David Sterritt

Pacino's performance in People I Know is the best thing he's done in ages.

Riveting and revealing whatever views you have on the partisan issues involved.

Would have benefited from more flamboyant film clips and fewer folksy conversations with the garrulous old-timers it focuses on.

But the drama's attack on racism would be more persuasive if it rejected vigilante justice and recognized that hatred and violence of all kinds must be condemned if evils like bigotry are ever to be eradicated.

Stranger than fiction, indeed.

McDonald and Montgomery are fun to watch in this mildly amusing Irish romantic comedy.

The plot is predictable, and the humor is uncreative and often crude. The heroine, however, is endearing in her quirkiness.

Some scenes in a Manhattan hotel have the amiable ring of old-fashioned farce to them, but most of the going is noisy and obvious. [10 Jun 1988, p.21]

Unnecessary profanity for PG, a little slow for grown-ups, but good for laughs and promoting sibling peace.

The story is an odd mixture of preachiness and paranoia, but the stars provide sizzling performances and the action moves at a lively clip.

Davison gives one of his many bravura performances in this 1977 adaptation of Miguel Pinero's hard-hitting play.

Harold Pinter's screenplay adds needless touches of melodrama to Margaret Atwood's original novel, but the performances have a lot of conviction, and the story deals with important issues. [16 Mar 1990, p.10]

Dark, eccentric, silly.

The acting is solid, but the story builds less drama and suspense than its high-stakes subject might lead you to expect.

Would have more heft if the filmmakers had been supplied with talented stars, original ideas, and a barely adequate budget.

Manages to seem fresh, funny, and original from start to finish.

The movie teeters on a slippery dividing line between realism and fiction. It gains power from the mercurial nature of its improvised acting and split-screen camera work, though.

David Cronenberg's movie is a chilly meditation on this theme, carrying some cinematic interest but surprisingly dull given the story's outrageous subject.

Superbly acted.

It's not easy to sit through the movie spawned by this notion, though, proving once again that a picture can be simultaneously high in concept and low in entertainment value. [18 July 1996]

What's missing from this Vanity Fair is the sense of plucky, anything-goes adventurousness that abounds in Thackeray's novel.

The movie is remarkably touching and engrossing, with Kline's spot-on acting and realistically second-rate singing balancing Judd's one-note performance as his wife.

Like all this adventurous filmmaker's work, it's truly one of a kind.

A diverting dramatic comedy.

The film actually deserves four stars for its imaginative style and astonishing suspense, zero stars for its shameless exploitation of violent shocks and loveless sensuality.

Maybe the movie does so much dawdling and meandering so we'll have more time to bask in their presence; in any case, the otherwise pleasant picture uses up its ideas long before it uses up its running time.

The rest of Franco Zeffirelli's latest Shakespearean outing is so eager to be cinematic, with its peripatetic camera and souped-up screenplay, that it forgets to make sense.

The comedy has moments of great humor and terrific visual appeal. It's a solid achievement for Joel Coen, who directed; Ethan Coen, who produced; Sam Raimi, who wrote the screenplay with the brothers. [25 Mar 1994, p.A]

The result would be an important drama if the screenplay (based on an early Arthur Miller novel) didn't lapse into preachiness and imprecision at times.

Add a megadose of bombastic James Horner music and a perfunctory love-affair subplot and you have a movie that's its own worst enemy.

Amiable, though much too long.

Very well acted and directed, if overlong.

Kevin Lima's feature-length cartoon has some funny moments, but why couldn't the gang at Walt Disney Pictures provide something for girls and moms to identify with, too? [05 May 1995, p.13]

The story is so important and compelling that you wish Jewison had treated it more as an urgent wake-up call than a by-the-numbers morality play.

Content and style dovetail superbly in this offbeat drama, where images continually change in size and shape, evoking the story's message that human experience is always a pathway, not a destination.

You don't see such feisty acting very often.

The psychology of the story is shallow, but the action scenes pack a good visual punch.

As slick and heartless as the original; the story has a few possibilies for irony and political commentary, but the filmmakers bury them in the general atmosphere of violence and manipulation. A few scenes are effective on their own terms, though, and Bridget Fonda does as much with her role as the heavy-handed screenplay allows. [26 March 1993, p.12]

There's lots of atmosphere and information to be gained, but stay away unless you can tolerate graphic plunges into the wildest kinds of youthful excess.

Action freaks may enjoy the chasing and chomping, but there's no hint of human interest or moviemaking imagination.

The film's power grows from its dark-toned portrayal of the World War II era and from its evocative use of flashbacks, which show more interest in the characters' emotional lives than in story devices like surprise and suspense.

