deejay_bill

Okay, this movie isn't necessarily as god-awful as many of these reviews would suggest, but I have to agree it is a waste of time and talent. A group of reasonably engaging performers (Robert Downey, Jr., George Newbern, Stephen Baldwin and the amazingly sexy Leon) are on display here, but the movie suffers from sitcom-like superficiality and terribly amateurish direction (from George Haas, who may never work again after this mess.)

Basically a sexed-up romantic comedy about a groups of friends vacationing at a ski lodge, "Friends and Lovers" has its moments of fun and frivolity. But the film is full of ludicrous "anatomy" jokes and pointless nudity, and the aforementioned direction by Haas is sloppy and laughably inept. The echoing effects in the ski slope scenes are preposterous, and the blocking of the performers is straight out of a high school play, with the actors facing the camera talking sideways to each other.

Perhaps in the hands of a competent director, a good movie might have been made. This isn't it.

A funny and surprisingly affectionate homage to the "Worst Director of All-Time" Edward D. Wood, Jr., "Ed Wood" is easily one of the best films of the 1990's and, despite major success with acclaimed films like "Batman" and "Beetlejuice," remains director Tim Burton's masterstroke.

Considering the subject matter, "Ed Wood" could have easily been a mean-spirited parody of a man who craved significance and success, but Tim Burton has always had a soft spot for misunderstood oddballs ("Edward Scissorhands" immediately comes to mind.) Once again working with "Scissorhands" star Johnny Depp, Burton not only shows Ed Wood as a likable human being, he also displays warmth and genuine admiration for the cult hero who wasn't fully appreciated until years after his death.

Depp truly shines here in the title role. An actor usually known for his brooding performances in such films as "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" and the aforementioned "Edward Scissorhands," Depp is all-smiles and charm as Ed Wood. An eternal optimist with more determination than talent, Ed Wood was also well-known for being a crossdresser..."Ed Wood," the film, addresses his transvestism with amusing matter-of-factness and spends a great deal of time on the making of Wood's laughably-bad cross-dressing opus "Glen or Glenda." The cross-dressing, of course, causes a strain in Wood's relationship with his usually supportive girlfriend Dolores Fuller (played to the hilt by Sarah Jessica Parker; the real Dolores Fuller reportedly hated Parker's portrayal of her). Wood, of course, only wants to be accepted as is; oddly enough, Dolores is the only person close to him who can't accept his passion for wigs and soft angora sweaters.

Despite being set back by uncooperative girlfriends, disillusioned studio execs, and a constant lack of money, Wood keeps working (the film covers the making of three of Ed Wood's features, including the classic "Plan 9 from Outer Space"), with his loyal troupe of amazingly amateurish actors and crew members following his every whim. The film captures quite nicely how Wood's optimism and sweet nature allows him to maintain an assortment of odd, but extremely loyal, disciples. But together they all share a common goal...movie stardom. (One interesting note...like Ed Wood, Tim Burton often uses the same actors in different films; Johnny Depp, Jeffery Jones and Lisa Marie are just a few of the actors who have appeared in several Burton films.)

Most of the film, however, details Ed Wood's friendship and working relationship with aging horror legend Bela Lugosi (played by Oscar-winner Martin Landau in an amazing performance). By the time he began working with Ed Wood, Lugosi was a washed-up drug addict who couldn't even pay his bills, let alone get parts in movies. Although Wood and Lugosi initially use each other (Wood wanted a marquee name in his films, Lugosi just wanted to work), they eventually learn to respect and even love one another. Once again, Landau's performance is truly astonishing, and his on-screen chemistry with Depp is a sight to behold. They make a great team.

