'Citizen Kane' Loses Perfect Rotten Tomatoes Score Thanks To Resurfaced 80-Year-Old Review 124
Rotten Tomatoes has unearthed a 1941 review of Orson Welles' classic that single-handedly took down its decades-long perfect critics' score. From The Hollywood Reporter: Citizen Kane's score across 116 reviews has been reduced to a mere 99 percent "Fresh." The ranking slip is due to a single negative review that was recently unearthed by Rotten Tomatoes as part of the site's Archival Project, which focuses on resurrecting critics and publications of the past and adding archived reviews to classic films. The project discovered a Citizen Kane review that ran in the Chicago Tribune in 1941 and is only available online as a scanned newspaper clipping. Last month, the review was quietly added to Kane's page.
The review's headline is incredibly on point, given the circumstances: "Citizen Kane Fails to Impress Critic as Greatest Ever Filmed." If that sounds like somebody went to the theater with rather high expectations, the review confirms as much. "You've heard a lot about this picture and I see by the ads that some experts think it 'the greatest movie ever made,'" reads the review. "I don't. It's interesting. It's different. In fact, it's bizarre enough to become a museum piece. But its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value." The review went on to pan the film's iconic use of shadow ("it gives me the creeps and I kept wishing they'd let a little sunshine in"), yet praised Welles in the title role ("a zealous and effective performer").
The critic apparently didn't put their real name on the piece, but, as Boing-Boing pointed out, used the common-at-the-time pseudonym Mae Tinee (say it aloud). But whoever wrote it managed to pen a bomb that took 80 years to effectively detonate and blow up Citizen Kane's perfect score. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the first Citizen Kane reviews were added to the site in 2000 and the film most likely had a consistent 100 percent score for the past two decades -- until Mr./Ms. Tinee's dismissive takedown was discovered.
The review's headline is incredibly on point, given the circumstances: "Citizen Kane Fails to Impress Critic as Greatest Ever Filmed." If that sounds like somebody went to the theater with rather high expectations, the review confirms as much. "You've heard a lot about this picture and I see by the ads that some experts think it 'the greatest movie ever made,'" reads the review. "I don't. It's interesting. It's different. In fact, it's bizarre enough to become a museum piece. But its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value." The review went on to pan the film's iconic use of shadow ("it gives me the creeps and I kept wishing they'd let a little sunshine in"), yet praised Welles in the title role ("a zealous and effective performer").
The critic apparently didn't put their real name on the piece, but, as Boing-Boing pointed out, used the common-at-the-time pseudonym Mae Tinee (say it aloud). But whoever wrote it managed to pen a bomb that took 80 years to effectively detonate and blow up Citizen Kane's perfect score. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the first Citizen Kane reviews were added to the site in 2000 and the film most likely had a consistent 100 percent score for the past two decades -- until Mr./Ms. Tinee's dismissive takedown was discovered.
It's about time. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: It's about time. (Score:2)
It's no... Epic Movie!
Re: (Score:2)
Even according to RT, "Black Panther (2018)" was already a better movie:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com... [rottentomatoes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too much vibranium?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, it's very unlikely that in 76 years anyone is going to find a negative review of Paddinton 2 after scouring the archives for it, so it's clearly a better movie.
Other films have lost their perfect scores over ti (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I hadn't realized that Rotten Tomatoes has been around so long. I thought they started around 1998 but it is good to know that they have actually been around since before World War II.
8^)
Re: Other films have lost their perfect scores ov (Score:2)
Oh. So you don't get it? Figures. The movie was made for a smarter generation.
Bullshit reviews (Score:2, Interesting)
The whole thing is ridiculous.
People just believe something is like something because they are told it is that, and think they aren't cool if they don't conform to that thinking.
That's why they say they "like" beer, or wine, or coffee without milk and sugar, even when they drink it the first time as a young person, where they can clearly tell it is horribly bitter and not tasty at all. Or as if anyone actually likes caviar.
The same way, suddenly, a few years ago, it became common to dislike the word "moist"
Re: (Score:2)
This point was made on The Sopranos, where some of the characters test out their new home movie theatre by watching "the best movie of all time" and are somewhat underwhelmed by it.