The comedy is often crass and crude, but it makes telling points about how much of "race" is more about the words and gestures we use than the actual colors of our skins.

The filmmakers seem well in control of their chaotic material, but what can be said when the movie features wall-to-wall teenage alcohol abuse.

This sensationalistic tale doesn't delve very far into the issues it raises.

The movie is well acted, deeply moving, and unlike some love stories, it doesn't feel forced or contrived.

Too bad the action scenes rarely rise above standard kung-fu comedy, diluting the film's otherwise considerable entertainment value.

If you can endure watching it, you won't forget this grim cautionary tale for a long time.

The film has enough wild driving to satisfy any "French Connection" fan or "Bullitt" buff, but there's precious little for anyone else to enjoy. 2 foolish + 2 flashy = 4 get it!

Pierce Brosnan wisecracks his way through the starring role with more aplomb than credibility.

At a time when screen comedy has its own problems with anger management, Sandler's self-possessed style is as refreshing as it is funny.

The primary impression is lots of moping and mooning, plus a song at the beginning with some of the worst lyrics you've ever heard.

The dramatic situations aren't intense or knotty enough to match the moral issues behind them, however.

There are lots of plot twists and romantic angles. What's lacking is laughs.

A total lack of chemistry between the stars -- neither of whom is particularly good at romantic comedy in the first place -- and you have a promising package that grows steadily less lovable as it goes along. Down with this movie!

It's interesting to see a movie of this kind based on a single gospel, with no additions or interpolations from other sources. But except for a few scenes that evoke the reverent beauty of Renaissance painting, the filmmaking and acting are awfully stiff -- certainly not worthy of the timeless story being told.

Nicolas Cage, Ving Rhames, and Steve Buscemi are among the few performers who emerge with a shred of dignity at the end.

Whoopi Goldberg has a lot of heart; Neil Patrick Harris gives a sensitive performance as her young friend; and the supporting cast is solid. The screenplay is gushy, though, and director Robert Mulligan rarely tones it down. [14 Oct 1988, p.21]

But there's no denying the movie's frequent hilarity, abetted by Mel Smith's superbly laid-back directing and on-target performances by an excellent supporting cast.

Merchant brings keen insight and rich humanity to this culturally revealing tale of psychological unease in a tense postcolonial world.

The action is mild enough for fairly young children, and grownups may enjoy its old-fashioned spirit.

The message of the film is that life isn't neat and predictable like a well-arranged business trip; yet everything in the picture is so calculated that there's no life to it. [23 Dec 1988, A& L, p.19]

Well acted and ably directed, if not very probing about its subject of underclass youth.

There's something relentlessly superficial about the movie, and in one area that cries out for sensitivity - the treatment of racial differences among the characters - it falls down badly. [22 Aug 1990, Arts, p.11]

Electric Dreams tries to be as up to the minute as the latest rock video. But it looks more like a tired holdover from the ''psychedelic'' 1960s, another time when frantic visual effects were all the rage, and people rarely stopped to wonder what the point was.

Konchalovsky keeps the action reasonably quick, but sentimental storytelling eventually swamps the picture.

The problem with Possession isn't that it's filmed in a lackluster way, but that it shouldn't have been filmed at all. Byatt's novel is an adventure in language, telling its story through a kaleidoscopic array of Victorian-style poetry and prose, alongside gripping accounts of the characters' activities and escapades.

Rarely has a dance movie done so many cinematic pirouettes with such a graceful sense of audience-pleasing fun.

It's campy fun, but if you've seen the previous sequels, the plot grows tiresome and lacks shock value.

The screenplay by Kevin Williamson ("Scream") keeps the lighting low and the tension high, though a bit more wit would have helped.

This exceedingly romantic comedy begins with flair but lapses into clichés long before the sentimental (and predictable) finale.

The story is as simple as the average football cheer, but the dialogue has amusing echoes of "Clueless," and Dunst and Bradford make a mighty cute couple.

The end product is so clunky, scattered, and all-around soggy that sometimes you can't help laughing. At least Connelly and Reilly give their all, and Tim Roth is terrific as a weird lawyer.

The result can be viewed as an uproarious satire of science fiction in the "Independence Day" mold, or as a rehash of "Gremlins" without the novelty of the original.

The action is fast, furious, and as wacky as science fantasy gets.

Goes on much too long, stretching a modest story into a marathon that outlasts its welcome by about 30 minutes.

Paul Verhoeven's movie takes more action than ideas from Robert A. Heinlein's 1959 novel, which is just as well, considering the book's goofy suggestion that military veterans should control society from top to bottom.

