Reviews

Episodic comedy television had become so mundane as of late that it had gotten difficult to discern one show from another. Cookie cutter scripts and shallow, lifeless characters have become the norm and I was beginning to feel like it might be the end of the line for it. Enter Ted Lasso. An unassuming show about a football coach who infects the viewer with his eternal optimism. When you say it out loud, it doesn't churn up visions of an amazing show, but from the first scene of episode 1 you begin to really like Ted and his strange jovial ways. His disarming personality begins to win over everyone on the show and the viewers alike rendering Ted Lasso into must watch TV. I can say in all honesty that it has been a pleasure to watch and I look forward to each week's new show with jovial enthusiasm.

Mothman Prophecies is one of those movies that, despite its shortcomings in story or pacing, make up for it with atmosphere and the hair standing up on the back of your neck eeriness. There is just something so moody, foreboding, and genuinely unsettling about this film. Its not scary or a horror film in the traditional sense, but watch it alone in the dark and try not to get uneasy in parts. The acting in the film is superb, with an all star cast including Richard Gere, the amazing Laura Linney, and vastly underrated Will Patton among others. Their acting sells this movie. I found myself drawn to their characters regardless of the blandness of the script itself. Credit must also be given to Mark Pellington, the director, for taking a so-so script and crafting a truly creepy and underrated gem from it. I find myself watching this again and again if it happens to be on TV, and it has become one of those guilty pleasure movies for me that I watch just about anytime I see it on along with The Green Mile, Signs, The Shawshank Redemption, and O' Brother, Where Art Thou?. Definitely worth a look, but be forewarned, don't watch it alone in the dark.

Universal Studios The Wolf Man is a film that has stood the test of time and has influenced every lycanthropy film that has followed it. George Waggner directs the script by Curt Siodmak to perfection. Lon Chaney Jr's casting and performance as the doomed Larry Talbot was brilliant. He projected a lot of his real life pain and sadness into the part and what we were left with was cinematic gold. I'd venture to say that outside of The Bride of Frankenstein, this may have been the finest film of the golden age of Universal Horror. The cast was superb, the set design immaculate, and the music both moving and unsettling at times. Add into that the amazing special effects makeup wizardry of Jack Pierce and you have a movie for the ages. As I'm writing this, we are only months away from the 80th anniversary of the release of this movie and it is still a screen gem and is still a massive influence on the horror genre to this day.

I read about 150 to 200 user reviews for this before I watched it. When it comes to movies, I feel theres no better guage of how truly good a movie is than to get a concensus on it from the IMDB users. Movie critic reviews are never something I take into account because they are basically a bunch of art house cinema snobs who try to compare every movie to Citizen Kane or Apocalypse Now. I like to get the pulse of the real people before investing my time in a movie.

That brings us to Hubie Halloween, the latest Netflix offering from Adam Sandler. I must say, I watched it opposite my better judgment based on the generally poor reviews I read. Mostly unendearing to the viewers seemed to be his accent and the unnecessary need for it. I can't say I'm a fan of it, as I feel its Sandlers childish way of demonstrating a member of low I.Q. in our society and that can be borderline offensive to anyone who knows or has raised a child with mental disability. That being said, I watched it anyway at the behest of my children.

From moment one, you knew this wasn't going to win any awards. It was a standard Happy Madison movie with the usual cast of hooligans (including a startlingly "old" looking Steve Buscemi). I can't say it wasn't nice seeing Adam Sandler and Julie Bowen back together on screen again after 25 years and I loved the small cameo from Ben Stiller as his sadistic orderly character from Happy Gilmore, handlebar mustache and all. Would've loved a Shooter McGavin appearance at some point, but that didn't happen. Irregardless, when the movie was over I found myself having laughed at it more often than I cringed at the ludicrousness of it. Most importantly however, my kids enjoyed it and I think that was the target audience anyway and they nailed it. In the end, this was just a funny family Halloween film and it deserves the respect its due. It was dumb fun and worth the 102 minutes to watch it.

