Reviews

I found the spin-off to be much less humorous than the original. The loss of Paul Haggis and Kathy Slevin, as well as the demotion of Jeff King, are evident in the choppy, annoying, and over-the-top plots and characterisations that flaw the twenty-six episodes of this series. The character of Benton Fraser relaxes a great deal this time, losing the stuffiness that marked his character in the original series. Ray Kowalski is an interesting character, but cannot replace Ray Vecchio from the original "Due South", which leaves a hole in this series. This is the typical last-ditch spin-off, hoping to draw viewers in by using some of the characters/actors from the cancelled show, but fails because they brought in the wrong ones. If Marciano ever saw any of the scripts for this show, it's not surprising that he chose not to reprise the role he played in the original series.

I was very disappointed to hear in 1995 that "Due South" was being canceled, because it was one of the few interesting Canadian/American endeavors to hit the tube in years. Paul Gross and David Marciano were well-matched as partners, and were what made the series fun. It's surprising that "Due South" rated so poorly in both Canada and America, because it had a wit and humor that is often lacking in some of the more popular American dramas. Benton Fraser (Gross) and Ray Vecchio (Marciano) launch pithy one-liners off of each other, never batting an eyelash when the other does something that seems outlandish to them. Fraser can be a tad over-exaggerated as a result of the American desire to create the stereotypical Canadian, but this seems to decrease somewhat in the second season, after the US stepped away from the show. Marciano continues through both seasons to be well-written and funny, both with his personal fashion sense and his large, over-bearing family. A nice get-away from the usual violent cop show.

"Police Academy" sets itself apart from the following six films in that it is not suitable for children. Each of the films which came after could easily be enjoyed by a younger age group, but the nudity and sexual content in this film pushed it up to mature rating.

The "Police Academy" series is one of the finest examples of successful succession comedy in film history. Never has there been a series, any series, that has lasted so long, yet still managed to entertain. This isn't supposed to be some sort of Zen experience; the "Police Academy" series is supposed to be light-hearted, kind of slap stick, all-around good fun. No great cathartic experience needed. What makes these movies timeless is that people who enjoyed these movies in their twenties when they first came out can now enjoy them with their children, because they know that the movie isn't filled with the typical language, nudity, and violence to be found in so many films today.

"Saving Private Ryan" is an interesting film. As far as basis in fact goes, this movie rests on the truthful scale somewhere between "Titanic" and "Star Wars". About the only thing Spielberg got right was the fact that there was a war going on at the time. He owes both the Niland and Sullivan families very sincere apologies for butchering what he originally claimed was "their true story".

I had a harder time judging this movie on a reality scale. In some ways, the movie was very gripping and realistic, but in other ways, Spielberg failed miserably. In Spielberg's WWII, there were two groups of people. The horrible, murdering Nazis, and the good ol' boys of the US. I may be biased because I currently reside in Canada, but I know that there were probably just as many Canadian (not to mention British and others) troops roaming around during WWII. I admit they did do a tolerable job on the WWII ambience, but did very poorly on creating a realistic military environment.

Saving Private Ryan was a good movie, and well worth every penny it cost to see eight times in the theater (eight different groups of friends), but I wouldn't laud it as a fabulous war film, nor would I use it to teach military history, as some schools are considering doing. There were two things that really hurt the movie; 1) Spielberg's Hollywoodization of the film and his insistance on hiring over-aged big-name actors; 2) Spielberg's insistance (until recently) that Saving Private Ryan was a "true story". Spielberg would have done better hiring some relatively unknowns and making clear the film was fiction. It may have just been me, but seeing Matt Damon as Private Ryan made me wish they had just left him there. Matt Damon was the Hollywood heart-throb after "Good Will Hunting", and it was so obvious it was Spielberg's way of pulling in the teen crowd. I was surprised he didn't hire the DiCaprio boy.

"Saving Private Ryan" wasn't the best film of the year, but it was by no means the worst. I recommend it to anyone over 18 who is looking for an entertaining, hard-hitting way to pass three hours. The scenes on the beach really are well done and excellently written (makes it easy to overlook the mistakes), and while the movie does drag at times, it's worth taking a look-see. I would not suggest allowing children to see this movie, because many of the scenes are highly graphical and highly disturbing. I have no plans on letting my children see this film until they're old enough to understand that film isn't reality, and that Saving Private Ryan is just as fictional as most war films ("G. I. Jane", "Courage Under Fire", etc). If military films are a real interest, I would suggest either adaptation of "The Thin Red Line". It is more realistic than "Saving Private Ryan", and as opposed to the fictional Saving Private Ryan, "The Thin Red Line" has a high basis in fact.