Filmed in glorious black-and-white, "Ed Wood," like all biographies, takes liberties with the real-life story of Edward D. Wood, Jr. (Lugosi was actually married when he began starring in Wood's films, for example....one interesting note, however, is the original script for "Ed Wood" covers Wood's brief marriage after his break up with Dolores Fuller; this storyline was cut for the film). Stellar performances abound...Patricia Arquette is sweet as Kathy, former pro-wrestler George "The Animal" Steele is uncanny as former pro-wrestler Tor Johnson, Jeffery Jones is positively brilliant and hysterical as would-be psychic Criswell, Lisa Marie (Tim Burton's real-life mate) gives an appropriately dour performance as Vampira, and Vincent D'Onofrio has an effective cameo as Orson Welles. But the real scene-stealer here is Bill Murray, who gives one of the best performances of his career in a small role as the flamboyant Bunny Breckinridge.

Even if you aren't familiar with Ed Wood, and even if you have never heard of Ed Wood before in your life, "Ed Wood" is still marvelously entertaining. Alternating between hysterically funny moments and depictions of true sadness and alienation, this movie has something for everybody. An absolute must-see.

"Drop Dead Fred" is definitely one of the most unusual comedies of the 1990's. After a series of misfortunes, Elizabeth, an attractive but withdrawn young woman (Phoebe Cates, very effective here) discovers her childhood imaginary friend, Drop Dead Fred (Rik Mayall, hysterically funny), has come back into her life. While seemingly making things worse for her, Fred actually helps her deal with a philandering husband, an overbearing mother and her own insecurities.

The movie flashes back to Elizabeth's childhood (the young Lizzie is played by Ashley Peldon, one of the best child actresses I have ever seen), but I don't think it investigates this era of her life as fully as it should. The relationship between Fred and Elizabeth was brought on initially by Elizabeth's sad home life, but not enough of it is seen. True, this is a comedy, but Drop Dead Fred the character often seems nothing more than excuse to break things and make "poo" jokes. But I like the way young Elizabeth and Fred communicate and interact...it's actually quite touching and sweet.

Drop Dead Fred returns to Elizabeth's life two decades later, after she gets fired, loses her car, and finds herself unable to cope with her estrangement from her husband (played by Tim Matheson). Of course, everyone thinks she is losing her mind when she begins talking to herself and doing bizarre things such as throwing dishes in a restaurant (only she can see Fred....duh.) But Fred, through these actions, helps her to regain the life, innocence, fun, and "Fred" within her.

I must say that the cast is VERY impressive. the aforementioned Rik Mayall ("The Young Ones") is PERFECT as Drop Dead Fred, and Phoebe Cates is not only beautiful to look at but also quite good at physical comedy. Carrie Fisher is also fun, and Marsha Mason earns the appropriate boos and hisses as Elizabeth's insensitive mother.

Most of the problems in this movie involve pacing...the direction (by Ate de Jong) drags, so it appears the actors are trying WAY too hard to compensate. The character of Drop Dead Fred really doesn't show any depth or have any purpose other than to be obnoxious until the end of the film, when he is finally shown to be sympathetic and quite protective of Elizabeth. At first, I didn't quite understand why an "imaginary friend" would be someone who gets on your nerves; the adult Elizabeth is VERY annoyed at Fred's return to her life. But then she realizes she needs him and that he actually cares enough to help her, despite his obnoxious facade. As I said, the film barely covers the supposedly terrible relationship between Elizabeth and her mother (the main reason Drop Dead Fred existed to begin with)...At worst, the mother seems cold and overbearing, not the monster that the adult Elizabeth describes. But the movie steers clear of any deep issues or heavy tones; it is, after all, pretty heavy on the slapstick, which is usually funny, but more in-depth character development would have made the movie more rewarding.

Overall, if you want to laugh, "Drop Dead Fred" is definitely worth seeing, especially for Rik Mayall's performance (and what a cast!) The movie drags in spots and seems forced in others, but the hits outweigh the misses and is guaranteed to make you laugh. Just turn off your brain and enjoy.

"Purple Rain" was the first (and, unfortunately, not the last) feature film starring That Stupid Symbol Thing That Means Prince. The plot, such as it is, involves Minneapolis musician "The Kid," who clashes with family members, professional rivals, and his own ego; the film is obviously based on The Purple One's own life.