After seeing 'Pixels' several times now thanks to Starz, I can't help but wonder why the movie was panned so badly by critics and fans alike during its theatrical run? It's an enjoyable film with funny characters, tight direction by family film veteran Chris Columbus, a decent script, and good acting by everyone involved. My only guess is that the backlash is due to one factor and one factor only - Adam Sandler and his Happy Madison crew were involved in the project. Not that Sandler was bad in the film, he was as good as he ever was. I think it's more of a bias built on a foundation of bad/sub-par movies that Sandler has released in recent years (i.e. "Grown Up's 2", "Just Go With It", "Jack and Jill", "That's My Boy" etc.), but I think that people are letting their resentment of Sandler cloud their judgement on this film which is a delightful family film rooted in a ton of 80's arcade game nostalgia.

The film and everyone involved don't deserve that and if people would just ease up on their biases a bit then they'd see that the movie is a fun fantasy romp with likable characters and an interesting premise developed from a French short film of the same name. Sure the story is far-fetched, but it was a fun ride and is a movie that is a great Saturday night flick with the kids.

Not to go into too much detail, but the premise of the story is simple - It is 1982 and Sam Brenner (Sandler) is a teenage arcade game whiz who is talked into enter the World Video Game Championships by his friend Will Cooper (James). During the championships, Sam and Will meet another contestant, an eccentric young kid named Ludlow Lamansoff (Gad). In the finals Sam has to face-off with Eddie "Fireblaster" Plant (Dinklage), another teenage arcade game whiz. Sam eventually loses to Plant and it haunts him for the rest of his life. In the current day, Sam has grown up to become a Audio/Video installer and Will Cooper has become the President of the United States. After a mysterious attack it is discovered that a video of the 1982 World Championships was sent into outer space on a probe. The probe was intercepted by an alien civilization and the games on the video were misinterpreted as a threat by the aliens who proceed to develop weaponry similar tot he games to battle Earth in winner-take-all battle. Once it is discovered that the aliens are using old arcade games to fight us, President Cooper employs Sam, Ludlow, and Eddie to help use their old-school gamer skills to team up and stave off the attackers.

Again, this a fun movie that really ignites old-school arcade/video game nostalgia and does a great job of interweaving old games into the modern time-line of the film. I highly recommend it to anyone.

I purposely waited 24 hours before writing my review because I wanted to digest the film that long to truly take it in and reflect before I actually reviewed it. I wanted the euphoria of seeing the next chapter of the saga on the big screen to subside some so that I can make an objective review, but alas the euphoria has not subsided and the childlike excitement is still at an 11! This is plain and simply a great Star Wars film! In fact, I feel it is the second best offering of the franchise (behind 'The Empire Strikes Back'). From the opening crawl to the epic and somewhat moving final scene the movie kept you on the edge of your seat.

Even now, 24 hours later, I'm still left in awe of what Abrams has done. He has ignited a passion in me that has lied dormant for a decade thanks to the dreadful prequel trilogy. After Episode III I vowed never to see another George Lucas Star Wars film ever again. The prequels were cheesy (and not in a good way) and lacked imagination. They borrowed heavily from the expanded universe (which flies in the face of his original assertion that he had planned out the prequels before Episode IV was even made) and spat in the face of Star Wars fans everywhere. Lucas is now (thankfully) out of the picture and in steps admitted Star Wars fan boy J.J. Abrams who is quickly establishing himself as this generations Steven Spielberg. Abrams intention was to reignite the franchise and call upon his own boyhood wonderment when seeing the original trilogy for the first time and try to recreate that with the sequel by meshing old and new to weave a new chapter in the saga. What Abrams has done so well here is he's managed to keep the older cast members relevant while also creating new characters who feel like they've always been part of the story. He's been able to expertly bridge the generation gap and bond the older cast members with the new ones to create a cohesive story that is not only enjoyable to watch, but really FEELS like a Star Wars film from the epic battle scenes, music, costumes, sets - every part of the film, even down to the bits and pieces that Rey scavenges oozes STAR WARS and it is fantastic.