Ultimately more ambitious than enlightening.

Smart and entertaining almost every step of the way.

Fallen will sell tickets on the strength of its appealing cast and high-impact camera work, but will probably fade from the scene more quickly than its demonic villain does in the story.

As a story, Wild at Heart is even less coherent than “Blue Velvet,'' to the point where whole characters and subplots disappear into a murky haze at the end. [17 Aug 1990, Arts, p.11]

Much of the movie seems wired and overeager when it ought to be refreshing and relaxed. Everybody sweats and strains to be magical, and while they often succeed, the onslaught of so much aggressive charm is exhausting.

The characters are hardly original...but Stone puts them into play with his usual fever-pitch gusto, producing what's probably the most heart-pounding gridiron movie ever made.

Directed by Charles Shyer, who brings much imagination to the first half but loses all momentum in the homestretch. [04 Oct 1984, p.27]

Imaginatively acted, endlessly atmospheric.

Araki graduates from his usual obsession with teenage angst in this neon-lighted comedy, but fails to hit the visual and verbal high notes he strains so hard to reach.

A genuine PG, gentle and wholesome almost all the way through. It's not a great movie, but it should attract family audiences.

Distinguished less by its elements of melodrama and psychodrama than by its intense acting and the vivid immediacy of Levring's powerful imagery.

It boasts appealing performances, and it takes a reasonably tasteful approach to its subject, aside from a string of four-letter words that sound strangely out of place in this romantic comedy.

The real heroes are cinematographer Stephen H. Burum and editor Bill Pankow, who help the picture keep popping even when its plot and dialogue go into a slump.

Isn't as funny as it wants to be, but it has a sheer pleasantness that stands out in this season of heavy-handed entertainments.

Inherently stale.

The story's celebration of honesty is commendable, even if the treatment of homophobia is no deeper than the hero's swimming pool.

Its ambitious aims are commendable in themselves, but regrettable since they overinflate what might have been a simpler and better film.

This is a great subject for a movie, but Hollywood has squandered the opportunity, using it as a prop for warmed-over melodrama and the kind of choreographed mayhem that director John Woo has built his career on.

Polanski's directing is marvelously assured and Depp is always fun to watch.

The message is plain: Men, especially rich men, have all the power. So be sure to do what they tell you, and maybe they'll treat you nicely… It's not one I like to hear. [27 Apr 1990, Arts, p.10]

Viewers with a taste for bizarre, even surreal, humor will have a ball.

The sequel is more exciting and surprising than the 2002 original, thanks largely to Molina's excellent acting. Only the strenuously comic scenes fall as flat as one of Spidey's leftover webs.

The remake of Unfaithfully Yours is just a shadow of its source, using the basic plot and characters, but diluting Sturges's ideas. [23 Feb 1984, p.21]

Gilliam has rarely been more inventive, energetic, or just plain funny.

The story is stylishly filmed and acted with high spirits, but there's not much going on in many of its colorful shots.

For a movie about people with hugely complicated inner lives, this sadly unconvincing drama stays resolutely on the surface, rarely hinting at anything like an insight or idea.

Labors mightily to be a frolicsome entertainment, but the results are - well, labored. The dialogue isn't snappy, the story isn't surprising, there's little chemistry between the stars.

Patrick McGrath's novel provides a solid and suspenseful story, even if it loses much of its bite in Mackenzie's hands.

No masterpiece, but that shouldn't dissuade moviegoers from giving it a whirl as a flavorful alternative to the summer's more gimmicky fare.

Julia Roberts is brighter and spunkier than usual, and Rupert Everett steals the show.

The story is hardly original, but this well-directed Taiwanese drama paints an intermittently vivid portrait of life on the Chinese mainland in the 1930s era.

This teenage "Pygmalion" is predictable and a bit gawky, and some won't like its flashes of gross-out humor. The cast is appealing, though, and there are a few hilarious jokes tucked in around the edges of the plot. [05 Feb 1999: 14]

Noe's despairing view of human nature is as thoughtful as it is grim, limning the most appalling aspects of earthly experience in terms recalling Dante and Bosh, among other apocalyptic artists.

This deliciously offbeat Canadian comedy gets its charm from marvelous acting and from a screenplay bursting with ideas. Great fun.

The package would be more enticing if it didn't fall so squarely into overused Hollywood formulas.

The drawn-out, lowbrow humor is either "love it" or "hate it," so it may not be your bag, baby.

The drama has compelling moments and touches of imagination, but it relies more on sentiment than sense in conveying its messages about faith, family, and tradition.

