and at the same time does not please, since it is impossible for the normal man or woman to sympathize with the aspiring midget. And only in such a case will the story appeal." While a significant number of reviews were unfavorable, the film was well-received by some: The New York Times called it "excellent at times and horrible, in the strict meaning of the word, at others" as well as "a picture not to be easily forgotten." The New York Herald Tribune wrote that it was "obviously an unhealthy and generally disagreeable work," but that "in some strange way, the picture is not only exciting, but even occasionally touching." Columnist Louella Parsons wrote an enthusiastic report on the film, noting that "for pure sensationalism, Freaks tops any pictures yet produced... In Freaks there are monstrosities such as never before have been known. If you are normal go and see them for yourself, if not, well, use your own judgment." John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote a favorable review, calling it "a little gem" that "stands in a class by itself, and probably won't be forgotten in a hurry by those who see it." He found its "perfectly plausible story" a key to the effectiveness of its horror, writing that "It's a chilling notion to imagine these weird beings, with their own lives and vanities and passions, all allied in a bitter enmity against us." Addressing the controversial subject matter, Mosher stated: "if the poor things themselves can be displayed in the basement of Madison Square Garden, pictures of them might as well be shown in the Rialto. They may hereafter even be regarded in the flesh with a new dread bordering on respect." Retrospective In the mid/late 20th century, Freaks began to garner critical reassessment after developing a cult following in Europe, and was subject to renewed praise by critics and audiences. The film's growing popularity abroad led to a renewed interest in it among American audiences, and it was subject of a retrospective review in Film Quarterly by John Thomas in 1964, in which he deemed it "a minor masterpiece." Critic Kim Newman suggests that the film's warmer reception amongst mid/late-20th-century audiences was partly due to the term "freak" having taken on a more positive connotation, as something to be celebrated rather than reviled; Newman also adds that the film "shows obvious fondness for its carny cast."