I won't delve into the plot for fear of spoiling it, but the film obviously revolves around a core of new characters in the Star Wars Universe - Rey, a young scavenger who lives on the desert planet of Jakku, Finn a former Stormtrooper who is desperate to escape the clutches of The First Order, Poe Dameron the top fighter pilot of the Resistance and his trusty droid BB-8, and Kylo Ren, a member of the First Order and a wannabe Sith who acts as the main antagonist of the film. There are other supporting cast including General Hux, a First Order General, Captain Phasma, the leader of the Stormtroopers, Maz Kanata, a pirate and collector of artifacts, and Supreme Leader Snoke who is the leader of the First Order. Several former characters are weaved into the film with Han Solo and Chewbacca seeing the majority of the screen time from that group. The connection between old and new is a constant theme in the film and it is pulled off masterfully. The film is an emotional roller-coaster from beginning to end and is a movie that I will always cherish thanks to it's re- ignition of my love for the franchise. There isn't much more that I can say other than if you are even remotely a fan of the Star Wars Universe you owe it to yourself to see this. Even if you are not, there is a lot to keep you entertained here and you never know, it may turn you into a fan of the franchise if you're not careful, regardless quit reading this and go see it!

...I just got to when it comes to "Riptide". I hadn't seen the show since it's original airing back in the mid 1980's, and while browsing on Amazon, I saw the season one DVD set for $8.99. I decided that, at that price, I couldn't pass it up. Since I was an adolescent when I originally viewed the show, I wasn't sure whether I'd still like it or if it will have suffered with age and become "cheesy" and unwatchable. I'm happy to say that after watching the first 13 episodes of the show, I'm glad I took the plunge again.

The show is fresh and vibrant and gleans with a cheeky, almost child-like essence. The stories are interesting, gripping, and best of all, action-packed and exciting. It's no mystery why the show is so good; it was created by Stephen J. Cannell, one of the greatest television writers in history and creator of such hit shows as "The A-Team", "The Rockford Files", and "21 Jumpstreet". The characters, as in all Cannell creations, are interesting and likable, and pop off the screen in a larger-than-life way.

"Riptide" centers around the Pier 56 detective agency run by friends Nick Ryder (Joe Penny), Cody Allen (Perry King), and Murray "Boz" Bozinski (Thom Bray). Nick and Cody are your typical p.i. jock-types who rely on their strength and machismo, while Boz is a "computer geek" who uses science and technology to assist Nick and Cody in their investigations and is the voice of intellect and reason of the group. Unlike most P.I. shows of the era, "Riptide" took place mostly on the water which kept the show fresh.

In all, it wasn't the best show of the era, but it certainly is one of the most underrated and easily one of the most forgotten. It is fun and fresh and worth a view, especially if you've never seen an episode or haven't seen one in a long time.

"The Ghost of Frankenstein" is significant thanks in large part to the fact that it is the first time the Universal/Jack Pierce "Monster" is played by someone other than Boris Karloff. Lon Chaney Jr. gets the daunting task of trying to follow Karloff the Uncanny, and although he plays an adequately scary Monster, his characterization lacks the looks and feelings of the classic Karloff Monster. This is also the first film to star the "sleepy" Monster - where the makeup clovers the actor's eyes in such a way to insinuate that the Monsters eyes are either closed or barely open. This was likely done in an effort to mask the fact that the character was not portrayed by Karloff and eventually just became a trademark of the Monster look that we know today.

"The Ghost of Frankenstein" is a decent addition to the Universal monster library and was a movie viewed many times during my childhood on Saturday Night Creature Features. The story has more holes than a wedge of swiss cheese and the acting (at times) is just as bad. That being said, it is still a classic Universal Monsters film and has all of the earmarks of such from the music to the beautiful black and white, to the cast which includes the likes of such Universal monster mainstays as Lon Chaney Jr, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Ralph Bellamy, Evelyn Ankers, and Cedric Hardwicke. Overall, a decent entry, but there is much better to be had.

When the Wolfhouse brothers, Jan and Todd, travel to Oktoberfest in Germany to honor the ashes of their recently departed grandfather, they are inadvertently thrust into the world of Beerfest - an international beer drinking games competition. The competition just so happens to be dominated by the German team - comprised mainly of their own relatives the Von Wolfhausens who also just so happen to despise the American Wolfhouse's. Jan and Todd are challenged to a drinking contest with two members of the German team and are thoroughly beaten and humiliated. They crawl back home to the states with their tales between their legs, vowing to form a team and to win Beerfest the following year. With their friends Landfill, Barry, and Fink they create their team and set out to train for Beerfest. What ensues is hilarity of the highest order.