A few scenes indulge in overstated hokum or thriller clichés, but Pfeiffer is first-rate and several sequences are suspenseful enough to deserve that overused adjective, Hitchcockian.

Contains extremely graphic sex and many twists that are unpredictable but not very compelling.

What keeps The Mosquito Coast from being a great movie is too much caution.

The film would work better if its story unfolded more swiftly and if its twists were more unexpected. The acting is solid, though.

Where's the real 007 when we really need him? Or better yet -- Calling Inspector Clouseau!

If these talented people had worthwhile things to do, No Small Affair would be no small movie. But the action has many weak moments, and the subplots are trite, especially when the trendy bachelor-party scene arrives. Too bad the screenplay, by Charles Bolt and Terence Mulcahy, doesn't live up to the cast or to Vilmos Zsigmond's careful cinematography. [13 Nov 1984, p.47]

The best is "Equilibrium" by Soderbergh, about a man being analyzed by a distracted shrink.

Fantasy-style plot doesn't mesh easily with the unsettling psychological themes woven through it.

Een fans of Jay and Silent Bob may find the story too slender and the jokes too repetitive to be much fun.

It's all deliberately homemade and raggedy, and that's where its charm comes from, along with the delightful old-music score.

The computer-driven effects are impressive, but the adventure is hampered by a flat screenplay, dull acting, and just a hint as to why the dark side of the Force will eventually transform cute little Anakin into the evil Darth Vader.

The willingness to blend professionals and nonprofessionals is Duvall's most interesting directorial trademark. Most commercial filmmakers hesitate to use this technique, but he doesn't see it as risky.

The eerie tale is steeped in brooding atmosphere and psychological suspense thanks to Glazer's hugely imaginative visual style and creative use of music, sound, and silence.

Gallo's earlier work suggests he has directorial talent, but here it's buried beneath too much ego to be detectible.

The material is vivid and harrowing, although the movie provides little analysis or larger-scale context.

Gary Oldman and Lena Olin give energetic performances, ably supported by Annabella Sciorra and Roy Scheider as a long-suffering wife and a high-powered mobster. But the movie's main distinction is its increasingly lurid tone, reaching heights of mayhem so bizarre they're almost surrealistic. [4 Feb 1994, p.12]

Nicholson's over-the-top acting gives an entertaining edge to the plot's feel-good manipulations.

Kevin Kline has some amusing moments, but Meg Ryan's acting runs out of energy, and Lawrence Kasdan's directing is too laid-back to help her out. [7 Jul 1995, p.13]

Always is a nice try for Spielberg, and the cast gives it a game try... The movie's generally dull effect makes it clear, however, that Spielberg still has some maturing to do before he's ready to scan the depths of human - not to mention cosmic - psychology.

Val Kilmer is fun as the mercurial hero, and Elisabeth Shue would be great as the physicist if she didn't waste so much time making googoo-eyes at her handsome new boyfriend.

Funny, sad, and skeptical in about equal measures, it announces writer-director Dylan Kidd as a filmmaker with a bright future.

Frances McDormand and Patti LuPone are solid as his girlfriend and ex-wife, respectively, and James Franco is just right as his wayward son. They're a talented team. Too bad the movie doesn't live up to their abilities.

The story is mildly entertaining in its hackneyed way, but there's no excusing the picture's exploitative treatment of almost all the female characters.

Laurence Fishburne and Tim Roth play the main characters with conviction, but Bill Duke's punchy filmmaking style banishes any hope of storytelling subtlety or psychological nuance.

A hodgepodge of violent action, ostentatious effects, and lunkheaded jokes, stitched together by a hackneyed plot. [01 Jul 1994, p.13]

Superb acting and authentic details energize this rare Iran/Iraq coproduction.

The action is fast and involving until the three-quarter mark, when the David Himmelstein screenplay loses its focus and everything muddies up. [31 Jan 1986, p.23]

The story seems awfully far-fetched when real people play the characters, but the canines are cute and Glenn Close was born to play Cruella De Vil, the monstrous magnate who sets the plot in motion.

The subject is likable and the story has possibilities, but why does every single performance sink into a self-indulgent mess of hammy overacting?

The plot is a shameless plea for vigilante violence, and the dignity of the black hero is outweighed by the ethnically marked evil of his Hispanic antagonist. Beneath its crisp veneer, much of the movie is a high-energy hymn to hate.

The consequences aren't remotely as comic as they're meant to be.

Burton is an imaginative director with a distinctive artistic vision, but his originality is nowhere to be seen in this by-the-numbers retread.

