Enormous in its scope and colossal in its stupidity.

Robocop 2 is as funny as it is loud, and nearly as smart as it is gross -- though the latter quality does win out, particularly in the climactic brain-squash sequence. [22 June 1990, p.G5]

As in his other comedies (e.g., The In-Laws and Silver Streak), Arthur Hiller directs the action in fits and starts, following each burst of energy with what seems like a quarter- hour's rest period. He presents us with major or minor instances of inappropriate behavior, then sits back and waits for humor to emerge from the confusion. [19 Jun 1982, p.C6]

Even if you do believe the story, Fire in the Sky will bore you silly. [17 Mar 1993, p.E2]

Next begins to seriously embarrass itself and its stars -- except for Biel, surprisingly, who manages to escape with a shred of dignity, possibly because her role requires little beyond looking gorgeous -- once it rolls to its climax.

Even if you don't buy the ending, however, High Tension makes for ghoulish, sick fun, and Aja, who is already at work on a remake of Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, clearly takes this horror stuff very seriously. The genre can always use a few more like him.

As summer fare goes, Fluke is a shaggy surprise -- the most winning dog-meets-girl love story yet. [02 Jun 1995, p.4G]

Loud, sophomoric and stunningly crude.

A lobotomized campus comedy. [3 May 1994, p.E6]

By the time John Hurt shows up, in the role of the villain, the fun's over. Crawford tries for sardonic and falls short, into lazy. Lane's pace is way off; his adventure seems to take forever to get under way, and the jokes aren't enough. Good pulp is better than this. [04 June 1986, p.D1]

Blank Check turns schmaltzy toward the end by borrowing gimmicks from the Home Alone movies and resorting to the cavalry-to-the-rescue formula ending. This is de rigueur Disney, best when it's kept light and fantastical. [11 Feb 1994, p.G4]

Belongs to that genre of movie that works hard to achieve a certain twisted and demented wit.

The effects are well-made and gruesome; the set is 'used-car tech,' a la Alien -- a space station that looks real and lived- in. Even the music is OK. But good gore only works in movies when the story is good, and this story is stolen, almost scene for scene. [01 Jun 1982, p.C6]

The second installment in a likable family franchise, Journey 2: The Mysterious Island makes a nice case to your kids that reading books is a good idea.

Even a film as shabby and humdrum as Beverly Hills Chihuahua, which never musters up the wit and beauty of a single frame of "Lady and the Tramp," is not without its pleasures.

The film seems simple and facile at a glance, but these characters and their dilemmas stay with you. These days, any of us could suddenly be Larry Crowne.

For Keeps is schizoid entertainment. It begins as a comedy, shifts briefly into social commentary and winds up in soap opera land, with Ringwald acting nobly and self-sacrificing. The movie has been heralded as a sign of Hollywood's new maturity, because the kids face up to their situation. That is applaudable, but For Keeps is old-fashioned and obvious. It is to teen pregnancy what My Three Sons was to family life. [15 Jan 1988, p.C5]

A briskly-paced, refreshing kick in this season of draggy, two-hour-plus movies. The film is smarter and funnier than its trailers indicate, and, as a bonus, there are no superheroes, pirates or Wilson brothers to be found.

If you're going to make a heist picture, then at least have the decency to make the heist itself interesting. Otherwise, do like Tarantino did in "Reservoir Dogs" and just skip it altogether.

One of the freshest, nastiest comedies to come around in quite some time.

What to Expect has no standout character who's consistently funny, and it must operate within the confines of a "kids are the most important thing in our lives" mentality, which is more tiresome ground, comedically speaking.

Croc, as played by the sinewy and appealing Paul Hogan, may be a fish out of water, but he's a formidable comic hero, a kind of Outback James Bond only less perturbable. And this sequel is actually a better film than the original, which was one of the movies' least likely success stories in 1986. [25 May 1988, p.D1]

With the original Candyman, the filmmakers took chances in their efforts to scare you. With the sequel, they are simply chasing the quick and easy buck. [17 Mar 1995, p.4G]

The latest work from director-producer-writer John Hughes is a muddle. Hughes has packed the movie, the story of a young couple's marriage, with amusing sight gags and jokes. What he has failed to offer are palatable characters, original insights or smooth storytelling. Worst of all, he has tacked on a deplorable teary finale. [5 Feb 1988, p.C4]

It's one of those movies made by hard-core techies, meticulous about the "period" details and utterly neglectful of pretty much everything else, including such nuances as plain old plot. [15 Sep 1990, p.E6]

Battleship is a board game for children, so it stands to reason a film adaptation would also be aimed at kids. But did they have to gear it to really dumb kids?

It's a cheery, impossible fantasy.

The movie's as dumb as dirt, but in the early going the action is staged well. The best thing about Tango & Cash is the series of gags to which Stallone has allowed himself to be the target. [22 Dec 1989, p.G10]