vonnoosh

Some might say his only good movie though some are bad In a fun way. This is a decent mid 50s sci fi/horror movie on a small budget with a good twist to it.

Being better aquainted with Warren's later work, I expected something as unwatchable as Invasion of the Amimal People. That is difficult to sit through. I feel like a better print of that would make it even worse.

I wouldn't recommend this movie to people who aren't a fan of the genre but for mid 50s on a small budget, this isn't half bad. Typically Warren would build stories around cheap stock footage he bought, film some extra scenes and that's the movie. Looks as though he did it here too with some mountain climbing footage. Most directors would only pad a film with stock footage or use some feet of it to add to a script that already existed without it.

If you do try watching Man Beast and don't like the genre, at least it's short.

That strips away at how graphic this Sci fi/horror movie can get. Believe me, if this was rated R, it would've gotten really really ugly at times but it's PG so expect the story and the acting to do the job of bringing the horror across. Rock Hudson was one of the best and here he is as a quasi Frankenstein driven to extremes in memory of his dead wife, they both had worked together along the same experimental lines.

No one comes across as completely twisted and insane which makes this feel disturbing.

Yes, this is somewhat slow moving but that went with the times.

Great seeing early Barbara Carrera work. She has a natural talent as an actress. Entirely believable in this role. Diane Ladd is also excellent in this. Rock Hudson is good in just about anything.

Talking Heads was more or less finished with this movie. They would put out another album after True Stories but it doesn't sound like Talking Heads as much as it sounds like a David Byrne solo album and no, Talking Heads was not just David Byrne with some good musicians.

Really the band is barely seen in the movie too, taking a backseat to David Byrne and his self important messaging (much like his lyrics).

What I do like about True Stories is the offbeat feel of it. It's like watching Edward Scissorhands without Edward Scissorhands. The town and the people have this odd feel about them as this odd man comes around and talks to and about them.

Spalding Gray is great giving a strange monologist type performance at the dinner table describing the state of his town.

This might be the big breakout role for John Goodman since this predates Raising Arizona. I doubt those early 80s soup commercials were his breakout role but they very well might have led directly to his being cast in this given how much American advertising played a role in shaping Byrne's vision.

This isn't the big musical movie event of the 80s (Prince's Purple Rain owns that title), but if you like offbeat comedies or movies with a strange feel about them like Jim Jarmusch, Alex Cox, Wim Wenders, David Lynch (only The Straight Story), this film feels at home in their company.

Chase scenes, chase scenes, chase scenes, chase scenes. Ridiculous device that creates time travel, new main character with as much personality as a video game character. In this, insert Indiana Jones who is like an annoying obstacle for the new characterto deal with along with the Nazis in this silly story.

Sprinkled into this lousy mess of ideas is tiny bits of nostalgia and little reminders that this is an Indiana Jones movie and not like watching someone playing a video game.

I hate it. I hate everything about it. I hate how movies like this show Hollywood's opinion of the movie going public. Especially in terms of intelligence. We're not all 6 year olds watching a fireworks display for the first time, you know. We need more than dazzling visuals and big noises to keep us engaged.

This is a tongue in cheek Bond movie and the first that drifts well into comedy at times. Previous Bond movies had some jokes in it but not quite like this. Diamonds Are Forever starts the trend with comedy that Moore's movies would carry on with. The humor peaked with Octopussy which is alot of fun for a Bond movie. It hasn't quite been as fun as that or this movie since. Given the direction of the franchise, they might as well go back to comedy.

Diamonds Are Forever has an interesting plot which strangely mirrors reality. Blofeld's plan to destroy nuclear weapons with a laser mounted on a satellite sounds alot like the Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars as the media coined it during the Reagan era. Only difference is the motive behind the use of the satellite. They also parodied Howard Hughes and the moon landing hoaxers. Who ever said conspiracy theories couldn't be good comedy?

