Change Your Image
![](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ4MTY5NzU2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc5NTgwMTI@._V1_SY100_SX100_.jpg)
cmndtericlassard
Reviews
Ladybugs (1992)
Not Rodney's finest hour...
Man, this movie is even cheesier than I recall. It's somehow totally obvious and yet totally preposterous at the same time. But there are a few reasons to watch if you ever happen to catch it on light-night cable. First, Rodney Dangerfield is always worth a look. Every line of dialogue he has is invariably a one-liner. In LADYBUGS, most of those one-liners are embarrassingly forced, but every once in a while he comes up with a good one, well-timed. Secondly, Jonathan Brandis- who has since died a tragically Hollywood, drug-related death- is actually pretty good. He was one of those rare child actors who could actually hold his own. He's natural and not nearly as annoying as you would think. Finally, the beautiful Vinessa Shaw is always captivating, even in her early teens.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Strange, uneven sci-fi adventure to the Red Planet...
Two big-budget MARS films opened in 2000, thanks to the usual idea shortage between rival studios. (In some cases, this sort of conceptual movie-dual can lead to two successful, interesting projects, like ANTZ and BUGS LIFE or, to a lesser degree, ARMEGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT). But with the case of MISSION TO MARS and RED PLANET, there didn't seem to be a single great idea (or profit to be made) between either film. MISSION TO MARS is probably the better film (and if so, not by much) simply because it's a little bit weirder and a little less predictable than RED PLANET. The adventure begins promisingly, with a fine cast (TIM ROBBINS, GARY SINESE, DON CHEADLE)and a cool setting (a voyage between planets, set in the near future.) But with every new plot development comes an unanswered question, and the end result is a disappointing jumble and confusing time-travel nonsense.
Scarface (1983)
Not exactly a masterpiece, no matter what you read in "The Source."
Brian DePalma's "Scarface" is entertaining, exciting, intense, sometimes very intelligent, and often carried by Al Pacino's captivating lead performance. However, it doesn't live up to the "Greatest Film in Cinema History" title that the hip-hop community has bestowed upon it. There are some scenes that look positively cartoonish when compared to some of Scorsese's gangster epics. The cinematography, set design, costumes, and music are all lively and colorful, but sometimes make the whole story seem trapped in cheesy 80s excess. Ten years later, Pacino and DePalma reunited for "Carlito's Way", and that film was, in my opinion, even better than "Scarface." Sophisticated and genuinely emotional, and not a bit over-rated.