ByJon Negroni, writer at
I'm from around here. Twitter: @JonNegroni Official:
Jon Negroni

It's that time of the week again when deciding on what movie to watch ranges from "eh" to "whatever."

This week, it's City of Bones vs. You're Next, so what do the critics think of the former?

Below are some of their thoughts on the supernatural teen thriller fantasy mashup, along with their translations (or at least what I think they're trying to say.)

Here, the Muggle types are known as the “Mundane.” An apt label for a wanna-be franchise with plenty of sheen and nothing to say. -Matt Patches (Time Out New York)

Translation: this movie makes Harry Potter look like Lord of the Rings.

The plot is an incomprehensible tangle of dead ends and recaps. -Robbie Collin (The Telegraph)

Translation: I fell asleep.

So even with this film suffering from cinematic osteoporosis, we may get another visit, like it or not. -Jordan Hoffman (New York Daily News)

Translation: This thing might actually get a sequel.

This is a story that has everything you’re looking for, provided that you’re looking for absolutely nothing. -Laremy Legel (

Translation: Teenagers will love it.

There’s a germ of something interesting and different within the film’s narrative tangle, but it’s unfortunately been subsumed by Hollywood’s dedication to replicating previous successes. -Genevieve Koski (The Dissolve)

Translation: The book is better.

A ludicrous, borderline-nonsensical supernatural concoction with a slightly redeeming sense of its own silliness. -Justin Chang (Variety)

Translation: It's so bad, it's only slightly bad.

Make no mistake, there will be a sequel. Clary may not wind up having the same pop-culture impact as Bella and Katniss, but like it or not, this won't be the last time you hear from her. -Chris Nashawaty (Entertainment Weekly)

Translation: Well, someone had to like it.


Latest from our Creators