This is a decent Bond movie that doesn't take itself so seriously which is probably why movies like this are beginning to age so well. Bond movies now go overboard (overbored is more like) with the drama which is making them heavy handed.

Every character is a little jokey. Even Charles Gray's Blofeld has a comedy line or two.

This really is the best Bond film if you liked the original novels and had they followed Thunderball with this one and starred Connery, no one would question its place among the Bond movies. Connery himself might have considered it his best outing in the role, then again maybe other aspects of the movie wouldn't have been better.

Peter Hunt does an exceptional job directing this movie and alot of the action scenes don't seem so static. Hunt uses closeups and really takes the viewer into alot of the scenes. This doesn't really happen often in the earlier movies. The series needed an updated look and filming style which it does have to go with the new actor in the role.

This was the Bond film I usually ignored when I was a kid (before the Brosnan and Craig movies, most of which i've still never seen) then I caught some of the action sequences like the ski chase while channel flipping. I was pulled in and watched it to the end. I suppose it's a little too meticulous setting things up in the first act but that's how the book is too.

The movie does offer much more for the actors to do instead of saying quips and playing with plastic gadgets. The latest Bond movie tries to follow this one's lead but drags out for almost 3 hours and is unwatchable. This shows why Ian Fleming was a better storyteller. Its a shame other Fleming novels weren't given such a faithful rendering. Some try to come close but mostly they copy the names and is light entertainment.

Burke's Law was a 60s police detective series when it started out. First two seasons were anyway. The third season was a bizarre attempt to turn it into a Man From UNCLE type show. This reboot is a throwback to how the original show began. Burke is a swave and wealthy police captain who excels as a detective. That was the original series. Here, much of the work is not done by Amos Burke who by this time is a police chief.

The newer shows make me think ofn he Columbo reboot episodes more than the newer Perry Mason episodes. The format was always good. The writing is not quite up to the level of the original series but it is still pretty good. Recommend searching this one out. I didn't have the easiest time managing that.

This movie is at one time a coming of age drama and a story for those who go through a mid life crisis. It is not about a washed up ball player dealing with the end of one life and adjusting to another. This isn't Bull Durham in any way. Mark Hamon plays a guy who quit baseball before his prime and basically drifts for 14 years until he learns someone very important to him took her own life back where he grew up.

Half the story is flashbacks to memories of Katie played excellently by Jodie Foster and half is the story of Wyatt grown up (played equally well by Mark Harmon) figuring out what to do about Katie's ashes because she left the responsibility up to him in her will which in itself is a mystery since neither of them saw each other in nearly 15 years.

Stealing Home likely didn't appear in many theaters. It's not really for the 14 to 24 crowd. It did get alot of showings on cable when I was a kid. I vaguely related to having a Katie in my life, still do, but mostly I didn't understand or appreciate the story. Now I am middle aged and experienced the directionlessness after being defeated by some of life's challenges. I understand it better now and like it more.

Also I live about a 10 minute bike ride from where many of the flashback scenes were filmed. It also features a scene shot in the Vet. Sure it ended up being a rathole but it is gone but not forgotten and still fondly remembered.

Harold Ramis, Jonathan Silverman and Blair Brown are also all excellent in the movie. Well acted with some light comedy (second city alumni wrote and directed it) but nothing too major.

This movie had a DVD release about 20 years ago and I highly recommend viewing this movie with the audio commentary because then it becomes a documentary about Edie Sedgwick. Without that commentary, you have a quasi drama(maybe a little sci fi?) movie based around a fictionalized version of Edie Sedgwick. This character is burned out from the same setting but is living in an empty pool with a palace of pies owner for a mother. She recounts her life showing off early breast implants much of the time. That's when the movie shifts to black and white archival footage. There's a rich and powerful shadowy figure stalking her. We never really know why. She had a love interest named America. Cant remember if that was Captain or Mr. A Jesus looking type character is the rich guy's henchman. The movie tries to be alot of things. Whatever plots they were trying to develop never get resolved.

