A character, even when he’s played by Woody Harrelson, is not a movie.

Childress has an ear for dialogue that rings true even when it's self-consciously movie-ish, and Ryder and Hawke bring crucial authenticity to their roles with effortless appeal. You'll find yourself wanting more of these characters than the movie gives you.

If you take a strict approach to "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story," you will probably squirm at every narrative shortcut and reconstruction of "reality" for mass consumption. If you're a fanatic follower of the late martial-arts master - whose death in 1973 at age 32 was caused by cerebral swelling - the cinematic liberties could prove to be distracting. If, on the other hand, you're just out to be entertained, and neither know nor care about the exact details, you'll probably find this briskly populist biopic not only quite enjoyable, but respectful of Lee's martial-arts legacy and the vibrant spirit that has fueled his immortality. [7 May 1993, p.3]

Crude as it sometimes is, this sequel should please plenty of Bradyphiles. But No. 3 might be overkill. [23 Aug 1996, p.F5]

Power Rangers maintains the essence of its origins in that it’s rather pleasantly bonkers. It errs on the side of goofy rather than gritty, and that’s to its favor.

It kind of gives you a sense of whiplash, oscillating between the glory of professional victories, the miasma of personal grief and the nexus where those two often meet.

It’s bland and forgettable, and director Falcone still hasn’t figured out how not to sabotage his supporting cast (why hire the hilarious Chris Parnell if you’re not going to let him be funny?), but it’s a movie a lot like the presence of McCarthy herself — there’s an inner sweetness that shines through.

I.S.S. may be a bit untethered, unsure of what it wants to be and what it wants to say, but it’s worth the voyage regardless.

It's a passable weekend-matinee pacifier, offering some good laughs but remaining largely uninspired. [07 Apr 1995, p.H35]

The picture’s pyrotechnics are first rate, and the acting by the principals is more than serviceable.

With sufficiently intelligent plotting and an A-list cast led by Sean Connery, Just Cause rises above many standard-issue thrillers with enough momentum to grab and hold your attention. [17 Feb 1995, p.I34]

It makes for an entertaining watch in which the attention to detail in every technical element helps smooth over the scattered and superficial story’s many residual shortcomings.

The action, aside from the cloudy 3D, looks impressive (particularly the destruction of the Sydney Opera House), and X-Men: Apocalypse moves along tidily, but you watch thinking that all this used to be a lot more fun.

Aronofsky has always been an actor’s director, and even though he’s playing in the pulp sandbox with “Caught Stealing,” he lets Butler shine. There are a few choices to side-eye in the script, to be sure, but Butler, Kravitz and Libatique are unimpeachable on this wild ride.

A Different Man spins out of control in its final act, but still leaves you pondering its questions.

The director, John Schlesinger ("Midnight Cowboy"), and writer, Colin Welland ("Chariots of Fire"), have captured the period with contagious affection, but there are only two first-rate performances to carry the story for 141 minutes. [03 Oct 1991, p.F3]

Shanley demonstrates a fresh, giddy talent for visualizing his eccentric comedy ideas. [9 Mar 1990, p.20]

Directors Rob Cannan and Ross Adam have made a picture that’s technically rough-edged but absorbing.

It probably misses the point to complain that a movie about satanic possession gets a little ridiculous towards the end. But The Exorcist III is such a witty, chilling treat until its final sequences that the complaint stands. The problem may be that no explanation of the film's diabolical events can possibly be as convincing or scary as the events themselves. [20 Aug 1990, p.F10]

Kershner never succeeds in creating anything more than a well-done carbon copy, self-consciously recycling themes and visual ideas from the first film while adding very little that he can call his own. If you've seen Verhoeven's RoboCop, there's no compelling reason to rush out and catch this talented imitation. [22 June 1990, p.22]

You sense that this woman has spent a lifetime not saying things, and that all she wants is to quietly be allowed to fade away.

The movie is a series of ostentatious effects, without much sense of narrative momentum or rhythmic pacing, and it leaves you feeling like you've landed on a treadmill. [26 May 1995, p.E3]

It is a singularly irritating semi-comedy, colorfully wrapped but with batteries definitely not included. [18 Dec 1992, p.28]

Judgment Night is almost completely lacking in conviction and originality. But Leary does a fair Dennis Hopper imitation, Gooding does his best with an insulting role, and the ending is witty enough not to give us the undying villain it leads us to expect. [15 Oct 1993, p.D27]

Seagal's "best" movie to date, handled with slick blandness by director Andrew Davis (reteaming with Seagal after the star's 1988 debut in "Above the Law). It's depraved and bloodthirsty stuff, which of course means that audiences will flock to this junk (to borrow a line from bone-snappin' Steve) like puppets in some sick play. [09 Oct 1992, p.22]

The picture has an undeniable rough stylishness...but in terms of coherence of storytelling it leaves the audience choking on all that swirling dust.

Unfortunately, Shapiro borrows from too many movies (his climax vaguely recalls "Stranger on a Train") to let his story's potential shine through, and so "The Crush" remains an exercise in diminishing returns. [3 Apr 1993, p.C5]

The problem with Miles Ahead isn’t the playful, broad license it takes with Davis’ story, but that it’s so silly.