Mike Clark

If you can imagine a relatively solemn take on this theme, RoboCop 2 is it. Though Irvin Kershner's direction is competent, there's not a whole lot of eye-twinkling in evidence. [22 June 1990, p.2D]

There's nothing very rockin' about seeing Gene Hackman give a rare indifferent performance as a Navy admiral trying to effect a rescue for which his hands are tied.

A less-than-middling melodrama whose subject matter and talent never click as much as its credits portend.

There's, say, a 20-minute stretch where this slapstick works; there's also a subplot about N!Xau's lost children (cute, but shruggable), and a real pace-killer involving two rival soldiers. Uys' shots often fail to match, and the monotonic narration really grates; it drones on like a junior high science film on plant blight. [16 Apr 1990, p.9D]

Brothers never catches fire the way Gilliam's "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" did. And you almost feel during subpar special effects that sweaty stagehands are pushing the trees around.

Despite haunting moments in this fabricated fling between a headstrong Native American and an English sea captain, the film isn't as chirpy or majestic as recent Disney fare. [16Jun1995 Pg. 01.D]

A hopeless if harmless boxing picture whose principals just happen to wear uniforms outside the ring, Annapolis is set in a U.S. Naval Academy where no one ever seems to attend class.

There's nothing super about the movie, aside from a loopiness that affords it a certain guilty-pleasure cachet.

A few chuckles will be had by both the rabble and more learned brains.

The movie, though, is more of the same: another current comedy with want-to-see elements that fails to deliver the goods. [01 Jul 1992]

It's asking a lot of audiences to spend nearly two hours with characters as screen-unfriendly as the ones played by Biggs and Ricci, though both actors (and especially Ricci) do what they're asked to do.

Yet because this adaptation of Franz Lidz's childhood memoir is odd enough and even stylish enough to attract a small following, you might want to weigh my ingrained dyspepsia before electing not to see it. [15 Sep 1995]

This cliche primer is a bit more than bearable - even when it's literally and figuratively off the track. It's no Cocktail, but it's no Dom Perignon, either. [27 Jun 1990, p.1D]

Though the movie is more mediocre than abysmal, Ryan's recently banged-up filmography (remember In the Cut) could use what every fighter needs at ringside: a good cut man to stop the bleeding.

You can feel the movie going wrong in the first scene.

Eastwood gutsily stages the extended opening slowly and methodically... [But u]nintentional yuks litter an otherwise somber political thriller adapted from David Baldacci's novel.

The cycle thrills here are everything: flips, collisions, a chase across the top of a fast-moving train and even a zoom down the aisle of one of the train's cars as the passengers take it in stride.

Despite Mel Gibson wearing dude duds, Jodie Foster picking their inside pockets, and even James Garner for incalculable good will, the poker hand in the all-new Maverick is almost an empty house. [20 May 1994, p.1D]

Hurried, harried. [14 February 1997, pg.D4]

By the time you've given up guessing whether S.W.A.T. wants to be a half-serious action pic or just affably jokey, its storytelling has turned so ludicrously melodramatic that it doesn't matter.

The movie keeps switching focus without ever getting its bearings, and when Brando exits earlier than expected, there's little but mayhem to fall back on. Moreau and mayhem are synonymous, to be sure, but we already know this going in. [23 Aug 1996]

Low on Diesel fuel, though probably amusing enough if you're part of the intended demographic, which appears to be the age group that likes to stick fingers up noses.

Has a three-way split personality, which happily includes an action-packed middle to ease the pain of its early protracted exposition and later action so slow that you'll be asking "Gotta match?" to the person next to you.

The borderline Parenthood is either an iffy comedy with lots of compensations, or a good comedy with more irritating flaws than most movies manage to survive. Whichever, the "feel good'' infantry of summer-film escapists will probably love it. [2 Aug 1989, p.5D]

This is impressive on costuming and hunk fronts (with Billy Dee Williams the key factor in both), while Diana Ross is better than OK in a performance whose Oscar nomination was probably a fait accompli. Otherwise, this lumpy 2 1/2-hour biopic of Billie Holiday hasn't improved since it was critically drubbed -- four other nominations or not -- as one of the most ponderous of all showbiz chronicles. [11 Nov 2005]

Drab as it is, the movie is not impossible to endure -- in part because the concept has a timeless appeal.

The latest picture to give you the sense that Hollywood filmmakers simply plucked another old pop-tune title ripe for ripping off, then were shaken by the rude reality of coming up with a script to jerry-build around it.

A few bits are filler, albeit funny filler. But those who would rather laugh than cry at weddings ( will say "I do'' to Bride. [20 Dec 1991, p.1D]