What we learn in the audio commentary is what the footage actually means regarding Edie Sedgwick. Roger Vadim has a role as a doctor because he was deeply enamored with Edie Sedgwick. Some footage from a gathering in '68 is significant because it showed Edie falling apart and this happened around the time she abandoned Andy Warhol for Bob Dylan. A betrayal Warhol never overcame.

The later footage includes real ECT sessions which Sedgwick consented to have filmed. That's electroshock therapy which was something she began to enjoy as a kind of high. There's also some film of her wedding.

We learn about other people always around Andy's Factory like Barbara Polk and other models. We also get more explanation of the story they were trying to tell.

I'd give this a 8 with audio commentary by the directors and a 6 without it. On its own, its just showing footage with a vague story tying it all together.

You know it's a bad sign when people say a comedy special made them cry. Yes, this is Norm MacDonald doing a show (sort of) but it's like when I saw George Carlin perform live in Red Bank in 2007. Carlin walked on stage looking feeble with a script on a stool he used as a reference. The entire show ended up feeling like it was just a rehearsal for doing the show live as the HBO special the following March. Here, Norm MacDonald is basically practicing to do the show that would be the real special which he hoped to film. The timing is a little off. He has no audience to gauge the quality of one joke compared to another. Performers aren't born with the gift to be perfect every time they perform, it takes A LOT of preparation and hard work and this show is an example of that work and not Norm at his best during the real specials filmed

I feel like I have to make that point since Norm MacDonald was far more popular and nearly ubiquitous 25 to 30 years ago. A generation has grown up and another is growing up since then. If you are relatively uninitiated, this is not the place to start even if it is the one getting the most press.

All that said, it is nice seeing a hopeful Norm practicing his material and yes, it is poignant knowing he was doing this material while also facing such an ordeal like cancer. The value of work is it gives you purpose to keep fighting, otherwise you just rest and try not to think about being sick.

I seem to revisit the first two seasons of Potter alot. They have alot of comedy in them that is subtle and enjoyable. Its not a noisy laugh out loud type of sitcom like Fawlty Towers. It has moments of physical comedy but much of it is driven by dialogue.

The first two seasons are excellent but the third season loses me. The show was slated to start shooting but Arthur Lowe passed away a few months before they started. By that time, Harry Corbett who played the recurring role of ex gangster Harry Tombs passed away (he himself replaced Sydney Taftler in the role who had also passed away during the show's run) and they didn't bring back the character. Robin Bailey took over the role of Redvers Potter but the storylines ended up being mostly about just Potter and the Vicar getting Tolliver in trouble. Not only were these great actors gone but gone were some fresher ideas of where the story could go.

Its a clever show and well written. It is also a unique show in that British sitcoms mostly ignored older wealthy characters as featured centerpieces for a show. There is nothing young or trendy about Potter. Maybe thats why it's basically buried in the archives.

,but that is the mark of a brilliant entertainer with years of experience developing his talent. That is the real history of A Christmas Story. Yes, it has stories based on a collection of short stories but even they were written after decades of performing on stage, decades on the radio telling stories and even getting mentioned in Kerouac's On The Road (that angel headed hipster on the radio). How many hours did he spend in preparation for everything he did? Above all else, Jean Shepherd was a comedian. He knew how to get a laugh. Doing this movie without Jean Shepherd is like trying to make a pizza without dough. It is the movie no one asked for because of this.

The writing is the weakest thing about this film. Nick Schenk and Peter Billingsley havent published dozens of humorous stories and they are not comedians. Ralphie's asides all grown up are not even a fraction of the quality Shepherd offered in the first movie. The one thing that made My Summer Story worth sitting through was his narration. Here, they are dry observations instead of brilliant prose. No tapestries of obscenities or warm hot glow of electric sex beaming from windows. I can't really blame the writers. As I said Jean Shepherd was a legendary writer and performer. They're not and will never be in his league. Shepherd even turned up on a Charles Mingus album "The Clown". Served as inspiration for a stage character (Murray Burns in A Thousand Clowns), Lenny Bruce singled out one of the bits from a comedy album he did as being something that made HIM laugh. He was nearly 40 years into his career when A Christmas Story was produced. That followed over a decade of learning how to best infuse narration with images instead of crafting images in the reader and listener's minds. He had PBS shows like Jean Shepherd's America, Shepherd's Pie and several other early made for tv attempts to bring his short stories to life on the small screen. Who involved with this has a CV like this? He was a later day Mark Twain.