The film is really nothing more than a feature-length music video marking Prince's acting debut; he is essentially playing himself here, and is surprisingly charming. Prince is no actor...he mumbles his lines and resorts to melodrama in serious scenes...but his performance truly conveys a great deal of pain and conflict. For a musician in his first role, he is actually quite good. Morris Day is a virtual scene-stealer; the "Time" leader plays, who else, Morris Day and his performance is inspired and funny. Prince's then-bandmates Wendy and Lisa also shine, and Apollonia is adequate as The Kid's love interest. Clarence Williams III ("The Mod Squad") gives the best performance here as The Kid's father; his rage, confusion, and guilt truly come through in a brilliant performance, and his role should have been bigger.

"Purple Rain" is certainly an ego trip for its star. But Prince certainly deserves to have a big head because the music in "Purple Rain" is nothing less than awe-inspiring. He deservedly won an Oscar for his score, and the excitement of his live shows are truly on display here. The Time is also fun to watch; "Purple Rain" includes their performances of two of their biggest hits, "The Bird" and "Jungle Love."

"Purple Rain" is not without it's flaws. The film doesn't fully investigate The Kid's home life with the exception of a few throwaway scenes. Despite the charms of most of the performers, the acting is amateurish and often laughable. And why are there no instruments plugged in during the concert scenes???????

Despite its shortcomings, "Purple Rain" is a modern classic, the quintessential 80's picture. Watching it again can almost make you forget "Under the Cherry Moon" ever happened. Okay, maybe not....

Although nothing more than a high-school version of "High Noon," "Three O'Clock High" is still an engaging, strange, even suspenseful comedy about a hapless nerd named Jerry Mitchell(Casey Siemasko, looking a little too old for the part) who manages to anger the most psychotic kid in school, the ironically named Buddy Revell (Richard Tyson, a regular performer in the Farrelly Brothers' films). Revell challenges Mitchell to a fight when "the bell rings at three o'clock," but chaos ensues in Mitchell's attempts to get out of the situation.

One reviewer on this site (namely Michael Moore; I like to give credit where credit is due!) mentioned that "the cinematography is comedy in itself," and I applaud that comment because it couldn't have been better said. The film boasts strange camera angles, fast motion effects, and comedic use of melodramatic lighting (the film is similar in style to early episodes of the much-missed Fox series "Parker Lewis Can't Lose"). The film is well-paced, well-directed, funny, and best of all, different. Richard Tyson is very effective as the sadistic bully, Siemaszko is an engaging lead, and the cast includes early appearances from familiar faces Mitch Pileggi ("The X-Files," and a total hoot here) and Yeardley Smith ("As Good as it Gets," not to mention the voice of Lisa Simpson). Even the music, mostly composed by film-scoring vets Tangerine Dream, is effective. Although there are a couple of unnecessary subplots (the seduction of the English teacher and the go-nowhere flirting between Siemaszko and the Winona Ryder-wannabe), they don't harm the overall pacing if this strange, funny film. You may have missed this one when it was first released in the 80's; check it out NOW if you are a fan of the golden-era of teen comedies.

First of all, it is worth nothing that director Ken Shapiro seemingly hasn't been employed since this near-catastrophe was released in 1981. It's pretty safe to say that's a bad sign. Secondly, even a stellar cast cannot make a movie very good (what I like to call "Mars Attacks!" syndrome). Now that I have gotten that out of the way, a quick synopsis : Chevy Chase (that in itself is a bad sign) stars as an air traffic controller who, after an encounter with nuclear waste, acquires telekinetic powers, which he uses against his romantic rivals. The premise in itself is engaging and open to the possibility of great comedy. So what happened?

Well, Ken Shapiro could be blamed. The direction is sloppy; actually it is downright pathetic. The pacing is WAY too slow, the action is ineptly handled, and many of the actors seem bored. And worst of all, the special effects are woeful...I haven't seen so much camera equipment on-screen since the glory days of Ed Wood. Case in point...the scene with the Flying-Airplane-Ashtray (don't ask), where some strange, large object is obviously present in the close-ups, holding up the Ashtray next to the camera. I've made home movies with better effects.