I think everyone appreciates that it was very much of its time, and while very interesting from a historical perspective and a masterclass for film buffs... For modern audiences it isn't all that entertaining.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I wasn't commenting on the review. I'm not sure if that slipped past you due to not R'ing the comment.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I was commenting on BAReFO0t's comment. That's how replies work on Slashdot, they are a response to the parent comment.
Re:Bullshit reviews (Score:4, Funny)
5 out of 10. Some of Slashdot's shittiest producers of hot takes finally turn their sights on each other, delivering what should be satisfying fulfillment of karma but only manages to be their usual lame personal attacks and flailing of inflated egos. Save your money and your time for a different thread.
Re: Bullshit reviews (Score:3)
If only I could have read this review first.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then. Just watch it for the pterodactyls. (Yes, there are pterodactyls flying around in the background of one scene.)
Re: (Score:2)
I laughed at this thinking it would be hilarious if they would have done this with 2001: A Space Odyssey...
"What the f*** is this? The sound isn't working."
Re: (Score:2)
From memory it was one of those "top 100 movies of all time" lists so 2001 was probably on there.
This is often the case with historically noteworthy stuff. Had to read Tess of the d'Urbervilles once, I can see why it would have been a big deal at the time but by modern standards...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even at the time, there were people who were not big on subtlety or cinematics, they wanted more explosions, and more legs, and a song and dance number halfway through.
Even today, Citizen Kane is a great film. It upped the bar for Hollywood historically, but it is still a high bar even for modern films. A good movie is like a good book, it takes thinking and the audience is not intended to be merely passive viewers/readers. I love Beethoven's 9th symphony, probably the greatest work of music of all time (s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen it :-) I've seen parts of it though. But the total film is a huge time commitment. I worry it will give me terrible flashbacks to Star Trek: The Motion Picture (where I want to call over the usher and ask how much longer this scene is because I think i'm getting bed sores).
Re: (Score:2)
I get this stuff every time I note that the Firefly TV series wasn't that great as the hype around it. Even if FOX didn't air them out of order.
It's certainly not bad compared to all the other SciFi schlock that was produced around that time and before, but if I have to review it as its own production and be honest, it's not great. It's ok.
Pointing this out usually triggers some strong emotional responsesfrom other people taking some serious offense from the criticism for some reason.
Re: Bullshit reviews (Score:2)
It gets good at episode 6 (although I don't care so much for that last 3), and some of the first 5 episodes are ok.
Re: (Score:2)
However this applies to everyone, individually. So what bothers me is when people act like their taste is some kind of universal truth that absolutely must apply to everyone. And anyone who strays from those lines is simply wrong.
For that reason I also don't care that much about what big review sites think about a product or service by compile some kind of meta s
Re: (Score:2)
Firefly is one of those things that stands about because everything else on TV at the time was pretty much crap. Generally, almost everything is pretty much crap all the time, and we remember the few bits of pearls that bob up to the top. It's why people gush about Pride and Prejudice and ignore all the other drek that was written that same year and later forgotten.
Especially when so much stuff ends up being rehashing of the same tropes over and over, everyone copying everyone else. So when someone comes
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the stuff that I liked as a kid I do no longer like today.
I won't deny that I liked it back then, but today I won't act like it's been the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So I won't recommend something like the Captain Future anime, which I liked as a kid except for doing some research on how (bad) story telling was at that time compared to today.
These days people like stuff like The Expanse, or schlock like Dark Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Caviar tastes salty and fishy. You like salt, you like fish -> you like caviar. It isn't really complicated.
Re:Bullshit reviews (Score:5, Interesting)
I get what you're saying; but you do need to be mindful that not all the people who like "cool" things are liking them just because they're cool.
I had this conversation way back in high school. I lucked in to hearing REM's first performance on the Letterman show. Loved the band at first listen. My best friend later mentioned how REM was just a band that cool kids liked. We were not "cool kids" ergo, there was no reason to listen to REM. I had to push back on that.