Beerfest is a great comedy even for people who aren't beer drinkers (whoever those people may be), although this movie is FAR better being watched with a pint of frosty brew in hand. It is escapist fare that accomplishes its goal - to make you laugh out loud and to make you thirsty for all the beautiful beer you can drink. So go grab some brew, drink up, and enjoy the show.

Roger Cobb (William Katt of "Carrie" and "The Greatest American Hero" fame) is a conflicted writer who inherits his aunts creepy old house after she mysteriously and suddenly commits suicide in one of the upstairs rooms. Roger's life is in shambles thanks to the disappearance of his son from that very house, an event that not only ruins his marriage but sends Roger spiraling into an abyss of uncertainty and distress. Roger essentially spends the rest of the movie dealing with the strange goings-on in the house, which may be haunted, as well as dealing with his own personal demons and dealing with his snoop of a neighbor, played memorably by George Wendt.

I am probably the only person in history who saw 'House II' before seeing the original 'House', and prefers part II to the original, but that is neither here nor there. 'House' is an extremely original story that has become somewhat of a cult classic as the years wear on. I must admit to absolutely hating the film the first time I saw it back in 1988. I rented it on a whim after scanning titles at my local video store (based mainly on my liking of part II) and remember thinking it was about as bad of a movie as I had ever seen. Several years later I was up late one night, sick with a head cold and unable to sleep, and decided to watch some TV. I happened across 'House' being shown on the local late, late movie. This was before the days of 900+ channels so my choices were limited. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was either watch 'House' or a Don Lapre "making money" infomercial. Needless to say I chose the movie. I couldn't believe it. Despite my earlier feelings on the movie I found myself enjoying the movie very much. The kooky weirdness and 'Evil Dead'-like tongue-in-cheek comedy is just what the doctor ordered when you are looking for an escape from the cut and dry crap that finds its way out of Hollywood nowadays. I have owned this film on DVD for many years, and although it isn't a movie that I would come back to over and over, it is still a great horror comedy to watch when you haven't seen it in a while.

An interesting flick from the 1980's that I am sorry to say I only watched for the first time today. I distinctly remember the cover art and recall seeing the VHS case several times while scanning the titles at my local rental stores over the years. I just never took the time to rent the film; always choosing some other flick - some good (Critters, Fright Night, Return of the Living Dead), and some not so good (Creepshow 2, Terrorvision, Spookies).

A unique sequence of events led to me watching this film. A violent electrical storm hit early this morning and I was awoken to the sound of our dogs barking their heads off. I found myself unable to fall back asleep afterward so I decided to watch a bit of TV. I started scanning the guide and I happened to run across "Zone Troopers" on a local station and decided to finally watch it, and boy was I surprised. The movie was actually entertaining and I felt kinda bad for not giving it a chance years ago. Although the story is as far fetched as they come and the believability factor scores an 0.01 out of 100, I still found myself entertained and quite amused. 'Zone Troopers' is a solid 1980's Sci-Fi offering and is definitely worth the 1 and 1/2 hours it takes to watch it.

Although this documentary was a nice, brisk walk down memory lane, it failed to truly tap into what made these weekend horror-hosts so appealing and why they are thought so fondly of now.

The filmmakers had their hearts in the right place when they ventured on this endeavor, but it falls short in so many places. First and foremost is the almost machine-gun style they employ with their interview snippets. Each snippet is about 5 seconds long or so on average and seem to be thrown into the documentary at random places, without any real structure to it at all. Second is the length of the interview snippets. I would have loved to have heard more from people like Chuck Schowdowski, Jim Hendricks, and Joe Bob Briggs. The filmmakers chose to focus so much attention on trailblazers like Zacherley, Vampira, and Baron Daemon- which was fine, but they jipped the fans of latter day horror hosts like Commander USA, Sammy Terry, Joe Bob Briggs, Big Chuck & Lil' John, Son of Svengoolie, Son of Ghoul, Elvira, etc. I think the filmmakers got caught in the unfortunate web of making a documentary for themselves rather than for the fans of horror hosting in general which limits the scope of what this documentary could be.

