Bill Cosford

There is certainly nothing wrong with this; very young children, and the less discriminating among their elders, are likely to find The Care Bears Movie charming. [08 Apr 1985, p.C4]

This might well have been a more exciting movie if it had been made as a flat-out potboiler with a tough guy in Selleck's role. But Selleck's very weakness -- he is so relaxed and easy- going that we never quite believe he could be in trouble -- makes the movie hard to hate, too. [14 Dec 1984, p.E18]

The film rarely makes any sense, and the climactic confrontation is incomprehensible. [10 May 1991, p.G5]

Though My Tutor contains many scenes meant to provide comic relief, there is only one that works: Hired to deflower Bobby in the early going, the local drive-in slattern is caught flagrante delicto in a well-used backseat by her fiancee, the leader of a motorcycle gang. "He hates it when I do this," she says to Bobby, and one wants to love this movie...Otherwise, alas, My Tutor is witless. It seems to take forever for Bobby to learn to conjugate, and he's pretty slow at French, too. As for the double standard, note that simple role reversal -- older man deflowering teenage girl -- produces not a softcore sex comedy, but a crime drama. And that's a different genre altogether. [23 May 1983, p.6]

The key to the movie's success is that it was made by people who know and doubtless even enjoy rock in all its infinite, often tedious variety. This distinguishes Spinal Tap from the usual run of spoof, created at a distance by bemused outsiders (Johnny Carson in a mop-top wig, etc.). Reiner and company actually understand the media they are lampooning; the result is not only funny, but lethal. [27 Apr 1984, p.D1]

The whole point is excess, and O'Bannon's good at getting to that point. But the film is so clearly meant for giggles that it packs nowhere near the emotional punch of one of Romero's, which are truly dreadful. [19 Aug 1985, p.D5]

It is shameless, and I have the feeling that it is not always wholly honest with us or with its subjects. But it is so well made that we are compelled to forgive its sins. Only a cynic could deny its appeal. [22 Mar 1985, p.D10]

It's an A-list thriller directed by Barbet Schroeder (Reversal of Fortune, Barfly ) and graced with wonderful performances by Bridget Fonda and Jennifer Jason Leigh. [14 Aug 1992, p.G5]

It's a troubling movie, and there's something old-fashioned about its mechanics as drama, but Spottiswoode forces us to look at the humanity under duress behind all those back-of-the-book war stories. That in itself is enough. [22 Oct 1983, p.D7]

A View to a Kill, also like recent Bonds, is long. And though it is crammed with action -- car chase, boat chase, blimp chase, you lose track -- it begins, by the second hour, to seem quite long indeed. [24 May 1985, p.D5]

Planes, Trains and Automobiles is the movie equivalent of a tired stand-up comic's air-travel routine. It strikes some resonant chords indeed, but it never quite leaves the ground, either. And given the stars here, that's a real bungle. [25 Nov 1987, p.D1]

There is not a moment in Goodbye, Children that fails to ring true. It's a beautiful film. [05 Feb 1988, p.C8]

When The Guardian isn't goofy, it's as dull as plywood and just as thin. [01 May 1990, p.C4]

It's a handsome period piece and a decent character drama, and it has that Newman performance. But it never has enough bang for the buck, and that's too bad. [20 Oct 1989, p.G11]

Among the mysteries of Hollywood life is the terribleness of Jaws sequels; they are the very worst of a bad lot. Now comes No. 4 -- Jaws the Revenge -- and it is as wretched as it is ungrammatical. [17 July 1987, p.1D]

The only problem with the movie is that it really has little to say beyond the acknowledgement of young love. By contrast, Benjamin's Racing With the Moon, was so careful not to be clever -- in the process telling a good deal more about real feelings -- that The Sure Thing feels lightweight. It's nicely made and well-acted, and it is a bauble nonetheless. [1 Mar 1985, p.C11]

For everyone? Clearly not. Greenaway is an acquired taste. Once acquired, he's a pure original, not to be forgotten. X marks the spot. [6 Apr 1990, p.G5]

The most interesting aspect -- the only interesting aspect, really -- of Housesitter's creaky script is the concept of the psychopathic liar, as played by Hawn, who can invent whole life stories under pressure. It's the film's central conceit that the capacity to delude others with long and preposterous fabrications is the one sure sign of character. [12 June 1992, p.G7]

Carlito's Way reminds you a little of De Palma's remake of Scarface -- it has that jazzy, coke-frazzled bang and crash to it, the feeling of too many people chasing too many highs. But it's nowhere near as successful. It's not as shocking. It even feels . . . dated. [12 Nov 1993, p.G5]

The running character of a dim-bulb scientist of Indian or Pakistani extraction, who is prone to malapropisms, badly accented English and Carson-esque wink-and-giggle innuendo, might not seem offensive in a better film. Here it seems designed only for cheap laughs. The laughs come. They are cheap. [09 May 1986, p.D5]

The film just has no edge, that's all. Brooks lets it go maudlin in the first half-hour or so, and for the balance we're left wondering what ever happened to the guy who made Blazing Saddles. [29 July 1991, p.C1]

A decent ride. It has a boogeyman, exploding teen-agers and blood by the vat; it's part of the oeuvre. It is also, alas, no significant advance of the sub-genre some of us feel, however improbably, attached to. Teens-and- slash may be a form full ofhack work and dim bulbs, but so long as that form stays within reach of young and relatively unsullied directors, there is hope. [6 March 1985, p.C5]

This is a story about the banality of evil, and it succeeds all too well -- these people are ordinary, and that's what makes them scary. Guncrazy is, finally, a romance, but not before it's tough as nails and terribly knowing. You won't forget it soon. [13 Feb 1993, p.E5]

So. All this virtuosity, lots of thumps and crashes and even a few empty moments in the desert night. Signifying: Not so much. Not in the movies, which throw a glare even into the corners, which are empty here. Fool for Love has the look of a project that was a lot of work for director, writer and actors. It's not so much fun for the rest of us, either. [28 Feb 1986, p.D3]

It is a comic love note, a bouquet with a squirt-bulb, a joyful romance in which the message seems to be: Laugh all you want, pal, just don't go home alone. [24 Dec 1982, p.D2]

It has several amiable performances, including Lithgow's usual nice guy, Lainie Kazan's savagely nosy neighbor, Margaret Langrick's petulant teen and Don Ameche as a bullion- hearted Bigfoot expert. And like Harry, in its own ham-handed, goofy way the film means so well. What the heck. [5 June 1987, p.D1]

The movie runs short of material and loses its comic edge about halfway through, but it's still just jumpy enough to keep you interested -- though the rap-video parodies are almost indistinguishable from the real thing. [15 Mar 1993, p.C6]

The movie doesn't really earn its big, overwrought finale, and after it's over it appears quite full of holes. But it's a handsome curiosity. [31 Aug 1990, p.G5]