I knew this was going to be disappointing and it is. I give it 5 stars for nostaglia and because it makes me want to dig out those old radio shows based on Shep's Limelight performances.

I would rate this much higher if this movie were based on other stories Shepherd had written and DID NOT try to invent narration on the level he produced but simply quoted the text.

Arrested Development chronicles Michael Bluth's attempt tp keep the family together and their business alive despite his desperation to abandon them. The show goes all over the place but basically that's the premise and they repeated it often enough at the start of the show.

At some point you can't help people who only think of themselves while being incapable of helping themselves. Hence the lesson learned making this the real ending to this classic series.

What comes after season 3 is equal to Police Academy 7 Mission to Moscow, The Harlem Globtrotters on Gilligan's Island or Revenge of the Nerds IV: Nerds in Love. Try to like those later seasons if you must but you know it's not the same.

10 stars belong to the Fox network run of the series. I still remember watching the debut season on Sunday evenings. The netflix reboot was just.........wrong and I knocked off 2 stars because it feels little more than a knock off than an actual continuation of the show. The reboot feels like there's 2/3rds less comedy in each episode compared to the shows in the first 3 seasons. Also, it does a really lousy job trying to pick things up years down the line. More clumsy than offbeat funny. They really could have done better. Maybe it tries too hard but its years too late, maybe it forgot the show had likable characters, maybe it was too busy trying to be a political allegory instead of being funny like, a sitcom. I guess it's true what they say about any art. You can't go back and pretend it's the same. Then again, there's a few netflix reboots that failed miserably after moving to that streaming service (Designated Survivor anyone??].

So the show has the appearance of a reality tv show/mockumentary about a rich family who ends up broke and mired in legal troubles. In the orginal run, it focused on the middle son of the family trying to keep the family and business going despite his desperation to abandon them. The show throws alot of comedic curves and stays fresh for awhile as things get more outlandish. I rank the oringal 53 episode run up there with Fawlty Towers considering the amount of jokes and gags stuffed into a single episode. It is incredible how much they got into one 23 minute episode. Its like a joke every 7 seconds and yet they still develop a story in that. Those first 3 seasons are the fastest feeling and most enjoyable binge watching experience of all time.

Arrested Development had a very strong cult following (sadly lousy ratings) hence its demand for a reboot but honestly the first 3 seasons are a perfect bookend. It ends where it begins under similar circumstances but with opposite resolutions. One can only do so much for people who only think of themselves but are still somehow incapable of helping themselves. That was the lesson learned and leaving it there was right.

If you only know the series from its initial 3 season 53 episode run but never got around to the 4th and 5th season netflix run, you aren't missing anything. They're forgettable. The reboot is like those Gilligan's Island movies after that show ended or the Revenge of the Nerds movies that never made it to theaters. The fast paced humor is gone, the story is a mess, the premise restated during the opening credits is abandoned and instead of the narration helping fuel comedy, it turns into boring exposition most of the time. Like the plot and existence of the characters alone is meant to be the joke and the show was always about black comedy which it never was (more of a screwball comedy than anything else). I question if anyone involved in the reboot really wanted to do it for more than just money.

Albert Brooks comes full circle as a star/writer/director with this movie. From playing a fictionalized caricture of himself in Real Life to playing a fictionalized caricature of himself in Looking For Comedy in the Muslim World. This even has Penny Marshall in the beginning like his '76 short film about a comedian school. Its been 17 years since this was released and Brooks is now in his mid 70s so I doubt he will labor to handle all three tasks again.