Most of the characters are one-dimensional, and Avary's over-the-top directing doesn't make them interesting for more than a few isolated moments.

The story is a retread of the old "Exorcist" and "Omen" formats, but it delivers as much action and spectacle as fans of the genre could want.

The movie is just plain muddled - showing the Hoffa forces performing a heinous crime one minute, then glamorizing and sentimentalizing them as if the other stuff had never happened.

This noisy, disorganized story is riddled with clichés, stereotypes, and self-indulgence from beginning to end.

The sweetest thing about Sweet November (a remake of the 1968 movie) is the on-screen magic between Charlize Theron and Keanu Reeves. But that's pretty much where the magic ends.

The movie has enough color and spirit to make lively viewing.

Alas, the movie is less clever than its characters.

[Godard's] rehash of ''King Lear'' is peculiar, but it's also that rare thing in the movie world: a genuine original. [22 Jan 1988, p.22]

The characters of this Dutch comedy aren't very interesting or original, but it has a stylish look and spirited performances.

Well made, nice performances, very slowly paced.

As dull as it is to watch, "Star Trek" at least possesses a measure of intellectual pizzazz: not enough to provoke thought and discussion, exactly, but more than many "Star Wars" imitators have bothered to give us. [4 Jan. 1980, p.15]

Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts contribute major star power to the uneven tale, but it never becomes as convincing as a real conspiracy theory should.

Solondz is a courageous social commentator and a canny provocateur at the same time. He'll never get to Hollywood if he stays on this track, but cinema will be a lot duller if he ever mends his incendiary ways.

The first half is high-quality science fiction, the rest is a high-tech chase adventure with a gleeful yen for destructive thrills.

The setting is cramped and the story is illogical, but it's suspenseful as long as you don't think about it very hard.

Old-style animation slows down after a snappy start, but it's lively enough to keep kids from fidgeting too much.

Superbly acted.

Wrong Is Right tries to be an intellectual epic comedy thriller -- a bold mix, to say the least. But its force is muffled by its bulk. Despite its good intentions, it's a dud. [20 May 1982, p.19]

The picture has moments of raw emotional power, but these are overshadowed by lapses into needless vulgarity and sadistic violence, especially in a repulsive scene that lingers on the vicious brutalization of a helpless woman. [04 Mar 1994, p.1]

Moviegoers tired of ethnic humor will find plenty to complain about.

Newman's magnetic face isn't enough to raise this intermittently amusing thriller above the ordinary caper-comedy crowd.

The Four Feathers ends on the same dubious note as "Black Hawk Down" and other recent war movies, suggesting that loyalty in the trenches -- not the reason for fighting in the first place -- is all that matters. Many will disagree.

Law is lively and Shyer keeps the action hopping with help from the movie's original gimmick of having Alfie keep up a running monologue to the audience.

Rob Cohen's movie has flashes of wit, but there's little substance to the story, and Draco's charms are surrounded by too much graphic violence. [31 May 1996, p.13]

Barry Levinson's filmmaking style is often imaginative. The story contains horrific scenes of sexual torture as well as sadistic killings and other disturbing material, though.

Certainly offbeat, but not on a level with director Kim's previous work about marginalized people.

Sadly it's been botched. Guess Who serves up such flat dialogue and stilted situations that it's hard to sit through.

The story is as contrived as it is comical.

Ingenious, eye-opening documentary.

Moves at a lumbering pace, peppered with ungainly gags and dramatic moments with little emotional power. The ironic commentary on show-biz superficiality is sabotaged by Niccol's failure to make his own story seem real.

Its screenplay veers in highly questionable directions before reaching a mean-spirited climax that outweighs Ron Howard's workmanlike filmmaking and the contributions of a star-powered cast.

Tamer than tame in every respect, which makes it great for little kids, if not for the grownups who bring them.

Mildly entertaining for a while; think "Stand by Me" meets "Alien," with a soupçon of "Starship Troopers" tossed in.

The story never gathers much dramatic momentum despite an impressive cast and a lot of dank Middle Ages atmosphere.

Gries and Morris act up a storm as the optimistically named Sunny Holiday and his long-suffering manager.

Lounguine tells the story with more discipline than you'll find in his earlier films, painting a crowded portrait of a society moving toward a future it can neither confidently predict nor look forward to with anything but nervous anticipation.

Supercharged with an energy and ingenuity that "Run Lola Run" once had a patent on.

This sort of cinema is as dehumanizing as the aliens who serve as its intergalactic bad guys.

The movie's style is fairly staid, but it's hard to imagine how Neeson could be better, and the subject is handled with taste and tact.

