The director may be able to make a compelling case for why he made Blonde the way he did but I can make an equally compelling case for why only a masochist would want to sit through the whole thing.

The humor is spotty, character development is so- so, and there are number of significant plot problems. There's no overriding reason why anyone would want to see Made in America unless they're a fan of Danson or Goldberg.

The latest motion picture to take an intriguing premise and flush it into the septic tank.

All I See Is You ultimately fails to deliver much beyond a gradual descent into disinterest and watch-checking.

Jack Reacher has the distinction of being little more than it initially appears to be: a clumsily condensed mystery/thriller novel made into a movie that offers little more than every other clumsily condensed mystery/thriller novel made into a movie.

The narrative is all over the place. Character motivation is confusing. And, worst of all, the story simply isn’t interesting.

The material isn't sufficiently funny to allow me to forgive the film's feeble storyline and two-dimensional inhabitants.

Haphazardly plotted, it not only falls prey to absolute predictability but chooses to have nearly every important conversation (except one) occur off-screen. That sort of laziness is unacceptable and results in a strong sense of audience dissatisfaction.

A problem with this movie, as is too-often the case with productions set within the confines of a space craft/capsule, is that the filmmakers don’t trust the inherent dangers and claustrophobia of the situation to be sufficiently suspenseful.

The inevitable twist ties things neatly together before leading to a confusing, borderline-indecipherable ending that fails to satisfy on a number of levels.

This is bad melodrama, complete with hammy acting and purple prose, and far too long to be even passingly entertaining. It's soap opera quality, from beginning to sensationalistic end.

It's easy to be cynical about a movie like this which, despite its factual basis, is more product than story. The pandering is obvious.

Child 44 is a victim of poor adaptation. It is beset by problems related to flow and coherence; the narrative is confusing, the characters are provided with inadequate time for development, and dead-end subplots abound.

A second-rate regurgitation of "The Lord of the Rings." Everything about it, down to the set and costume design, apes Peter Jackson's epic trilogy. However, while "The Lord of the Rings" was a grand story of scope and power, In the Name of the King feels small in more ways than one.

At its best, Ride Along is tolerable. At its worst, it borders on insulting.

As slasher movies go, Halloween II is far from the bottom of the barrel, but, given its pedigree, one has a right to expect a higher degree of quality that what is delivered.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I liked parts of Bordello of Blood -- it is, after all, a pretty sick motion picture. Alas, the sense of bloody good fun gets stretched too thin. There's not enough material here to sustain the running length, and the film goes through dead patches (most of which occur when Miller isn't on screen). All of the stuff with Chris Sarandon is a waste of time that should have been relegated to the cutting room floor -- except that would have trimmed Bordello of Blood to an unacceptably short sixty minutes or so.

With 3-D, a little goes a long way and, in the absence of a legitimate script with credible characters, the fun dries up long before the running time has expired.

Lazily written and indifferently filmed, this sendup of action/spy movies rarely works as a satire and becomes downright unbearable when it attempts to do things like character/relationship building.

There are moments that sparkle, but the whole is not a worthy sum of its parts, and, while much of what Moretti does is interesting, that doesn't mean that it's enjoyable.

Whatever the reason, the waning months of 2014 have brought us the follow-up to 1994's "Dumb and Dumber", but the lengthy gestation period hasn't resulted in an appreciably upgraded experience.

With A Rainy Day in New York, Allen is spinning his wheels – revisiting familiar themes and ideas from other, earlier films that were presented to far better effect the first time around.

It's not the unevenness of the comedy that kills Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins but the illegitimacy of the drama.

Outside of the insects, nothing else is either creepy or compelling. For a better version of pretty much the same story, invest the time in watching "Aliens."

As a shoot-'em-up, blast-'em-to-pieces film, it's not half bad. As a futuristic time travel movie, however, it has some very serious problems.

Unfortunately, where the movie falls apart is in the storyline. While Spawn fans may be delighted by this effort, the uninitiated may have a hard time getting beyond the fancy special effects and often-incoherent plot.

Anderson’s performance is the selling point but one can rightly question whether it’s enough to bolster the malnourished narrative.

It’s the same basic story recycled with slightly better special effects and a different cast. As lukewarm as I was toward the Roeg version, I was open to the possibility that Zemeckis could improve upon it – something he proved unable to do.