John Hartl

What the film does have going for it is a ghostly atmosphere that leads to a few surprising developments, including some color effects and a charmingly off-the-wall musical number.

An Almodovar-like blend of laughs, drama and uplift, filled with the kinds of pop-art colors and pop-out performances that Almodovar loves.

What a dynamite cast. What a savvy director. And what a soggy comedy they're all stuck in. [02 July 1997, p.E5]

Just because you can make a movie in a day doesn't necessarily mean moviegoers should take an hour and a half to watch it.

Like "American Beauty" without the fangs - or the magic.

Its pretensions eventually undo it.

Perhaps you have to have lived through the 1960s to relate.

Soderbergh demands a lot from his star here, and she delivers.

Doesn't seem to have anything to say.

It's a very movie-conscious movie, and that aspect of it palls.

Miscast and nervously directed. [11 Oct 1996]

Gitai, a veteran documentary director, refuses to find an easy resolution to the story, and that will frustrate as many people as it pleases.

Unfailingly energetic, 10 Things is like a puppy that can't stop wagging its tail, begging for attention...Even more than "Cruel Intentions," this movie plays like an awkward high-school production of a classic.

The evidence Herzog serves up is impossible to dismiss.

Livingston is especially good at capturing Peter's passive rebelliousness, which suggests the suddenly uncooperative worker who defies employer logic in Herman Melville's "Bartleby."

All the ingredients are here for both a smashing courtroom drama and a legitimate tearjerker, but the film ultimately doesn't have the technique or the heart to deliver either.

Has its clunky and wince-worthy moments, it does explore some new territory, and there are moments when it's quite fresh and moving.

It may take more than Caro Diario for Americans to acquire the Moretti taste. [21 Oct 1994, p.H42]

It's a pointless, $30 million mediocrity with a disengaged star-director at its center. [15 Jun 1990, p.3]

The casting was spot-on in “Dollhouse”; here it seems haphazard.

Doesn't know when to stop with the jokes about other horror movies and settle down to tell a coherent story.

This could be the year's most pretentious Hollywood film.

It's a terrific showcase for Richard Gere, Shelley Long, Farrah Fawcett and a number of other actors who almost seemed to have been written off.

(Herron) just doesn't make the case that this book was worth filming.

There's so much blood, sweat and craziness that you stop laughing with first-time screenwriter Harry Bean's script and begin laughing at it. Long before it reaches the fever pitch of a hysterical finale, you may also find yourself looking at your watch. [12 Jan 1990, p.21]

Despite all of the personalized Wenders touches, it ultimately resembles many a top-heavy, star-laden, special-effects-driven production from the major-studio assembly lines.

Fails to single out one plot thread and make a claim to it.

Depp, who has never looked so angelic, is covering familiar ground here, playing another Gilbert Grape type who's involved with an older woman. [9 Sept 1994, p.H34]