Brooks doesn't play as much of a caricature of himself in this movie compared to Real Life and thats for the best. He is playing someone who is a fish out of water instead of someone who is comically tone deaf while being in over his head.

Brooks' comedy is driven by dry humor and subtle scenes that catch you off guard with the humor. Its almost like they aren't intended to make you laugh, you just do anyway. Subtle humor is less appreciated now with attention spans about as long as short hairs but if you give yourself time to pay attention instead of waiting to react, then you will like this movie.

The plot is about Brooks being tasked by the state department to find out what makes Muslims (and Hindis too as it turns out) laugh and it centers around the performing of a standup act. It is a product of its time ("Wars on Terror") which dates it but I found it enjoyable enough. Deserved kudos for not being particularly offensive too. There is a subtle line there that does not get crossed. Some looking for reasons to be angry might try to find something they consider wrong in this picture but that's more on them and not the movie.

As I said, this is somewhat dated and it surprisingly coincides with the actual increased tensions between India and Pakistan that occurred in the 2000s. I cant remember the exact year their strained relations made international news but i know it was before 2008. This film is also daring for American audiences considering 9/11 happened only a few years earlier and Bush's wars were raging upon its release. I can imagine war hawks hating this movie for one reason and anti war zealots hating it for other reasons and the rest who dont like it never were fans of subtle humor to begin with. I personally just think of comedy when watching a comedy and find this to be pure Brooks. It is even the theatrical debut of some of his vintage standup material. It isn't his best work but alot better than the reception it got and rating it has. People treat it like it's as lousy as the love guru.

Once the novelty of seeing Michael Keaton playing someone who played a superhero un the movies wears off, there is not too much more this film has to offer. It's worth to see Michael Keaton's performance and he is mostly why this still gets a positive rating.

The story is about an actor seeking to find his true identity as a performer, father and husband after learning he has been a bit of a caricature of all three most of his adult life. The story ends up being mostly about self acceptance and it doesn't offer much beyond just that. The subplots are forgettable and frankly, most stories revolving around the theater are pretty boring.

There are some darkly comic moments but not enough. I watched this again for the first time in years and I felt like i was watchung something that wasn't fleshed out and fully realized as a compelling story. It's unfortunate. Still, 7 stars for Michael Keaton. He clearly was playing someone he wasn't despite playing an actor. Or I should say he is a good actor playing one who isn't so good.

This was the first version of DOA I saw. Mainly because cable beat it to death when I was a kid. I have since seen the original which was a straight up film noir mystery. About covering up the sale of stolen uranium. That is definitely a product of its time with atomic warfare on people's minds once the USSR stole how to make such a bomb. The story was going to need to be updated which it is but how ridiculous can it get?

Basically the plot is about a college student who all these women are in love with and his college assignment which is a 400 page novel every9ne except his professor read. The story instead of becoming more suspensful as the mystery unravels grows dull and very very boring and there is not much mystery either. In the original, the story becomes very involved following one plotline before it diverts at tue very end. This version wanders and focuses on someone else's death before reaching the big reveal in the end. Looking back, i think I watched this because Quaid played his character like he was offbeat funny. A drunken writer who lost his touch and never bothered to try and recover it. A common story of all creative people once they reach middle age and begin to doubt themselves after making some clunkers as life becomes more complicated with age. I like that the main character was someone more interesting than a notary with a love interest but the reason for his murder is no less trivial.

It is well acted and I imagine all the actors involved got a kick out of doing a film noir which got to be very common in the 80s. Several remakes like this and a few originals like Fatal Attraction and Grifters were popping up quite a bit. This era even produced the Chinatown sequel.

I suppose I just don't buy the plot or some college student generating so much interest without doing very much to prove it at that stage of his academic career. Why did who read the book bother reading it in the first place? That was too random and outlandlish to be believed. Why did this writer manage to have so many conveniently vital affairs to further the narrative? It tries to have a sort of Chinatown type plot twist in the middle. Maybe if the student's character were better developed it might be more interesting. Instead, the big surprise in the end doesn't make too much sense to me because it isn't believable.