What about the actors? Well, Nell Carter is an absolute hoot; she deserves better. And Dabney Coleman is entirely in his element here as a shady, egotistical author. Brian Doyle Murray and Mary Kay Place are also entertaining. Patti D'Arbanville is a bit lacking in comedic talent; she is given nothing more to do than pout and screech. But the real problem here is Chase. He is just going through the motions here, playing the hapless bumbler bit to death and looking very bored doing it. There is no life to his performance, and it grinds the movie to a halt.

True, there are some funny moments here...Nell Carter gets most of the laughs in a woefully small role, the scenes involving Chase's romantic rival Barry (Mitch Kreindel) are pretty amusing, and one reviewer here has already mentioned Chase's throwaway line "Smells like feet," which for some reason made me laugh hysterically...but the funny moments are few and far between. There is so much BAD to sort through to get to the GOOD stuff, and it just isn't worth the time and trouble. Perhaps in better hands, "Modern Problems" could have been a good movie. This certainly isn't it.

Dark, strange, slightly amateurish yet oddly compelling, "The Chocolate War" is an excellent antidote to the happy-go-lucky teen films made popular by John Hughes in the 1980's. Based on the popular book by Robert Cormier, the story concerns Jerry Renault (Ilan Mitchell-Smith, "Weird Science"), a bright but sad young man coping with his mother's untimely death (which has also turned his father cold and distant). Jerry is a student a prep school known as Trinity, where he clashes with a sadistic "secret fraternity" known as the Vigils and the oh-so-slightly-mad acting headmaster Brother Leon (played to perfection by John Glover). At first by order of the Vigils, and then on his own, Jerry refuses to participate in the annual fund-raising chocolate sale, which not only angers Brother Leon but also causes an assortment of other problems. Yes, this is a rather simplistic summary, but going into great detail will not only take a lot of time but will also spoil the viewing experience.

"The Chocolate War" is the directorial debut of actor Keith Gordon ("Christine," "Back to School"), who also wrote the screenplay. The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of Cormier's novel, but the ending is changed significantly. Fans of the book argue that Gordon's ending for the film is too "tidy" or "happy," but in it's own way the film ends on a rather despairing note, with no easy answers or solutions.

Obviously filmed on a shoestring budget, "The Chocolate War" still boasts wonderful performances by its young cast. Mitchell-Smith is quite good as Jerry Renault, as well as the previously mentioned John Glover. Wally Ward (better known today as Wallace Langham of "Veronica's Closet") is very good as the Vigils' evil "assigner" Archie, and Bud Cort ("Harold and Maude") has a funny cameo as another teacher. Sometimes the pacing is slow, and sometimes the director attempts to be a little too "artistic" in his style; the film also suffers from a soundtrack that was dated even when the movie was made (the music comes from such new-wave dinosaurs as Yaz and Kate Bush). But "The Chocolate War" is a very thoughtful, well acted, compelling piece of work, and that is a cinematic rarity. Barely seen at the time of release and sometimes hard to find in video stores, "The Chocolate War" is well worth watching...and also well worth reading.

It is EXTREMELY rare for a sequel to be as good as the original film...and "Nutty Professor 2 : The Klumps" is nowhere NEAR as good as the original. But then again, the first "Nutty" is a modern classic and one of the funniest films of the past ten years. "Nutty 2," judged on it's own merits, is actually a very funny movie, too...movies rarely make me laugh out loud to begin with (and the ones that do usually aren't SUPPOSED to be comedies), so for that in itself "Nutty 2" deserves very high praise.

Much criticism has been made about "fart jokes," sexual innuendo and general "sequel-itis"....but why is there such a backlash against crude humor? ALL humor, whether it is at it's most high-brow or stuck squarely in the toilet, has its ups and downs. If it's funny, it's funny, and if it isn't, it isn't. It's that simple. And most of the humor in "Nutty 2" works quite nicely, thankyouverymuch. I never heard ONE criticism about "There's Something About Mary," which took toilet humor to an all-time high and was very funny because of it. Sure, "Nutty 2" doesn't reach the same heights as "Mary," but the criticism it has received for the kind of humor it displays is not only hypocritical, but completely pointless. The movie is funny. Why is that such a problem?