Not to mention that they basically failed to show anything remotely resembling a horror con which are so important in keeping the memories of these old horror hosts (as well as movies and actors/actresses) alive and help fans get closer to the people they watched every week and idolized.

In the end it was a solid effort, but a more in depth documentary focusing less on the origins of horror hosting and focusing more on the impact over the broad history of horror hosting and why it's memory still burns so brightly now is a necessary follow-up. I would like to see something that caters to the fan side of the screen. Something that delves into the cultural impact that these horror-hosts made and does not neglect the horror hosts of the late 1970's throughout the 1980's and 1990's (which is the era that most of the DVD buyers likely remember the most).

Here's a suggestion - why not use a portion of the documentary following someone like Kevin "Son of Ghoul" Scarpino or Joe Bob Briggs around as they attend the horror conventions to get a up close and personal look at how these hosts have impacted the culture and help get more of a casual fans perspective. I would have been far more interested in watching the interaction between these hosts and the fans for an hour and a half than almost anything.

Again, a solid effort that has it's heart in the right place but suffers from being a salute to the filmmakers favorite hosts rather than to the industry as a whole.

Although this movie is quite dated (as is evidenced by Dirk Benedicts awesome 80's-style pleated leather pants at the beginning of the film) it is still a good representation of how the old wrestling territories/promoters used to operate before the WWF/NWA/WCW took over and essentially eliminated the need for them.

The movie is a nice time capsule if you were into wrestling in that era, and that is all. If you weren't a fan of wrestling, then you will find nothing of this movie that would appeal to you whatsoever (outside of the still smoking hot Tanya Roberts who looks AMAZING in this movie). It is about 1980's wrestling and 1980's wrestling promotion - period.

Still, despite the obvious cheesiness that the movie exudes and its ultra-adherence to 1980's fashion/fads, it is still fun for the particular demographic of movie fan that would appreciate it. I remember watching this movie on a rainy, boring Saturday afternoon as a kid on a local independent station back in 1987/1988 and instantly loved the movie. I could only recommend it for the true wrestling fans out there, but not for anyone else.

Is there any wonder why television programming in the 1980's was so diverse, imaginative, and richly entertaining as opposed to the relentless carbon copy cop drama/forensic expert/new age sitcom shows that populate every inch of network television nowadays? "The Greatest American Hero" is an example of a show that thrived and entertained nearly 30 years ago, but wouldn't even get a look from network execs if the idea were presented to them now. "The Greatest American Hero" is part of the same bygone era of television that produced other nearly-forgotten classics like "The A-Team", "Simon & Simon", "Cheers", "Dallas", "The Dukes of Hazzard", "Miami Vice", "Night Court", "Murder, She Wrote", and "Family Ties" for example. The shows were charming, fresh, and full of life and did not dwell on negative story lines, over-charged sexuality, or dreary blue-tinted film-making. Sure the shows were corny and sometimes even unrealistic, but they never failed to entertain and they were all family-friendly which is something you CAN NOT say about just about any show on TV nowadays, cable or network. Hell, up until about a year ago, you couldn't even watch wrestling with your children without having to have them turn their heads to avoid seeing a near-pornographic scene ensue in the ring or some scantily clad woman parading around in tiny underwear that would make even Hugh Hefner blush.

This is one of the reasons I love "The Greatest American Hero" so much. It was an imaginative show that had a story (not quite unique or original since it borrowed from several DC comics story lines including The Green Lantern) that was not required to be linear in any way and they could introduce a fresh program each week that was established and easily wrapped up in the hour time slot. The acting was great and the writing was (most of the time) adequate. Like a fine wine, this show has gotten better with age, and as the generation x'ers who watched this show as children and young adults begin to grow into adulthood and approach middle-age, they begin to want to experience the shows of their youth once more and share those joys with their children, exposing a whole new generation to programming that was fast paced and wildly entertaining - thus giving the show a second or even a third life beyond its initial run.