I've never had caviar; but I do like my coffee black. I don't think you can compare things that people drink in part for their psychoactive effect with things that they drink just for taste. The stimulus from coffee is probably the initial draw, then you acquire the taste. Since we get plenty of sugar in our diets, no need to add it to coffee. Acquired taste is most definitely a thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To whom are you addressing? Is this meant to be satire? "Intents and Purposes"
I think he was taking it for granite.
Re: (Score:2)
The stimulus from coffee is probably the initial draw, then you acquire the taste. Since we get plenty of sugar in our diets, no need to add it to coffee.
Glucose added to coffee is an instant stimulus on its own and a booster to the stimuli from caffeine.
You start absorbing it directly through the mucous membrane, before it even reaches the stomach.
It is instant energy for your cells, raises blood pressure both by increasing the heartbeat and the osmotic pressure in the blood vessels by binding water to carbon - which might help with the fact that the caffeine is a diuretic.
It also helps dealing with reactive hypoglycemia, [wikipedia.org] like after a large meal - AKA lunch
Re: (Score:2)
What, REM was for cool kids? I am so uncool I didn't even know that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was for cool kids if you knew them before they were popular. The TV debut might be one dividing line. Once they were getting played on major commercial rock stations, I think that was it--they were just like any other band. The "cool kid" era was probably when they were only in clubs and on college radio stations.
Re: Bullshit reviews (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In nature, bitter often means "POISON - DO NOT EAT" in much the same way that pain means "BAD - AVOID". Of course, you can acquire a taste for these things, but I think it's fair enough for some people to consider this a mild form of masochism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where they can clearly tell it is horribly bitter and not tasty at all. Or as if anyone actually likes caviar.
Some people don't like parsley or coriander/cilantro because it tastes like soap to them. I can smell that some dishwashing liquid does smell like that too. The problem is, I've always tasted the "soap" of parsley and I do actually like the flavour, when it's parsley. So part of me thinks a lot of people don't like parsley, not because it tastes like soap, but because they're just picky about things that d
I am not ain individual (Score:2)
No sir me!
Re:Bullshit reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
If your opinion is that malleable, you're probably already lost to marketing. Plack Panther is up there next to Citizen Kane in the Rotten Tomatoes' "Top 100 Movies of All Time" list. Now, even if you think Citizen Kane to be a boring film, look at me straight in the face and tell me that such a ranking is justified. If you really think that, then yes, you need a movie review to slap some education into you. Only a bit further down, Avengers: Endgame (2019) is right above Casablanca (1942). Same situation.
I think you confuse movie review with movie marketing. Although both may share the same media, and very often paid shills will try and pass a marketing script for a legitimate review, they are not the same thing. The main difference is that marketing fades away, while a film critic tries to be on-point. If the review's remarks are true, they'll still be true 100 years from now. The movie currently at #26, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), is 101 years old and it's still not just watchable but totaly enjoyable! Don't get me wrong, it's not that no good movies are made anymore, it's just that we need a couple of decades for the marketing fluff to settle down.
Reading reviews, books etc and getting a freaking clue is not the same as "letting people tell you what to think". Listening to other people's opinions is keeping an eye open for things you might have missed and not the same as swallowing down propaganda and marketing hook, line, and sinker.
Re: Bullshit reviews (Score:2)
Almost anything produced before the 70s is worse than most big name movies made since. The reality is actors were terrible before the 70s. Sorry, but Citizen Kane is objectively worse from a film studies perspective than Black Panther. We've just internalized the terrible cinema of the past so well that we overlook their obvious flaws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Black Panther was a repurposed James Bond film. Wth are you talking about?
Re: Bullshit reviews (Score:2)
From a cinematography angle, it was quite good. The colors were vibrant and novel for big budget cinema. The framing and editing are super solid. Hands down beats any Bond flick in cinematography.
Acting-wise it was above-par. Boseman was great, and the ensemble was a who's who of some of the best black actors of our era.