Once again, Eddie Murphy's comedic genius is on full display here. Over the years, Murphy has basically coasted through his movies with a sickening lack of enthusiasm and drive...only with the first "Nutty Professor" and "Bowfinger" has he shown audiences the immense talent and ingenuity that was suggested at the beginning of his movie career. In "Nutty 2," he once again plays several characters, each with their own personalities and voices, and the results are amazing. Yes, the make-up helps, but it is Murphy's job to truly pull off these roles, and he does so. Sherman Klump is as charming as ever, and Papa and Mama Klump provide laughs every time they are on screen...but the scene-stealer this time, as in the first "Nutty Professor," is the feisty, sex-starved, and downright scary Granny Klump. Movies like "Nutty 2" generally don't offer much in impressing the Academy come "Oscar" time, but for someone like Eddie Murphy to pull off so many different characters so successfully and hysterically....well, the man deserves MAJOR kudos. An absolutely brilliant performance.

Some other familiar faces from the first film emerge here too. Larry Miller and John Ales are back, as the dean and Jason, respectively. I was not expecting much from Janet Jackson....yes, I like her music, but her talents as an actress have always been questionable. I was also wishing Jada Pinkett would show up again. But Miss Jackson gives a surprisingly strong performance, and is quite in her element in this film; acting opposite a powerhouse like Eddie Murphy in itself would be pretty difficult, anyway.

Overall, a thumbs up. Not as good as the original, but still a worthy sequel, and VERY funny. Murphy's performances alone are worth the price of admission. And the scene with the hamster is not to be missed!!!

What could have been an intoxicating, unforgettable film is instead reduced so pretty people like Ryan Phillippe and Neve Campbell whining and posing. The REAL story of the REAL "54" is Steve Rubell and the shenanigans and illegal activities that took place in AND out of the club....as well as the entire disco era. Actually, aside from some great music from the period, the viewer doesn't get much of a feel for the late 70's. And frankly, it's a bit hard to because of the VERY 90's faces in the film. It would be okay if some of them could actually act...

The only thing this film has going for it, besides the music, is a stellar, surprising performance from Mike Myers as Steve Rubell. The filmmakers blew their chance with this movie...the REAL story of Studio 54 with Mike Myers in the lead role would have made a phenomenal movie. Instead, we get a soap opera with bad acting and Myers reduced to a thankless supporting role. Overall, "54" isn't terrible and it does have it's moments. It is just very disappointing, because the REAL story would have been so much more fulfilling.

I have seen many reviews of this film comparing the merits of the actual stage production of "Noises Off" to this usually hysterical film version. The fact is, plays generally "lose something" when translated to the big screen; making a complicated production like "Noises Off!" into a motion picture would seem nearly impossible. The fact that the movie even exists and is hysterically funny is quite an accomplishment in itself.

One thing I really appreciated about this film is that the viewer must PAY ATTENTION to what is happening. This is not one of those films where you can go raid the fridge and come back and play catch up. There is amazing detail in this movie, and the laughs come so fast and furious that you'd be missing something even if you take a quick five minute break to the kitchen.

The story (the efforts of a director and his cast of loonies to get the Broadway-bound sex farce "Nothing On" just right, yet everything goes wrong) is funny and well executed, and the physical comedy is brilliant; this looks like a difficult production to do, play or otherwise, to begin with, and the hard-working actors succeed brilliantly for the most part. Michael Caine is flawless as the flustered director; Carol Burnett is ALWAYS a pleasure to watch; unfortunately, she doesn't show up on screen nearly as much as she should. John Ritter is, as always, a brilliant physical comedian. Christopher Reeve shines as one of the inept actors. And familiar faces Mark-Linn Baker, Julie Hagerty and the late, great Denholm Elliot steal the show. My only complaints : Nicolette Sheridan is really given nothing much to do but stand around in her underwear, and Marilu Henner is pretty annoying (but I think this is a character flaw rather than Henner herself.)