Peter Segal's comedy has a few witty moments surrounded by a lot of silliness.

It's an impressive movie, pointing to Howard as a promising new director.

Talking dogs were cute, once. It's a tad disconcerting, however, when a canine starts lip syncing to the voice of Carl Reiner so it can complain about flatulence.

Long, bombastic, and violent, but fantasy fans may enjoy its fast-moving energy.

The drama is long on 1950s atmosphere and complicated feelings, short on emotional depth and real psychological insight.

Furtado's comic thriller is a telling commentary on modern avarice in Brazil and elsewhere, which touches on everything from "The Simpsons" to "Rear Window" along the way. Too bad it runs out of ideas before the overlong story is over.

The movie makes a commendable effort to celebrate bravery and underscore the terrors of war, but its melodramatic approach is more spectacular than insightful.

The first half of this freewheeling comedy-drama finds Toback at his imaginative best. The second half sinks into silliness.

Quite funny and eye-catching.

Like a nincompoop version of "The Usual Suspects."

Texasville rambles along in an amiable way but never gets to the heart of the issues it raises, from the shakiness of modern marriage to the meaning of community in a mobile and increasingly rootless age. [28 Sep 1990, p.14]

The only admirable aspect of the comedy is its insistence on the stupidity of racial prejudice. American moviegoers must be desperate to hear that message if they're willing to sit through so much ridiculous horseplay in order to receive it. [01 Jul 1993, p.12]

Takes a humane look at an episode in recent history that's received little attention.

Moderately amusing sequel, which is best when it relies on dead-pan acting by the stars, worst when it drags in summer-movie stupidities like an incessantly talking dog.

Coogan and Broadbent are agile and expressive, but too much time goes to Chan's silly stunts. A colorful disappointment.

Both a blood-churning war movie and a mind-stirring antiwar movie, focusing not on guts and glory but on the stark realities of real battlefield experience.

Carrey gives an awesome comic performance.. Look out for huge amounts of deliberately disgusting, gross-out humor, though.

AT once an old-fashioned adventure and a postmodern pastiche, The Quick and the Dead walks a slim tightrope with impressive skill and humor. Its main reference point is the work of Sergio Leone, the Italian maestro whose "spaghetti westerns" reinvigorated the genre during its last major phase about 30 years ago. [13 Feb 1995, p.13]

At a time when much public education is in a state of perilous decay, one wonders whether this sentimental ode to old-school dignity and privilege is in touch with today's pressing realities.

In short, this movie is exactly the kind of starry-eyed escapist fantasy that Dr. Powell suspects Prot of having. It's harmless enough, since we can be cured just by leaving the theater.

If a mildly magical story is what you're after, it'll be worth the price of admission. Otherwise save your milk money for something more substantial.

Faucher's filmmaking is exquisite, Naymark's acting is luminous, and superb use of music lends a crowning touch.

Eric Stoltz and Julie Delpy have some effective moments, but energetic acting isn't enough to redeem the movie from its pointless excesses. [02 Sep 1994, p.11]

Thanks to director Zucker, this is by far the best installment yet -- there's less bathroom humor and more "Airplane!"-type lunacy.

It's refreshing to see a cartoon that looks like a cartoon -- and a lovingly drawn one -- rather than a conglomeration of computer-generated bits and bytes.

The movie is woven with care and complexity, again confirming von Trotta's place as one of the world's greatest female filmmakers.

More cautionary than titillating...some of it (is) deliberately disturbing.

The picture is capably acted, especially by Andy Garcia and Uma Thurman, but it's also gory and much too long. [18 Dec 1992, p.12]

What's the point of the picture, except to allow Kutcher fans occasional peeks at acting talent he usually keeps hidden?

Unabashed "Star Wars" clone.

The story has inherent emotional power, but Jeremy Brock's formula-bound screenplay rarely soars beyond cliches.

The movie's main contribution is its fresh look at the Vietnam War, being refought in the Kerry-Bush presidential campaign at the time of the film's release.

All of the actresses are fun to watch, and as much attention appears to have been lavished on their outfits and hairdos as on their high-flying fight scenes.

It has a good heart, though, and makes an amiable introduction to the integration battles of the '60s and '70s.

The movie raises more interesting issues - often connected with the hazy lines between appearance and reality - than it's prepared to coherently explore.

All the old Disney trademarks are here, except the wit and surprise that were once the studio's stock in trade. There's little appeal to grownups, but kids should enjoy it.

A skeptical view of George W. Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, using argumentative strategies common to agenda-driven documentaries.