Long have I been an Anthony Perkins fan, so I looked forward to seeing this movie when it came on the television in a recent horror-thon. I was left disappointed with his role, but intrigued by the writing and cinematography of the rest.

Horror is typically a slice 'em and dice 'em film fest where the viewer doesn't care who lives and who dies as long as the movie ends. "I'm Dangerous Tonight" supplied little in the way of well-known talent, but show-cased some unknown actors that did fairly well despite small, insignificant roles.

Dee Wallace Stone had great on-screen charisma in this movie as a woman possessed, proving once again that she is truly the queen of the low-grade horror films. Peter Brooks was mismatched in his role as self-centered football legend; he would have made a better Joker-wannabe in some "Batman" remake. Mädchen Amick, who lost a lot of brownie points when she broke into soft erotica a few years ago, is both innocent and refreshing in her role as Amy, and plays well off of her on-screen love Corey Parker, despite a script which is noticeably weak and shaky.

The flaws with this movie remain mostly in the lack of real characterization, and cheap theatrics. A horror movie is supposed to be either so real it scares you to death, or so cheesy you can barely stop laughing. "I'm Dangerous Tonight" manages to fall short in both categories, merely leaving you scratching your head and going, "Huh?" The script bandies around some heavy terms, but doesn't bother to explain them properly, and it's easy to leave the viewers scrambling for a dictionary to figure out what is going on.

All in all, the movie rates a 7 on a scale of "good movie VS. bad movie", but only 3 on the scale of "good horror VS. bad horror". Tobe Hooper has directed a number of excellent horrific films and shorts throughout the years, but "I'm Dangerous Tonight" (as well as the 1993 TV horror "Body Bags") is definitely not one of his better endeavors.

I first saw this movie in the mid-eighties when it was new, then again recently when my 12-yr-old son brought it home with him.

"Howard the Duck" may not have been the movie of the century, but it was an interesting adaptation. George Lucas has always impressed me with his choice of projects, because he humanizes each element. "Howard the Duck" isn't about a duck who lands on Earth and desires acceptance, but about the people already here who are different in some way. The character of the duck faces a great deal of prejudice from many of the people he meets, rarely finding understanding from anyone. The character of Beverly (Lea Thompson) takes a chance on him.

It is by no means the most intelligent movie ever made, but it does have a number of interesting moments. Like the recent smash hit "Starship Troopers", this movie is very satirical in nature, and pokes fun at the basest of human instinct and intregrity, but is still simple enough for a pre-teen to understand what's going on. Most importantly, Lucas maintains his high standards of quality with "Howard the Duck". There is no nudity (except for an interesting duck shot), little language, and low violence content. This is also an excellent effort from the seldom-seen Willard Huyck and partner Gloria Katz, and the costumes and make-up were very well-done for a mid-eighties movie.

Primary slasher film? I don't think so, Mr. Clark. "Black Christmas" had the potential to be as well-done as the ultimate in slasher/stalker films, 1960's "Psycho", but it fell short of it's mark with a weak, fairly non-existent ending. The build-up in the movie is well-done, with very little of the nudity and gore that marks the modern-day horror film, but the plot is full of holes, and the theory very lukewarm.

Where this movie does excel is in the casting and acting. Olivia Hussey, probably best known for being the nude Juliet in the 1968 version of "Romeo & Juliet", brings her character to life in her portrayal. Hussey is always a treat to watch, as she is one of the most talented actresses to hit the screen in years, but her "Black Christmas" role falls shy when compared to her role in the 1979 remake of "The Cat and the Canary". Even her roles in the fourth installment of the "Psycho" series, and Stephen King's televised "It" were better written than this particular role.

This movie made a name for itself in the mid-seventies with the abortion storyline, which is one of the many reasons it still survives to this day. No, it's not the worst movie ever made, but to call this movie a "slasher" film is grossly inaccurate. The focal point of a slasher film isn't the blood and gore (a requirement), but the ending, which should leave the viewer feeling vindicated. Me, I got up and changed the channel. A 3 out of 10.