Stone does a masterly job of balancing two Nixons, the ruthless power-monger and the sadly vulnerable man, allowing each to flourish as a fully rounded screen figure. Yet here, as in many of his other movies, Stone pushes the envelope a little too far, allowing his own similarities to Nixon. [20 Dec 1995, p.14]

The performances are persuasive but the plot rattles on much too long.

Mostly trite and tacky despite Robin Williams's strenuous acting.

Although the film is slow and sometimes ungainly, it takes on surprising power from the dignity of its performances and the moral strength of its ideas.

This delirious film is overflowing with energy and effects, but it lacks the heart and soul that would have made it important as well as impressive.

Jane Austen's deeply ironic novel loses some of its bite but little of its beauty in Emma Thompson's screen adaptation, which is fetchingly photographed and capably acted by Kate Winslet and Hugh Grant, among others.

Directed by Ulu Grosbard, who has never done a better job of filling the screen with superb acting, and shows great ingenuity at interweaving music with other aspects of the story.

This feature-length sitcom episode is handsomely filmed, but not as funny as you'd hope with Steve Martin and Diane Keaton in leading roles, and some of the humor has a nasty edge. [8 Dec 1995, p.13]

Like a nincompoop version of "The Usual Suspects."

Michael Douglas and Annette Bening head the well-chosen cast, but what gives the movie substance is its willingness to take real stands on real political issues.

Jack Nicholson and Anjelica Huston give mature performances as the bereaved parents, and David Morse brings an offbeat touch to the basically decent man who traumatized their lives.

Youngsters may enjoy it. But the humor is generally of the genre heard in the boys' locker room at the high school gym.

The acting is capable and the suspense is effective at times, but the gore is grisly and the climax is surprisingly hokey.

The picture has enough assets to please moviegoers willing to put up with its many four-letter words and the bursts of violence that spring from nowhere at unexpected moments. [27 October 1995, Arts Film, p.12]

The results are ragged, disjointed, and endearing.

Written and directed by newcomer Noah Baumbach with an excellent ear for absurdity and a keen eye for the offhand realities of everyday life in a den of unmitigated slack.

The story soon lapses into familiar private-eye formulas, though, and the characters aren't interesting enough to hold much attention on their own.

A conventional dark comedy with moments of unexpectedly biting wit.

In its depiction of the Las Vegas nightclub scene and in its own cinematic strategies, the film is quite instructive about the intersection of sex, money, and entertainment in some areas of popular American culture. [29 Sept 1995]

Diane Keaton directed this ragged but lively comedy-drama from Richard LaGravenese's imaginative screenplay.

While the result is visually brilliant, it's oddly disjointed and packs less emotional force than Richard Price's novel.

Mostly just another exercise in snappy editing and over-the-top mayhem that will leave most grown-up movie- goers cold.

It is one continuous fight sequence from opening scene to final credits, but lacks the blood, profanity, and gore that would have merited a more adult rating.

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

Movie stars have tamed sassy kids in movies from "The Blackboard Jungle" to "Stand and Deliver," but it's hard to remember an example more patronizing or sentimentalized than this one.

Rarely do the well-financed wizards at Walt Disney Pictures cook up a movie this badly written, acted, and directed.

At least Dennis Hopper plays the bad guy with wildness and wit. Costner's stolid hero seems a washout by comparison.

For a while, it's like really cool, with lots of energy and stuff, but then it gets like major repetitious, and you wish it was like over, y'know? As if!