It's not going to win script writing awards, but even that was solid for what it was. Bond villains would be so lucky to have the level of character development written for Black Panther's b
Re: (Score:2)
It actually *should* win an award for the most pretentious screenplay ever written. In the third act we wittness a civil war battle between two african tribes, one of which has the support of a CIA agent (!!!), and we find ourselves rooting for the side that aims to keep the status quo of beind isolated and docile. The producers tried to save it in the end with the "outreach center", but T'Challa is never shown to have such intentions before the end of the movie. The *actual* Plack Panther in the movie (fro
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that acting got a whole lot better after method acting got established around that time. But acting is only part of what makes a good movie. Look, I personally wouldn't vote Citizen Kane as the best film ever made, I got other favorites, but it's laughable to even compare it to Black Panther. And I would certainly not dismiss films from the 60ies or even older just because the actors don't use the method. Who cares if Chaplin and Keaton are theatrical, they can be funny and sad and everything in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, ok, I'll get of your lawn, but I'll retort first while twisting my mustache, just because I find it interesting that you mentioned the ending.
True story: The first time I watched The Birds was from a rental VHS tape. When the film came to that abrupt ending, the tape just switched from the final scene of the car fading away in the bird-infested landscape to just showing CRT-static. At that moment I thought that the tape was damaged and I was frustrated that I wouldn't get to see the end of the movie!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the faintest clue what you're babbling about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's OK. Neither does he.
Rosebud (Score:2)
A Slashdot commenter's last words, muttered as they are buried under an avalanche of down-mods.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the taste of beer from the very first time I tasted it as a youngster.
I've always liked it.
But to this day, I rarely drink coffee...even with a ton of cream and sugar.
But I pretty much enjoyed the flavor of all forms of alcohol when I first tried them.
The exceptions being scotch and tequila, but I did later develop a taste for those....epecially scotch when I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reviews are not meant to tell you to enjoy or not enjoy a movie. But a critical article on that persons perspective of that movie. I wouldn't let any single reviewer convince you that a movie is good or not, but if a good majority of them dislike a movie, chances are it isn't a good movie, or at least being a movie that you will want to watch over and over again. Sometimes we have some poorly reviewed movies that had became a classic, and some well received movies that were flops.
We all have our guilty
Re: (Score:2)
Reviews are not meant to tell you to enjoy or not enjoy a movie. But a critical article on that persons perspective of that movie. I wouldn't let any single reviewer convince you that a movie is good or not, but if a good majority of them dislike a movie, chances are it isn't a good movie, or at least being a movie that you will want to watch over and over again. Sometimes we have some poorly reviewed movies that had became a classic, and some well received movies that were flops.
That's not quite it.
Best reviews, from a consumer/audience point, are those that reflect what reviewers like or don't like about a certain movie, book, song... whatever.
Often the negative ones being far superior in that regard - you can tell a lot more about the reviewer's REAL issues with the subject and their point of view if they are angry enough to rant about something.
E.g. If an obvious idiot doesn't like something, it might actually require some intellectual work to fully understand and enjoy it. I.e.
Re: (Score:2)
People just believe something is like something because they are told it is that, and think they aren't cool if they don't conform to that thinking.
That's not bullshit. That is calling out some very real business practices right there. If a studio releases a fantastic movie but in it's marketing materials offers free blowjobs in the cinema, you're damn well going to expect someone to write a negative review as a result.
Our expectations of something are a completely relevant part of the movie experience. It's why some B grade movies get great ratings while some blockbusters get horrid ones. The expectation plays a large role as to our enjoyment of somet
TLDR: No independent thinkers - but me. (Score:2)
Everyone else is sheeple.
You know. People, but they act like sheep. I know. It's deep.
Greatest vs most-Influential distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxi Driver is easier to explain because it's more contemporary and it blew people's minds when it was released and then in the decades since many film makers mimicked it. I first saw it 20 years after it was made, with a (then) modern perspective, having seen many filmmakers make contemporary versions of the same story I enjoyed much more. It wasn't novel, original, shocking, or groundbreaking when I saw it. It was also tainted by worse examples of the same story or more excessive versions (Rambo, Falling Down, etc). I was just underwhelmed by it. Most that I heard who raved about it were quite a bit older than me.
I imagine I'd feel the same way about the Matrix if I watched it today. My mind was blown in 1999 when I saw it in theaters, but now, it's probably pretty silly...certainly the sequels don't hold up.