..over Dave Chappelle allegedly going rogue with his opening monologue. Kudos to him for reminding anyone who still bothers to watch SNL that words aren't assault weapons. They are words. We don't have to give them power or weight if we choose not to. It is our business to listen or ignore them. Did anyone not make it to Sunday morning's sunrise after Dave Chappelle opened his mouth on national TV? No one was harmed? Imagine that. People sure do act like they were legitimately threatened or is it just in their mind? Then maybe the people screaming bloody muder over sentences uttered in a comical way should get a life and find something better to do with their time and money instead of pretending words actually harm people. They don't. They never will. If you want to come across as deranged thinking in such a way then keep it to yourselves. I know the arguement is that harmful language can damage mental health and yet, the more concern over language, the worse mental health is becoming. Dramatically worse in the last 5 years alone. Imagine that...As they used to say in the 70s when this show really meant something "F---'em if they cant take a joke". The them is anyone who gives comedians additional celebrity status by being outraged over the words they say. Again, get a life and SNL still needs a better writing staff. This season has been dreck so far.

Social commentary today in entertainment is an insult to the audience. There is no art behind the way the messaging comes across. Now you will see literal lectures on the screen and be bored out of your mind until you change the channel. Ths movie is the opposite to that approach.

The point of the movie is the final scene where the couple's conflict reaches its conclusion. I for one think the woman is insane the entire film and Joyce Van Pattan is great at playing characters who are somewhat off. Also, the film gets a little hallucinatory which adds to how the story takes place. Alot of it is like a deranged dream.

The resson I watched this is Yaphet Kotto who is great in anything he did. He isn't the straight man in a comedy (like Midnight Run) he is simply part of it. The role is such a change of pace from what he would be later known for (personally that's the movie I mentioned and 7 seasons of H:LOTS) that this is a real treat to watch.

Also it is entertaining as an offbeat black comedy. So few in comedy understood how to manage creating dark humor, but Larry Cohen wasn't one of them. There is just enough humor to lighten the seriousness of the content. I think I would show this movie to a class to so they can see how it is done right.

This is a 70s movie of course so the pacing is a bit slow, that can take a little getting used to but it's worth it.

This is an 80s action movie with a clunky plot about rigged lotteries. I put this in the same class as Jumpin Jack Flash. Both are mid 80s action comedies with clunky plots. They have no flow at all causing the movie to stall at times. That gets tedious. That's when you start noticing how your butt is getting numb in tue seat and the mind starts to wander like wondering if you should bother going to the bathroom or what you will eat later. Your mind looks for something, anything more interesting than what you are seeing.

The unintentional comedy in this flick is Meat Loaf's portrayal of a mute psychopathic henchman. He manages the facial expressions and all but just being ugly doesn't make you a convincing bad guy. I think if he played it as someone trying to be friendly, it would have been 10 times more creepy and effective. He doesn't ruin the movie but he makes me laugh just looking at him. I think he was trying to be a little like Hugh Keays-Byrne in Mad Max with the staring.

Michael Keaton is great in just about everything and he would go on to do better work. Rae Dawn Chong unfortunately is mostly only remembered for movies of this caliber because she didn't get too many leading roles later in her career. She is good in this. Actually, the overall cast is pretty good but I dont know, the script or directing or both fail in a major way.

I am not giving away much, we see Martin rright at the start attacking a woman, slashing her wrists then drinking her blood. The scene has a strangely intimate feel about it. There is very little ambiguity about where Martin is coming from.

I rate this fairly high because it is an interesting twist on an old premise and though it is mired in the 70s and has the usual pacing from the era, it remains a fresh, often disturbing psychological thriller.

Also the ending was a little too predictable to me but that aside, it is pure George Romero in terms of gore. I might even consider this one of his top 2 or 3 considering it is not a straight up horror movie.

