The New York Times' Scores

For 10,137 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 49% higher than the average critic
  • 4% same as the average critic
  • 47% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 3 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 59
Highest review score: 100 Maria Full of Grace
Lowest review score: 0 Art History
Score distribution:
10,137 movie reviews
  1. The movie lurches from the improbably silly to the drearily so, while the characters remain so emotionally and psychologically divorced from life that they might as well be zombies or sitcom stick figures.
  2. It’s not worthless, but it’s not good. As a genre film, it’s too ambitious; as an art film, it’s too obvious.
  3. [A] disposable comedy.
  4. The results, to judge from the examples here, have been stuffy and disappointing, an unholy alliance between Playboy Channel prurience and PBS cultural alibis.
  5. The film, which opens today at the Sutton and other theaters, is composed of a prologue, written for the movie, plus four separate stories, each of them either based directly on a script from the television series or suggested by one. A lot of money and several lives might have been saved if the producers had just rereleased the original programs.
  6. Expelled is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike.
  7. It's another example of the ever-widening gap between the real world and the fantasies of a kind of artistic temperament more concerned with random self expression than with the expression of coherent feelings or ideas about love, alienation, outrage, politics or even of movie-making. It shrivels the imagination instead of enriching it. [7 Oct. 1981]
  8. Riddled with holes and undeveloped characters, and marred by lurching rhythms that may reflect some triage editing, so it's hard to see what Mr. Hafstrom brings to this film other than a murky palette.
  9. It isn't saying much, but at least her (Carey) work here is more substantial than in the catastrophic "Glitter."
  10. This one is well photographed, yet it’s still just a lot of cars and noise.
  11. When it comes to film plotting, too many twists just result in an annoying tangle. And there are too many twists in Antoni Stutz’s uninvolving Rushlights.
  12. In the end, it taketh — your time, patience and faith in newly imagined dystopias — more than it giveth.
  13. The movie has been thoroughly eclipsed by "Captivity" the marketing.
  14. The film never finds its dramatic footing. Nor, sadly, its common sense.
  15. A most unfortunate film that combines standard documentary techniques, including talking-head interviews, with some maladroit dramatizations from Aury's life and her novel.
  16. The movie is apparently the most popular British comedy in history. I guarantee that its success has nothing to do with the quality of the actual movie.
  17. One reason Chander Pahar seems so plodding is that Mr. Mukherjee has a habit of telling us what he doesn’t know how to show.
  18. Pushes its ugly humor further than most.
  19. For the most part it is an uninteresting slog alleviated only by the occasional unintended laugh and moments of visual beauty. Mr. Shyamalan generally torpedoes his movies with overweening self-seriousness.
  20. It's one of the rare films for which a blooper reel would be redundant.
  21. The cramped first half, mostly in the Singh apartment, is crudely unfunny.
  22. The horror anthology has a long tradition, going at least as far back as the British classic “Dead of Night,” in 1945. The best offer surprise endings or a sense of humor. You won’t receive much of either here. Just vertigo and maybe a wicked case of induced attention deficit disorder.
  23. It might have been a satisfying if not terribly original piece of historical melodrama, but its clumsiness turns it, against its best intentions, into half-baked operatic kitsch.
  24. This dissociation leaves the supporting cast to its own devices, with no one suffering more than the appealing Eva Mendes as Johnny's true love, Roxanne. If Ms. Mendes ever finds a director willing to allow her to perform with her shirts fully buttoned, there will be no stopping her.
  25. The storytelling is infuriatingly coy, as if Mr. Haggis were trying to fool you (and himself) into thinking that he has something to say. Third Person finds Mr. Haggis, like Mr. Neeson’s screen alter ego, running on empty.
  26. The plot of Michael Grais's and Mark Victor's screenplay is even more nonsensical than it needs to be. [11 Jul 1992]
    • The New York Times
  27. Slow-motion knockouts follow, with Mr. Statham as sure-fisted as ever, but the “Expendables” director Simon West can only summon dead air in between. Mr. Goldman’s slightly offbeat underworld is not very convincing, and Mr. Statham’s thick voice and inexpressive acting suggest brain fog rather than gritty blues.
  28. The dour McCanick banks way too much on what it is not telling us, making for a movie that thinks it’s being cryptically suspenseful but is really just annoying.
  29. Lazy would-be horror film.
  30. Tacky and disposable.

Top Trailers