The nasty, sometimes violent story was written by Christian Forte, a newcomer who is clearly under Quentin Tarantino's unpleasant spell, and directed by Kevin Spacey, an unusually gifted actor who doesn't yet show any special talent for filmmaking.

Ultimately more exasperating than rewarding.

This likable comedy-drama gets most of its oomph from acting.

The story may be too slow and complicated for the youngest moviegoers.

It's hard to enjoy this when you're barraged by bathroom humor, animal stunts, and gags about a character whose memory loss is so bad he's called Ten-Second Tom.

The result is hardly a subtle film, but it has a stronger sense of combat's real costs and consequences than more sensationalistic pictures like "Black Hawk Down" and "We Were Soldiers" provide.

The junior Giannini, who has inherited Giancarlo's handsome looks, portrays his mercurial character with energy and flair. Madonna doesn't. Indeed, it's hard to remember the last time a certified celebrity gave a performance so monotonous, unimaginative, and all-around tiresome to watch.

Lively acting and an amiable comic atmosphere offer partial compensation for generally lackluster filmmaking.

The movie is fresh and friendly, but it doesn't have many surprises and the story sags at times. [25 Aug 1995, p.13]

The 1950s atmosphere is vivid and the cast is solid, except Diane Lane, who saves most of her energy for the unnecessary sex scenes. The story builds a good deal of momentum and then falls completely apart in the last 20 minutes or so. [09 Oct 1987, p.21]

Tries to be daring and iconoclastic but winds up seeming as spoiled and childish as its main characters.

Although this is a likable comedy-drama, it never quite balances its humanitarian message (disabled people fall in love like everyone else) with its standard-issue romantic angles.

The movie has moments of breathtaking suspense, at least until it lapses into cartoonish implausibility in the second half. With good acting and good dialogue it might actually have been a good picture.

Allen has fun with all his roles -- The rest of the acting is bland, but the movie's preteen target audience won't mind, and adults will find occasional grown-up jokes to chuckle at.

Plenty of surprises, almost all of them nasty.

Although the first hour builds effective suspense, the story sags into a warmed-over combination of The Silence of the Lambs and both versions of Cape Fear, and the violent climax looks like it was shot in an Everglades theme park. [17 Feb 1995, p.13]

The story has possibilities, but you'll spot the big plot twists long before they happen, and the acting by Judd and Cavaziel is strictly by the numbers.

Most of the time we see her through Hal's idealizing eyes, though -- no surprise, since Hollywood won't let glittery stars like Paltrow play down their sex appeal for long.

The result is a quickly paced, slickly filmed entertainment that's also as crude and rude as the PG-13 rating will allow. It's mighty mean-spirited too, aiming "satirical jibes" at everyone from black illiterates to white rednecks, from breakers of the law to enforcers of the law, from society's elites to society's dregs.

Touching and sentimental.

The story has charming and uplifting moments as well as strong performances by an impressive cast.

This uneven drama might have been more effective if someone with more on-screen charisma than writer-director Elster had played the main character.

Khouri's new picture takes all this talent and turns it into the kind of manipulative mush that Hollywood used to market under the condescending label "woman's picture" years ago.

Wesley Snipes is terrific as the hero.

A lively portrait of contemporary painter George Condo.

Surprisingly, this is the work of director Martin Ritt and Sally Field, the star whose Norma Rae combined sharp drama with keen social awareness. Their new film is the junky underside of that good movie. [26 Mar 1981, p.19]

More emphasis on computer-generated gimmickry than on persuasive acting and ideas.

The infuriating thing about XXX isn't that it delivers thrills and spills to moviegoers who don't know any better, but that its Hollywood hype reinforces the notion that brain-dead entertainment is what movies are all about.

The screenplay isn't remotely as funny as it tries to be, and the visual style is equally unexciting.

Rambling, meandering, likable.

The action is as perky as the main characters.

The dialogue isn't quite as sparkling and the plot twists aren't quite as snappy as you want them to be. And the story keeps rambling on after its oomph runs wearisomely thin.

The kind of comedy that aims at "edginess" and "sassiness" without managing to be edgy or sassy for a second.

Enough odd twists to be mildly interesting.

Gripping.

Grim and sordid though it often is, the film has a steady flow of visually absorbing images. It's an art movie for the masses.

Runs out of good ideas long before it's over, falling below "Prizzi's Honor" and "The Freshman" in the dubious genre of contract-killer comedies.

This historical fantasy is too ambitious for its own good, but contains some striking imagery and likable performances.

This energetically acted, creatively directed comedy-drama has every ingredient for success except a satisfying finale.

