "Pretty Woman" and occupies the same moral landscape. [5 Apr 1991, Daily Datebook, p.E11]
  6. Goes nowhere.
  7. Just awful… There is probably not one interrupted 60-second stretch in which a line of dialogue doesn't clunk, an action doesn't ring false or an irritating plot turn doesn't present itself. [25 May 1991]
    • Metascore: 78
    • Critic Score 25
    Without a compelling - and convincingly compelled - character at its center, the details in this film lack an agonizing drop-by-drop tension. The various pieces fall apart like the shattered mirrors that figure in the crimes. [15 Aug 1986]
  8. They try to make Beverly adorable, and the movie comes off strained and dishonest as a result.
  9. Nearly every bodily fluid makes an appearance in "Rules," a mean-spirited paean to hedonism set at an East Coast college where students attend class only occasionally, and then only to perform oral sex on instructors.
  10. This lurid thriller comes to life in fits and starts, and then sinks into the bog of its own cleverness once again.
  11. It's both amazing and depressing how much talent goes to waste in the lame adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s 1973 absurdist novel.
  12. Has an unrelenting staccato quality. Some would say a jackhammer quality.
  13. Lackluster mob picture.
  14. There are barrages of fast cuts to distract us from the fact that the director is showing us no real action.
  15. Just awful. But uniquely awful -- awful in a way that might just attract a cult audience. [3 Sept 1993]
  16. With most movies that fail, the fault can be ascribed to carelessness or lack or inspiration or cynicism. But Chelsea Walls, directed by actor Ethan Hawke, is clearly a labor of love.
  17. So inept it's almost entertaining.
  18. A discordant comedy that gives bad taste a bad name.
  19. Numbing.
  20. Alan Bates and Charlotte Rampling are the brave stars of this pretty but sterile adaptation of the Anton Chekhov stage classic.
  21. Mirthless and barely musical.
  22. Earnest, but a work in progress.
  23. What this really is is a great deal of screaming and running from room to room, wacky chase scenes, the old bag switcheroo, dim-bulb crooks and zany antics. Everyone is working hard, but as with Sofia Vergara's costumes, there isn't enough material.
  24. A noble attempt that doesn't hang together.
  25. A repellent, stupid film.
  26. Brutally dumb canine comedy.
  27. Despite its technical defects and negligent production values, The Flip Side will probably appeal to a Filipino-American audience.
  28. Numbskull cinema scrapes new depths.