← Return to Rewinder: AI Analysis of AI Analysis of Film

OVERLAY REPORT

1/12/2026 // SUBJECT: Reception of the film What's Up, Doc? (1972) Processing: 1m 57.2s
Source: Gemini 3.0 Flash + Search
Analysis: gemini-3-pro-preview
Timeline: Skipped
EXPERIMENTAL USE ONLY
Errors Missing Unverified Supported
1 1 0 15
How were these counts calculated?

#Q ORIGINAL QUESTION

Regarding the film What's Up, Doc? (1972), how was the film received and reviewed at the time of release?

#M ANNOTATED LLM RESPONSE

Upon its release in March 1972, What's Up, Doc? was a massive commercial success and a significant critical talking point, often described as a "neo-screwball" revival. While it became one of the highest-grossing films of the year, critics were sharply divided between those who found it a joyous, brilliant homage to 1930s cinema and those who saw it as an unoriginal, "infantile" imitation.

Critical Reception

The reviews at the time were a mix of high praise for the film’s comedic energy and harsh dismissals of its nostalgic premise.

Box Office and Public Reception

The general public embraced the film far more uniformly than the critics did.

Awards and Industry Recognition

The film's sharp writing and breakout performances were recognized shortly after its release:

#F CORRECTION FEED (CLICK TO SEARCH)

[1] The film grossed $66 million and ranked 3rd in 1972.
[2] Ebert's review calls it a 'screwball comedy' and 'food... for we who hunger', capturing the 'joyous revival' sentiment, though the exact phrase may be a paraphrase.
[3] Ebert explicitly wrote: 'This time, she proves herself as our most accomplished screen comedienne.'
[4] Ebert explicitly wrote: 'billed as a wacky screwball comedy with absolutely no redeeming social importance'.
[5] The phrase 'giggle fest' does not appear in Ebert's review. It appears in a review by '4 Star Films'.
[6] Canby wrote: 'a very funny, most genial, contemporary farce in possession of its own cockeyed intelligence.'
[7] Variety wrote: 'there are literally reels of pure, unadulterated and sustained laughs.'
[8] Kael wrote: 'The result is too infantile to be called decadent.'
[9] Simon wrote: 'look[ed] like a cross between an aardvark and an albino rat'.
[10] Schjeldahl called the film a 'plague'.
[11] Schjeldahl called the film a 'celluloid zombie'.
[12] The film grossed approximately $66 million in North America.
[13] It was the 3rd highest-grossing film of 1972.
[14] Buck Henry, David Newman, and Robert Benton won the 1973 WGA Award for Best Comedy Written Directly for the Screen.
[15] Madeline Kahn was nominated for a Golden Globe for New Star of the Year – Actress.
[16] It is widely recognized as the first American film to list stunt people in the end credits.

#O MISSED POINTS & OVERSIGHTS

Low
Linguistic Anachronism

The summary uses the header 'The Streisand Effect', a term coined in 2003 regarding internet privacy, to describe her 1972 career transition. While used descriptively here, it is technically anachronistic terminology.

#C RELATED QUERIES

#01 What specific stunt credits appeared in What's Up, Doc?
#02 Did Barbra Streisand ever respond to John Simon's review?
#03 How did Peter Bogdanovich react to Pauline Kael's review?

#S SOURCES

cloudfront.net tcm.com filmforum.org filmbeereviews.com

#R ORIGINAL AI RESPONSE

#A DIRECT ANSWER (VERIFIED ANALYSIS)