I have no problem giving the title "greatest" to films that don't hold up well today if they're highly influential and left a huge mark.
I also am old enough that I don't give a fuck if I don't enjoy something that the world thinks is great. I can even appreciate movies as being well written, well made, and not for me. Really, most best picture nominees fall in that category. I have limited time to watch movies and I am pretty sure Nomadland has nothing to offer me, as an example. I am sure it is well made and great for some, but I just don't see anything in there to entice me to spend my very limited time watching it.
If you can get your head in the headspace of someone watching it in 1941, Citizen Kane is probably mind-blowing. In 2021, for me, it doesn't crack the top 10, but the other movies had 80 years to learn from it and expand on everything it did well.
Re: Greatest vs most-Influential distinction (Score:2)
Siskel and Ebert (Score:2)
Seeing old Siskel and Ebert reviews of the original Star Wars movie along with the first Terminator, neither of them picked up on what you speaking of.
Criticism is overrated (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen to everyone's opinion, then decide with your own head; never allow anyone to tell you how much you should like (or dislike) something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> But those reviews shouldn't be seen as a mathematical truth
1. I get what you are saying but I don't see why not? If 9 out of 10 movie critics say "the movie had problems with pacing, plot armor, and bad acting" then why can't we assign it a lower score? Just because a true objective score is impossible shouldn't stop us from trying regardless of how subjective the experience is.
2. The score is only one datum in the "Will I enjoy this?" There are a few [movie] genres I avoid. If something is those
Ahead of its time (Score:2)
The review went on to pan the film's iconic use of shadow ("it gives me the creeps and I kept wishing they'd let a little sunshine in")
In other words, Orson Wells was setting the stage for Marvel films
Re: (Score:2)
Or Eraserhead.
Is this just some viral marketing for MANK ? (Score:1)
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The audience appreciated different things back then. A casual example that pops to my mind is Robert Kennedy on the day of MLK assassination. He was giving a speech when he was told MLK had been assassinated, and gave a speech ex-tempore quoting Aeschylus casually. That was in 1963. Citizen Kane was 1941.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched it. I don't think it has held up well. They could have made the point in less than half the time. Back then people may have loved it, especially if
Man dude. TL;DR.
I don't think the fuss is about the movie (Score:5, Interesting)
I first saw the film (literally) in the 1970s when my dad scored a print and rented a projector to see it. Since then, I've seen it three or four times and it's never dazzled me, it's long, not terribly interesting and has always felt like to me it's too much "inside baseball" - there are specific references to Hearst that only came to light years after the release of the film. Yes, there were some new techniques used in filming the movie but I don't think they were used as effectively as they were in later productions.
I doubt that "Citizen Kane" would be regarded so highly if it wasn't attacked so overtly by Hearst - I think a lot of the mystique about the film comes from Hearst's efforts in trying to discredit and bury the film. Added to that Welles' and Mankiewicz' shameless poking what was probably the largest bear in the United States makes the film a lot more intriguing.
Watch the other Oscar best picture winners of the time (1939 - Gone with the Wind, 1940 - Rebecca, 1941 - How Green was my Valley, 1942 - Mrs. Miniver, 1943 - Casablanca) and I don't think you'll find that Citizen Kane measures up to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a little more to it than that. It's kind of like the Mona Lisa; you look at the thing and wonder, "what's the big deal?" The big deal was that it changed everything. It would have been shocking and exciting to audiences in 1517 to see the use of realistic perspective and shading, but to us that's just what a portrait is supposed to look like.
I can understand the feeling among film types that Citizen Kane is overrated -- it would be hard not to be overrated when you top most aggregated lis
Check out a history of Casablanca (Score:2)
I know that it's wildly regarded as a little picture that could (and Warner actively promoted it as such) but that's not the case.
The rights to the play it was based on ("Everybody comes to Rick's") was purchased for $20k (the second highest at that point after "Gone with the wind"). The screenplay was written by Julius and Philip Epstein ("Yankee Doodle Dandy", "The man who came to dinner") and Howard Koch ("Sgt. York" and "The Sea Hawk") who were top screenwriters at the time. It was directed by Micha
Re: (Score:2)
From my understanding the Mona Lisa wasn't a particularly big deal in art until the middle of the 19th century when French Arts people started to hype it, and then it's theft early in the 20th century made it world famous.