"The Greatest American Hero" is 1980's prime time programming at its vivid best and is a great example of an hour-long program from the era that adults and kids alike will enjoy and is family-friendly enough to appease even the most protective of parents.

Although I was not a fan of the original short story, I found this movie to be very entertaining. The pacing was good and the acting was solid. Of note, I found Vinnie Jones portrayal of the butcher Mahogany to be diabolical. His stone-cold stare and brutish presence really sold the character as someone truly frightening and this is a credit to Jones. It's refreshing to see a horror movie made in this day and age that seems to draw on influences from the old splatter-film days of the late 1970's and 1980's. Horror had taken a turn for the worse over the last ten years with the films like Saw and it's subsequent rehash sequels being crammed down our throats. It's great to see a movie like this coming down the pike that can truly hearken back to the glory days of horror.

Although Leap Year has it's heart in the right place, it can not escape its painful case of predictability and the downright awful on-screen chemistry between Amy Adams and Matthew Goode. You got the impression that they despised each other from the outset and any emotional connection between the two was extremely forced and artificial. Unlike when we saw Richard Gere and Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman" and "Runaway Bride", or when we saw Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in "Sleepless in Seattle" and "You've Got Mail", Adams and Goode did not make us believe that these two people could actually have genuine feelings for each other and be in love. This set a negative tone for the rest of the movie and threw everything out of balance.

It just seems like "Leap Year" is a formulaic Hollywood "chick Flick" that, although has some funny scenes and is somewhat entertaining, brings nothing to the table in way of originality. Not to mention that the majority of John Lithgow's scenes are cut out (the rest can be found in the deleted scenes section of the DVD). The movie could have benefited greatly from more Lithgow, and frankly it boggles my mind how the producers could cut him out from the film as much as they did.

Overall, "Leap Year" is a decent "couple hates each other then loves each other" romance flick, but it is insanely predictable and introduces nothing fresh or original to the genre.

Has there ever been an action movie made that is a more perfect representation of the term "man movie" than "Die Hard"? Die hard has all of the elements that you would want in a no-holds-barred action flick - guns, guts, glory, bare breasts, and a hail of bullets.

The story centers around New York detective John McClane (Bruce Willis), who is on a trip to LA to meet up with his estranged wife at her office (a high rise in Century city) during the holidays before eventually heading home with her to spend Christmas with her and his two children in an effort to patch their family back up. One hitch though, the high rise is taken hostage by a militant group of terrorists armed to the teeth and highly technologically advanced and intelligent. The terrorists are led by the suave and ultra-creepy Hans Gruber (portrayed wonderfully by Alan Rickman in his big screen debut) who seemingly has left no stone unturned and has considered every possible detail and prepared for every possible contingency, except one. While everyone in the building is under the thumb of Gruber and his men, McClane manages to slip through the cracks and soon finds himself hopping secretly from floor to floor taking out the bad guys one at a time, until the final, heart pounding, white knuckle finale that is one of the best endings in movie history.

This movie is expertly directed by action-veteran John McTiernan (who finished post-production on another quintessential man-movie, 1987's "Predator", just before principal photography began on "Die Hard") and benefits from the talents of cinematographer Jan De Bont (future director of such Hollywood blockbusters as Speed and Twister), whose break neck, fast paced style of film has become his trademark. The film is perfectly cast and the ensemble that is put together for this film is one of the finest groups of talent on any one film in cinema history.

The quintessential 1980's action thriller, "Die Hard" has become an iconic film and has entertained the masses and been a staple "man movie", and although the film is over two decades old now, it is still going strong and still appealing, even to today's film audiences.

Broken Lizards movies have followed a familiar theme - a rag tag ensemble of characters, each with their own strange habits and nuances who work or live together, are thrust into oddball situations from which hilarity ensues.

