Instead of displaying the grim wit of RoboCop, RoboCop 2 is crude and punishing. [23 June 1990, p.E1]

The film may be a collection of little moments that don't add up, but on a moment-by-moment basis, it isn't hard to take. [22 Jun 1990, p.6]

Those who enjoyed the gremlin-in-the-microwave scene from the first film will probably love the paper-shredder sequence in the new one. [15 Jun 1990, p.6]

Although I would rate Part III beneath Part I, the final installment does have the blessing of closure: There's something undeniably satisfying about seeing all those loose ends tied up. [25 May 1990, p.7]

The best to be said for the current production is that the editing is refreshingly swift, the cinematography is clear-eyed and the running time is mercifully short. (I clocked it at just under an hour and a half.) But do I recommend Fire Birds? That's a negative. [29 May 1990, p.D1]

As good as the supporting players are, Cadillac Man is Robin Williams' show. He gives the production its pace, its zest and its heart. Without him, this movie is unimaginable. With him, it's consistently entertaining. Williams knows what every successful salesman knows: Sell yourself, and you'll sell the product. [18 May 1990, p.20]

Nominally a romantic action-comedy, this Goldie Hawn-Mel Gibson picture is actually a mind-numbingly raucous exploitation flick with occasional bad jokes and mild sex scenes. [18 May 1990, p.21]

You gorehounds will enjoy this one. Forty-two dead bodies. Two motor-vehicle chases with one crash-and-burn and one crash-and-plunge. Neck-snapping. Fireballs. Arm-ripping. Skull-drilling. Terminal spanking. Flaming supporting actor. Brutal push-ups. Student cut in half. Puke-a-rama. Six fistfights. Attempted rape. Kung Fu. Junkie Fu. Robot Fu. Forklift Fu. [22 Nov 1991]

Movies like Wild Orchid give sex a bad name...The only thing to be said for this embarrassingly inept film is that, in its own schlocky way, it does intermittently manage to get a libidinous buzz going. This is not an especially tough thing for a movie with sex scenes to do, but it's something.

Lumet's biggest mistake was probably in writing the screenplay himself. A filmmaker who trusts his impulses as much as Lumet does needs an objective presence to help clarify his thinking. But if Q&A raises more Q's than it can provide A's for, it's still pretty OK in my book. [02 May 1990, p.E1]

Miami Blues is more interesting than any bad movie I've seen in months, but it is still a bad movie.

The ads in this film are so funny that I wish I could report that the production containing them is equally hilarious. But as it turns out, Crazy People is wobbly - a watchable but unremarkable showcase for the exceptional ads.

Occasionally, the scenes of the bush people are just enough like the best parts of the original Gods to remind us what we're missing in the new one. But most of the time, Gods II is unamusingly antic. [13 Apr 1990, p.4]

The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is a serious film, but is it a great one? Not as far as I'm concerned. Overall, I'd say it's only pretty good, though parts of it are much better than that. [30 Apr 1990, p.D1]

Cry-Baby is hipper and funnier than any Elvis flick ever was, but in many ways it's not so different from Viva Las Vegas or Blue Hawaii.

Children will undoubtedly enjoy the ninja flick a lot more than their parents will, and it probably won't even give most kids nightmares. But couldn't a steady diet of this sort of thing help to desensitize very young children to real violence? If so, that's awful - not awesome - dudes.

A Shock to the System, a dark comedy with the structure of a thriller, is delightfully hard-edged. [23 Apr 1990, p.C1]

When the dust clears, Blue Steel turns out to be just one more violent movie whose basic theme is women as victims. [16 Mar 1990, p.3]

This new film version of Lord of the Flies is far from a disgrace. It may not hit a home run, but it doesn't strike out, either. [16 Mar 1990, p.5]

Not only is House Party breezy fun, but its dialogue often sounds as authentic to its black-teen setting as The Breakfast Club did to its white-teen one. And authentic or not, much of it is funny. [27 April 1990, p.4]

Bad Influence has a somewhat effective screenplay, provided by newcomer David Koepp. The dialogue is much sharper in Bad Influence than it was in The Bedroom Window - although the new film's plot could have used more work. [09 Mar 1990, p.5]

Despite its shortcomings, however, the movie is often stimulating in a way that movies generally aren't. A dark, mirthless satire set in the near future, the film keeps your attention by holding a warped mirror up to our own time. [19 Mar 1990, p.C1]

The movie may have been so structured to offer whites in the audience a central white figure with whom to identify. But it's the ultimate irony that moviemakers who want to call attention to the historical accomplishments of blacks feel that they can only do so if the hero of their film is white. [12 Jan 1990, p.6]

Revenge isn't sweet. It's crude, ugly, pretentious, repulsive, obnoxious and just about unwatchable.

No one looks particularly comfortable, not even Midler, who has most of the best dialogue. She's watchable as Stella, but that's really the nicest thing I can say for her work in this unfortunate picture. Does Bette Midler really believe that people of limited means can't raise their kids decently? Or is the Divine Miss M making some great joke whose subtle point I am failing to grasp?

They're gonna say that it used to be a good movie, but then the Motion Picture Censor Board got on their case and gave it an X rating, and they had to take a chain saw to the movie, and what came out was different. They weenied out on us. They suckered us for five bucks. They profaned the name of the most revered horror movie in film history. And what makes it worse is that the director, Jeff Burr, evidently knew what he was doing. There are a few scenes in this flick that are as scary as anything I've ever seen. [02 Feb 1990, p.12]

British director Mike Figgis has a genuine knack when it comes to things such as mood, pacing and atmosphere. But he tends to lose track of crucial points - such as whether or not a central character comes out of the story alive. [19 Jan 1990, p.4]

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer isn't entirely successful, but it's admirable nonetheless. The film is an honest and disturbing attempt to come to grips with the sort of modern horror that we must - more urgently every day - try to understand.