Spoilers back at you (Score:2)
That's a really interesting thesis. I've never conducted an experiment like you have and, on my own, I've only pictured Kane as an abandoned little boy - losing his childhood and leaving him with an intense desire to prove his worth in the shallow, impulsive, immature ways of a child (running newspapers, creating a world class opera singer, being president). At the end of his life, rather than focus on his successes (and failures), he dwells on what he lost as a boy.
God knows what that says about me.
I
Re: (Score:2)
As a result, when people respond to Kane, the part they are responding to
are those parts in themselves with which they resonate.
You can make that claim about any film.
Or book, record, etc.
It's a Good Movie, But Was Always Overrated (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I enjoyed it, but there are definitely better movies (e.g. for myself just from the same era, Casablanca is already better), not sure how it got that reputation either. It reminds me a bit of 90's Greece when suddenly any young person who wanted to appear "cultural" claimed their favourite movie was "Dead poets society". It's probably something similar, a fad that has not let go. Good movie, "best ever" is quite a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Third Man was pretty good as well, good Orson Welles style but also a more engaging plot line for those who aren't there just for artistic value.
Re: (Score:2)
A comment more on RT than anything (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen Kane was generally not well received when released, there were a lot of negative reviews.
To be fair, a lot of the negative reviews came from newspapers owned by the guy who tried suing to have Kane banned and destroyed. Any anonymous review from that time should probably be ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Citizen Kane was generally not well received when released, there were a lot of negative reviews.
To be fair, a lot of the negative reviews came from newspapers owned by the guy who tried suing to have Kane banned and destroyed. Any anonymous review from that time should probably be ignored.
If you know about any negative reviews published at the time, except this newly discovered from Chicago Tribune I'm sure the Rotten Tomatoes "Archival Project" as mentioned in the article would love to hear from you.
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes things change with perspective.
Maybe it was average at the time but over time it has developed additional significance - as a perfect example of some aspect or other of the times, for instance.
And then you have to allow for the fact that the audience starts to self-filter as time passes, too. The only people watching Kane now are people who are already primed to find it to be a great movie. They're not your average movie-goers.
At least the critic didn't bring up the plot hole (Score:2)
With all the critique of this film, and even with this single bad review knocking it off the top spot, I have yet to read an actual review of Citizen Kane that mentions the glaring plot hole which torpedoes the entire premise of the film.
In keeping with standing "no spoilers" policies, I will not discuss the actual plot hole, although if someone else wishes to bring it up, the Secretary may, or may not, verify the accuracy of the observations.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect score? (Score:3)
If I recall correctly, the movie was trashed in Hearst's papers.
k.
Really, we're going to diminish Kane because... (Score:2)
... there was a critic that said "it gives me the creeps and I kept wishing they'd let a little sunshine in"?
I'm sure lots of 10 years olds would have said that too - should that be a gauge of it's value?
What a bunch of horse poo (Score:2)
Citizen Kane is not such a great movie. It just got catapulted there by Orson Welles adulation and lionization, and then everyone went along like sheep. It's just an average movie for the period.
Movie Reviewers Use This Criteria (Score:2)
Typically these criteria in this order.
1. Is the idea behind the movie rehashed from any movie ever? If so, major points off. These guys watch 100 movies a day, they can't stand anything that "was done before".
2. Is the idea behind the movie to overturn established norms in favor of the main character? As selfishly as possible is better for a critic. For instance, is a princess trying to break the mold to be a regular Joe? Good for her. Did she destroy her family in the process? 1000 bonus points!
3. Is the
"Single-handedly?" (Score:2)
I'm quite certain, the review was typed up with two hands. Add the hands of the editor giving it at least a cursory read, and the typography worker(s) setting it up to be printed...
It was 1941 — even if the writer was one-handed, texts didn't go from the writer's keyboard into the readers' eyes with a push of a button...
Paddington 2? (Score:2)