Figgis still deserves credit for taking more artistic chances than a dozen ordinary directors.

Olyphant steals the show as a cheeky porn producer. The rest is gimmicky and predictable, except for a clever surprise near the end.

Written and directed by the clever Wachowski brothers, this is a sequel that only a die-hard fan could love. But those fans will love it very, very much.

Everyone works hard, but the results are sadly short of style and personality or irony and intelligence.

This sexually explicit South Korean drama aims more to jolt than to illuminate, but it illustrates an aspect of Asian cinema that globally minded moviegoers should know about as films from that region take on more international prominence.

A perfectly funny idea -- call it "Ms. Ditz Goes to Washington" -- that's never allowed to take on real comic life. I laughed exactly once.

Effective action, solid suspense, excellent Ribisi, plus enough clichés to equal the grains of Gobi sand that fill the screen.

The movie is sociologically rich, if not very memorable in the personalities it depicts.

Bids for originality by focusing on an offbeat profession. Every other aspect is pretty stale, though, from the smart-alecky characters to the romantic-triangle plot.

Spacey is endearing, bringing his shy character to life despite glaring psychological gaps in the screenplay.

The trouble lies in its stereotypical style, its schmaltzy emotionalism.

Worth viewing by anyone concerned about world events.

Plunges energetically into the 16th-century religious rebel's activities and philosophies. It dodges some significant issues in Luther's life, however, reducing its value as an educational film.

Falls flat, with more "sound design" than delicious music, more slick film editing than graceful ballroom gliding.

The violent story is long on nastiness, short on credibility.

All this amounts to a badly wasted opportunity, since global warming is a serious issue that deserves thoughtful treatment. So stay home and read a scientific journal instead. This is a disaster movie that lives up to its label.

Arnold Schwarzenegger fights an outer-space monster in a third-world jungle. The monster never has a chance. Neither does the jungle. Neither does the audience. [19 June 1987, Arts & Leisure, p.23]

For most of its two-hour running time it simply flings a barrage of horrors at the audience, enhanced with the most imaginative science-fiction atmospherics this side of "Dark City," which incidentally was a far more original picture.

Lively acting, eye-catching cinematography, and funny dialogue lift this fantasy a notch above the average until love-story cliches and horror-movie shocks bog it down.

The story is a mess, as usual with Toback's movies, but intricacies of contemporary urban culture are vividly illuminated by his insistence on blurring the boundaries between fiction and reality.

Quite appealing, thanks to good-humored acting and to Martha Coolidge's quiet directing style. She lets romance and comedy bubble up from the characters instead of imposing gimmicky twists on the story.

The first hour is sharply directed, character-driven drama that ranks with Scott's best work. Then he lapses into his usual mode - more a bombardier than an entertainer, filling the screen with sadistic violence and arbitrary plot twists. In all, a wasted opportunity.

Leaving aside Huston's bland acting and a few other flaws, Sayles's politically charged drama raises a rousing number of issues and ideas, inviting us to ponder them and draw our own conclusions.

Utterly predictable, but pleasant enough for its young target audience.

This is standard plot material in most respects, and Kasdan has done little to make it seem new. Fans of time-tested formulas may applaud his fidelity to the genre, but others will wish he'd come up with a few original notions to energize this very long picture.

By the time it ended, I'd stopped caring. I suspect most moviegoers will do the same. Here's hoping Shelton scurries back to the athletic world in a hurry.

Like its precursor, U.S. Marshals has lots of action and the Jones groupies are likeable. Though the overall picture isn't as fine-tuned or character driven, it still delivers what moviegoers want to see - a fast-paced and entertaining chase.

The plot pants so hard -- that it makes less sense than the average pet-food commercial.

What remains discomforting is their sheer failure to be funny.

In short, it's dull, derivative, and as lifelike as a heap of historical figurines. Few will remember this Alamo for long.

The drama is as obsessive as its heroine. Crossword mavens may enjoy it, but it's too monomaniacal for comfort.

The plot isn't scary, but the low level of filmmaking will have you shivering in your seat. [13 Jul 1988, p.19]

It's so slavishly similar to its predecessor - right down to the symbolic lettering on Marion's license plates - that there's little to spark fresh discussion except the acting.

An ingeniously scripted psychological thriller.

Expertly made, thanks largely to Jim Caviezel's fervent portrayal of Jesus and Caleb Deschanel's skillful camera work. But the film contains little to learn from, unless one is unfamiliar with basic Christian history.

Poignant, spirited, revealing.

Energetic acting helps compensate for a contrived script and directing that's sometimes as heavy as its cheerfully rotund characters.