The New York Times' Scores

For 12,493 reviews, this publication has graded:
  • 48% higher than the average critic
  • 4% same as the average critic
  • 48% lower than the average critic
On average, this publication grades 3.5 points lower than other critics. (0-100 point scale)
Average Movie review score: 60
Highest review score: 100 The Dirties
Lowest review score: 0 Dracula 2000
Score distribution:
12493 movie reviews
  1. A comedy that is so scatterbrained and long-winded that much of it feels invented on the spot. (It’s also a half-hour too long.)
  2. Will this hard-luck president again defy death while his stoic sidekick vanquishes the nasty, uncivilized terrorists? It’s hard to care when a movie is this formulaic and moronic.
  3. The filmmakers’ aversion to coherent narrative and genuinely suspenseful visuals (not to mention a penchant for having Ms. Moore receive terrible news via cellphone) keep the movie’s mystery stew from hitting the spot.
  4. Shot in smeary video, it sports the static, by-the-book camera work of a daytime soap-opera.
  5. It's hard to take Passion seriously because it brings to mind the kind of shallow psychology that wouldn't be out of place in a history short about Sigmund Freud on "ABC Schoolhouse Rock."
  6. He's (Marco Filiberti) his own best audience, and Adored is best left to his own enjoyment.
  7. It fails to deliver a thrill — not even a shiver, except of revulsion — rendering all that slasher gore downright anemic.
  8. Suffers from abusive close-ups, repetitive fight sequences and uninspired demon design.
  9. Think of it as a modern-day variant on a Shakespearean comedy, only without the verbal felicity or dramatic structure.
  10. Borderline incoherent and unrepentantly lewd, this buddy-cop comedy (based on the 1977-83 television series of the same name) substitutes cars, ’copters and motorcycles for actual characters
  11. It's not outlandish enough to work as slapstick, not intelligent enough to make a comment on the fickleness of immigration policy.
  12. We wait, from one cringe-inducing, hide-your-face-from-the-screen act after another, to see how much worse the behavior will become.
  13. According to the press notes, pandorum means “Orbital Dysfunctional Syndrome”; whatever that is, by the end of the movie I was convinced I had caught it.
  14. To say that Justin Zackham’s farce The Big Wedding takes the low road doesn’t begin to do justice to the sheer awfulness of this star-stuffed, potty-mouthed fiasco.
  15. 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
  16. As good as cut-rate animation that seems to consist of screen savers can be.
    • 28 Metascore
    • 30 Critic Score
    The movie genuflects toward pop depth in a scene where Grace sprawls on a motel bed watching Alfred Hitchcock’s "Birds," another thriller about implacable, undefined evil, but there’s a difference between refusing to give viewers the answers and having nothing to say. For all its death-metal vigor, The Hitcher falls into the latter camp.
    • 28 Metascore
    • 30 Critic Score
    This is another tired kidsploitation product.
  17. Rendering a miraculous premise dull, the film seems relatively uninterested in doing more than preaching to the choir.
  18. The movie tries for propulsive Tarantino grit but ends up being just another annoying example of Hollywood’s addiction to stories in which graying white men bed beautiful young women and beat up men much more youthful and fit than they are.
  19. Feeding over-the-top language to underdeveloped characters, Deon Taylor’s Supremacy dramatizes racism with an unvarying intensity that quickly becomes wearing.
  20. One longs to praise Mr. Manrique for attempting a serious-minded story in this, his first feature. But there needs to be a real reason to embrace it, rather than what’s on this screen.
  21. At least Mr. De Niro, who disappears from the movie until the end, seems to be enjoying himself. The force of his bonhomie gives this murky-looking, empty conceit of a film a desperately needed lift of facetious humor.
  22. Could serve as a textbook example of what to avoid in nonfiction filmmaking.
  23. All the special effects in the world cannot compensate for an inability to generate tension, establish and sustain pace or create any character whose survival is worth rooting for.
  24. For all its visual pizazz A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III has the jerky momentum of a collection of disconnected skits loosely thrown together with only the vaguest notion of where it’s heading or what it all means. At best it is a mildly diverting goof with a charmless lead performance. Its underlying misogyny leaves a sour taste.
    • 28 Metascore
    • 30 Critic Score
    The resulting film, directed by Paul Johansson, feels rushed, amateurish and clumsy. It's not just the ideologies that feel oddly out of step with the present day, but the clothes, hairstyles and interiors.
  25. The entire film seems to be happening on the other side of a dirty window - good news for the dreadful computer-generated effects, if not for our eyes.
  26. Saving most of its special-effects pennies until the final five minutes, Hangar 10 struggles to build a science-fiction movie from little more than a ghost of an idea and an infamous location.
  27. There’s not an ounce of suspense in any of this, because you’ve seen it all before, and the director, Jon Cassar, seems uninterested in veering from the well-established formula.

Top Trailers