Although the plots follow a similarly simple theme, the movies that Broken Lizard produces are all extremely light-hearted and extremely funny. They don't take themselves or their craft seriously and this allows them to create oddball comedy at its finest. Their seemingly never-ending troupe of zany characters and quirky writing style are just what the doctor ordered when you are looking to just sit back, relax, and laugh. "No thinking required" should be the motto adopted by Broken Lizard to sum up their movies. Sometimes you just don't want to watch a political espionage thriller when you've just had a long, hard day on the job. Youw ant to go home, have dinner, grab a dozen ice-cold beers and watch a movie that won't bring you down - Broken Lizards movies do just that, and "The Slammin Salmon" is another winner from the comedy troupe. This time around the group finds themselves as waiters at the Miami restaurant of ex-heavyweight champ Cleon "Slammin" Salmon. Salmon needs to come up with $20K quick and enlists the help of his wait staff to bring in the cash. He sets up a contest, where the winning waiter/waitress wins $10K while the waiter/waitress that make the least amount of sales end up with a "broken-rib sandwich", courtesy of the Slammin Salmon himself. Needless to say, hilarity ensues as the wait staff begin stabbing each other in the back in an effort to be the one who comes out on top. The Slammin Salmon is a fine outing that should have gotten wide release.

I don't know what it is about this movie, maybe it's the Stephen King fanboy in me, or maybe even the huge fan of 1980's horror in me, but I love this movie. Every rational, film appreciating bone in my body tells me I should feel otherwise, but I just can't help it....I love "Maximum Overdrive", and I'm not afraid to admit it.

The story is weak, and the acting (aside from that of Emilio Estevez and a select few others) is even weaker, but I can't help but like the simplicity of this movie. It hearkens back to a simpler time when horror movies were a dime a dozen (seemingly being churned out at a rate of two to three new offerings per week) but at the same time you wanted to see every single one of 'em. It's what makes the 1980's the greatest decade for the horror film genre. The offerings were, for the most part, pretty darn good.

Stephen King's "Maximum Overdrive" is no different. Although King may have originally been aiming for something on a grander scale (and he may have succeeded in doing so had his alleged cocaine-induced haze not have incapacitated him so), what he ended up with is something that distinguishes itself from the competition. A somewhat original story idea (although I believe the stuff about earth passing through the tail of a comet may have been lifted from George Romero's "Night of the Living Dead") that involves a simple plot and basic character development, but excels in visuals and all-around entertainment.

It's a fun movie, and it is just as much fun in 2010 as it is when I first saw it back in 1987. If you haven't seen it, see it. If you have, then see it again!

Guaging this films worthiness by stacking it alongside the much superior original is an exercise in futility. Richard Franklin's "Psycho II" is not meant to be better than the original or to compete with it in any way. It is, in reality, more of an homage to the original than a sequel if anything.

I'll save the plot descriptions since the movie is twenty-seven years old at the time that I'm writing this and it has likely been described to death by now.

After having viewed this film again recently (the first time in over a decade for me) I was taken back by the subtle nods to Alfred Hitchcok's original, be it a similar camera angle or a particular lighting effect or even the famous "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" silhouette on the wall of Norman's mother's room. "Psycho II" is a strong sequel that not many people believed would be anything more than Universal trying to capitalize on the success of the original and trying to meld that with the slasher craze of the early 1980's. What Richard Franklin was able to do, however, was create a film that is able to stand on it's own, apart from the original, and also create a movie that is still quite good nearly thirty years after it's original release. Now I'm not saying this film is an alternative to the original "Psycho", as that film is one of the greatest movies in the history of the cinema, and is an absolute master class on how to direct a solid suspense/horror film. What I am saying, though, is that "Psycho II" deliver's what it intended to - a strong horror/suspense film with solid acting and genuine scares.

So, in short, if you're looking for a cinematic tour de force, then go get the original on DVD. But if you're looking to spend an evening at home and watch a good, solid horror/suspense film then you can do far worse.

Breaker! Breaker! is the kind of mindless action film that fans of the genre have grown to love. The plot was thin, the acting even thinner, but what the movie excelled in was fast paced stunts and neck-cracking roundhouse kicks - the kind of kicks that only Chuck Norris can deliver. Breaker! Breaker! doesn't take itself seriously and it's not supposed to. It's meant to be a movie you went and watched at the drive-in with a girl on one arm and a cold beer in the other. If you watch this movie intent on solid plot and character development, then you're going to be in for a rude awakening. It's meant to entertain and amuse you for 90 minutes and thats all, and it accomplishes that fairly well.