Jeff Shannon

Car 54, Where are You? is an insult to the popular late-1950's TV show that inspired it.

At the risk of confessing a breech of duties, I "watched" much of the film with my eyes closed, isolating the soundtrack only because I could always accurately guess what was happening on the screen . . . which wasn't much, believe me. [20 Mar 1993, p.C6]

Nowhere to Run isn't the worst of its kind - it's just painfully uninspired. Perhaps that partially accounts for Van Damme's apparent disinterest. With one expression at his command, it's surprising that he actually musters three distinct acting styles: concrete, steel, and petrified wood. [15 Jan 1993, p.18]

Earning instant shame as the worst film of the year so far, "Chasers" offers all the proof anyone will ever need that a theatrically released feature film can be just as bad - and far worse - than the most inanely boring garbage that passes for television these days. [23 Apr 1994]

It's perhaps the only film that could make you wish they'd made a sequel to "Encino Man" instead. [2 July 1993, p.D24]

Passenger 57 is so completely routine and devoid of imagination that it seems to have been directed on auto-pilot. [09 Nov 1992, p.D4]

The real criminals here are writers William Davies and William Osborne (obviously pseudonyms for Beavis and Butt-head), who have concocted a derivative, imbecilic anything-goes premise serving only to provide random opportunities for the CGI wizards to strut their stuff. [31 Dec 1993, p.C14]

Mr. Nanny is certainly harmless, even though Hogan acts as if he's stumbled onto the set of Mr. Roger's Neighborhood. But only the most gullible 4-year-old will get a rise from the lifeless direction of co-writer Michael Gottlieb, whose earlier Mannequin provided a similar dose of moviegoing torture. [09 Oct 1993, p.C3]

Blank Check will get a few big laughs from kids, but that doesn't stop this vapid, morally bankrupt and wretchedly written Disney comedy from being genuinely disgusting. [11 Feb 1994, p.D28]

Saddled with a script full of lifeless, mock-clever ideas (such as having the local blacksmith make a pair of Rollerblades), Gottlieb can only do his best to mollify his audience with a few fleeting hints of the movie's untapped potential.

Just as there can be fresh angles on the old story, there is a growing number of urban-survival cliches that lose their dramatic impact as they grow tiresomely familiar. Sugar Hill is a virtual catalog of these cliches - a serious, well-meaning film that offers no new insight into the crises it professes to understand. [25 Feb 1994, p.D21]

Despite claims to the contrary, Van Peebles has no apparent desire to accurately reflect history. Instead, he caters, with an ugly lack of integrity, to a twisted perception of "popular taste," spinning an ego-trip that steals a numbing variety of Western cliches while betraying them with contemporary flavoring. [14 May 1993, p.20]