If you want to rent a movie that has laughs and that you will NOT be ashamed of watching (overall, it is very family friendly; it has some sexual overtones and suggestive content, but no more than a typical episode of "Friends"), run, don't walk, to the nearest video store and pick up a copy of "Noises Off!" And prepare to be entertained.

A few years ago, Nick at Nite aired the first episode of this miserable piece of garbage as part of some kind of "Lucython." I was in Bad-TV heaven; I watched this catastrophe when it first aired in 1986, and I was delighted to see it again in all of it's badly-written, poorly executed glory.

What was the problem? Do you have a few hours? First of all, casting a 75 year-old comedienne LONG past her prime in a series that involves extensive physical comedy is downright pathetic. This sort of thing is difficult for someone in her twenties; watching Lucy and Gale Gordon (who was in his EIGHTIES at the time) was just downright painful. It was impossible to laugh because there was so much concern about these two senior citizens seriously injuring themselves.

Secondly, the scripts were awful. Nothing but a bad rehash of older Lucy shows....only this time the stuff wasn't funny. This show wouldn't have been funny in 1956, let alone 1986.

Third, the annoying hooting and hollering of the studio audience every time the star showed up on the set was unbearable.....think "Married...with Children" but without the subtlety.

Easily one of the most ill-conceived, badly executed, poorly written shows in the history of television, "Life with Lucy" belongs on the list of the top-five worst TV "Mistakes" in history. The series was pulled off the air in less than two months and RARELY surfaces in reruns. If you ever get a chance to see it, make sure you do. In fact, I urge you to write, call, or e-mail Nick at Nite and TV Land and BEG them to show an episode or two of this miserable piece of crap. You won't believe your eyes.

Bad, bad, bad movie, carried only by the alleged star-power of Sharon Stone and featuring another Baldwin reject and about as much eroticism as an obscene phone call. The film also boasts one of the worst endings ever committed to celluloid. Avoid at all costs.

This movie isn't as bad as its reputation would suggest, but it is a totally unnecessary follow-up to the 1978 classic. It is sporadically entertaining, and it does have a few things going for it. The early screen appearance of Michelle Pfeiffer is interesting to watch, and I enjoyed her performance. Almost all of the actors are quite likable, actually, giving energetic and engaging performances. And the film boasts the welcome return of Dody Goodman, Eve Arden and Sid Caesar from the original "Grease."

So what is the problem? First of all, the storyline is rather far-fetched. "Nerdy" English student (Sandy's cousin...yeah, right) falls for Pink Lady who wants nothing to do with him, so he learns to ride a motorcycle amazingly quickly and becomes this mysterious "cool rider" while the other characters don't even recognize him. I guess it's a Clark Kent/Superman kind of thing. Secondly, the songs are nothing to write home about...actually, the songs from the ORIGINAL film weren't that terrific either, but at least they became hits. Most of the cast members aren't particularly strong singers, but their dedication and energy almost makes up for it. The direction is sluggish, and the editing is poor. But the biggest failure here is the blandly-handsome Maxwell Caulfield in the lead role of straight-A/cool rider Michael Carrington. His performance is dull, his diction is poor, his screen presence is non-existent and his singing is pathetic. And he hasn't done anything noteworthy since.

But honestly, the film isn't all bad. Stupid and forgettable, but not necessarily painful. But it is far from a must-see. Watch only if you are too tired to get up and change the channel and the remote isn't working.

Okay, I understand that this is primarily a kid's film. And much has been made about the pre-"Phantom" Michael Crawford appearance. But should that excuse the stupidity of the film itself, the ridiculous story and the dime-store quality special effects? Kids will easily notice that the wires can be seen when Condorman flies. They are so thick they look like ropes! Very distracting. A pathetic movie that should have never been made.