Barry Johnson

This one has all the usual cliches. The serial killer. The strip joint scene. The bad-tempered superior. The villain that won't die. The graphic gore. Hauer plays a suspended cop, of course. To these it adds a fairly creative scene of Hauer and Duncan stalking and shooting at the beast in a morgue, plus very damp streets and a vision of the future that is bleaker than usual. [2 May 1992, p.C04]

A sense of claustrophobia emerges, increases and colonizes the film.

There's only one direction for the movie to follow, and it heads there on a beeline. We could use some more information about Ivy, if we are going to take her seriously as a human. Instead, she's demonic and without history. That makes the enterprise resemble a comic book: a tale from the crypt, perhaps. [09 May 1992, p.C10]

As usual, the genius is in the storytelling details that Gray musters and manipulates, the side trips and observations, the depth of his personal observations. His near hysteria is funny in itself, though when he tries for a one-liner, it almost inevitably falls flat. But that's not a problem: It's just Spalding.

This one is for Woody fans, and maybe Woody fans only.

The narrative can be difficult to follow. But not to worry. The images, the language and the characters can pull you along. [19 June 1992, p.AE22]

Its ambiguity allows us the chance to provide our own satirical edge to the film.

A very depressing movie.

At its best during the anachronistic nightclub scenes and anytime prolonged dancing is on screen. It's mostly music video stuff, but the young actors are likable enough, and the film works up just enough momentum to give it some significance.

One suspects that [Verhoeven's] produced exactly the movie he wanted to produce: fast, cynical and profitable. Cha-ching. [20 Mar 1992, p.AE17]

Although the Hollywood treatment intrudes at times, it's still a compelling film, richly filmed and deeply moving. [23 Dec 1994, p.12]

Fortunately, Winkler has a good cast.

No crime against the moviemaker's art, but it is flawed in a way we wouldn't expect from the director of "Shakespeare in Love."

The novel's exuberance, happy sensuality, goes AWOL in Van Sant's sadder, darker vision. [20 May 1994]

A good comedy contains at least one of two vital ingredients: sharp, swift writing or terrific comic shtick by the actors. Unfortunately, Hocus Pocus -- like most Hollywood comedies these days -- has neither. That doesn't mean it's a terrible movie. It's not, though it loses focus and momentum two-thirds of the way through and limps home with unsurprising special effects. It's just not all that funny. [16 July 1993, p.17]

Final Fantasy doesn't pop.

Timecop speeds along briskly: It's a well-oiled, smooth-running action movie with a science-fiction twist tossed in for good measure. [16 Sep 1994, p.14]

It's not that Bogdanovich's movie doesn't have its laughs. It does. Frayn has a comic genius that is expansive -- he can pile one-liners, character humor and physical schtick on top of one another quickly and deftly. And the cast Bogdanovich has assembled, led by Michael Caine as the embattled director, is up to the demands. But a film version of a play about making a play? That's a step removed. It's a blanket that muffles the crispness of the play. A bridge too far. The mediation of the screen between us and the play about a play is unnecessary at best and a real bother at worst. [23 March 1992, p.C08]

A quite competent and energetic effort that uses live actors. [10 Apr 1992]

The mix of psychic thriller and childhood memory movies is smooth, maybe too smooth. Neither becomes truly gripping, despite fine acting by Hopkins, Yelchin and Boorem.