I still have the book version of this movie. I am not sure if it was an original screenplay or novel first because the writing is so dense that it xould have come from a very involved novel.

Tje story is about a modern, perhaps overly sensitive detective played by Michael Moriarty who is the son of a prominent member of the force. He is disrespected and dismissed as a byproduct of nepotism. He stumbles on a criminal investigation being led by an undercover detective who is building a case against a drug kingpin while being his lover. This detective has alot of anonymous fame and is an acknowledged star on the force. Things roll on from there as the plot twists and curves toward a "Mexican standoff", career politicans and self serving officers exploiting situations and a very tragic but inevitable conclusion.

There is alot of character development. These characters are not empty vessels but are fully realized. Very strong script. Highly recommended although the narration does get in the way from time to time. It really is not neccessary.

Bronk was a short lived 70s cop drama that likely got stereotyped and dismissed as just another cop drama. The show actually does an excellent job at being unique during a time when the genre filled the tv schedule. This show debuted in 1975 surrounded by Kojak, Baretta, Starsky & Hutch among others already on the air but the focus is more on story and character than 70s made for TV action. There are some things I didn't care for like adding idiosyncratic identifiers to the title character. I guess they felt they needed something, it was the era for them, if it wasnt lollipops it was birds or in this case, a pipe.

This final episode feels like a pilot for a new show. Vic Morrow is the main character here with all of the series regulars, even Jack Palance's Bronk himself popping in for a scene or two like they were added in after the fact. Morrow plays a detective whose office is in a carnival behind the merry-go-round. He is hired by the sister of a murder victim to track down his killer who is a vigilante played by Cameron Mitchell. There is alot going on and the hour long episode feels like a good movie in its own right.

The series is worth checking out and this final episode is different but excellent for the era. A shame they couldn't build more off it.

Personally, I don't remember anything about this episode except for one skit and it is a classic IF you are a fan of the movie i mentioned which I am. Farewell My Lovely was a 1975 movie starring Robert Mitchum, Charlotte Rampling, John Ireland, Anthony Zerbie, Harry Dean Stanton, Joe Spinell and a very young Sylvester Stallone. It was a film adaptation of the Raymond Chandler book with the same title and anyone who read Philip Marlowe novels knows the strange metaphors and similes the main character uses. The movie went crazy with them (even Naked Gun recreated part of a scene from this movie) and the skit made the most of the way the narration was used and the type of dialogue heard n that film. They went so far as to copy some camera angles and feature it in black and white like a 40s film noir.

Anyway, that skit stuck with me. Aside from the large glasses Mitchum wears and his saying he is looking forward to the after party, i dont remember anything else. Hence my not rating it.

I give it 5 for nostaglia but this really is a lousy movie. To begin with, I don't think anyone involved in it wanted to do it but the $$$$ was too much to ignore.

Where the premise in the first was far fetched but not all that goofy (they did a better job of selling the prospect of the events leading to the end of the world the first time), here it is just plain goofy. A sea of ectoplasm fills the sewer system and alters the moods of New Yorkers to make them behave and act even worse than usual.

Again, they get in trouble with the law, again the government needs them to bail them out. This happens twice in this same movie. Its like they couldn't develop a more interesting adversary so twice the government takes that role. An artist's rendition of a vlad the impaler type of historic figure plays a role. The humor is more family friendly so it gets really cheesy and dull at times.

The strangest thing about this movie and what stuck with me the most over the years is Peter McNicol's very bizarre performance. I swear, i never got this character out of my mind when seeing him in anything else since. It had the same effect on me as Moranis' role in the first movie. The Louis Tully character is lousy in this one by the way. Very poorly written.

I can't recommend sitting through this outside of nostaglia and morbid curiosity. As I said, anyone who liked this in 5th grade was mocked. The cool movie around that time was called Die Hard. Sitting through this is like trying to sit through that Dragnet movie because Tom Hanks and Dan Aykroyd are in it....