Reviews by Emily J.

Ah, 1994. Let me name some of the highest grossing movies of that year: Forrest Gump, The Lion King, The Mask, Pulp Fiction, Speed... and The Flintstones, which I am obviously reviewing. If you've watched the cartoon, you'll get the idea. The set designs are really nice, and the CGI on Dino is, too. The cast is... decent, but we can all agree on one thing: Rosie O'Donnell doesn't really work as Betty.

The story is... well, kinda hard to comprehend. Mr. Slate's assistant Cliff concocts a scheme where the highest testing employee at Slate And Co. is made the manager, and Fred Flintstone manages to score the highest (actually Barney switched the tests with Fred's due to his promise), which means Fred has to fire Barney and several other employees, and... yeah, the plot is a bit more complex than what you can bargain for in a movie based off of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon.

But of course, appealing set pieces that look a lot like in the cartoon don't make up for the occasional sophomoric humor. In particular, after Bamm-Bamm smashes all of the crystal glass at the mall, there is a scene that came RIGHT OUT OF NOWHERE where a giant pterodactyl defecates all over someone's car. Why? ...Well, anyway, despite what I've said before, this is a decent adaptation of a decent cartoon.

My rating: 5/10

Eric Idle, known best as an alumnus on the hilarious and popular sketch comedy Monty Python's Flying Circus, wrote and starred in Splitting Heirs as Tommy Patel, an Englishman who believes he's Indian. After his old boss, the 14th Duke, dies, a loopy American named Henry inherits the title of the 15th Duke, and Tommy finds out that he's not a Patel, but the real heir to the throne, and his real name is Thomas Henry Butterfly Rainbow Peace (because his parents were hippies).

Idle's character is awkward and likable, and you want him to win. However, Rick Moranis' Henry character is so delightfully ditzy that you can't help but laugh, and it helps that he isn't even the bad guy, either. But Catherine Zeta-Jones, as pretty as she is, is just a pretty face and a third of the love triangle. Barbara Hershey's character is the one who brings me the most disgust, by pursuing her own biological son Tommy, and that's incest, so NO. NONE OF THAT. (Okay to be fair, she didn't know yet.)

Despite what I've said before, the movie can be funny, particularly, the slapstick with Tommy's attempts to get Henry out of the picture. This is pretty much a guilty pleasure.

My rating: 5/10

From the director who brought you Big Top Pee-Wee, the mediocre sequel to the fun-tastic Pee-Wee's Big Adventure (as well as some movies that people actually liked), we get Honey, I Blew Up the Kid, the med- ha, I'm joking; I don't dislike this movie. Granted, I thought I would, but... I just can't bring myself to. At all.

The first movie, while still the best of the 3, didn't really have any real antagonists, unless you count the scorpion. This one does, in the form of Dr. Hendrickson, a scientist who is bitter and jealous of Wayne Szalinski's success with the shrink ray, which inspired a growth ray that hits Wayne's toddler son Adam when the little boy goes to get his stuffed bunny. And Hendrickson is so bitter and jealous that he resorts to try hurting the giant Adam in Act 3!

Even though the story lacked one of the things that made the first movie good to begin with, this one has its share of cute moments that either have you squeeing or throwing up, and it tries to be exciting. Hey, at least it's better than the TV show, right?

My rating: 7/10

Out of all of the movies that have Steve Martin play the lead character, L.A. Story is undoubtedly the best. Heck, he even wrote the movie, too!

L.A. Story is about the life of eccentric weatherman Harris K. Telemacher, who wants more in life. A mystical sign post (yes, really!) tells Harris that his life will change... for the better... and it does. After his ex leaves, Harris comes across a British woman named Sara, who is thinking of leaving her man. Harris and Sara hit it off, and there are more characters to come across, and they are quite quirky.

According to a trailer, one critic called it "Stupendously Funny!", and it is. The movie is very quirky in nature, and you can get sucked in.

My rating: 7/10

As we say goodbye to the 80's, we would then follow Steve Martin and Rick Moranis into the 90's, where we have DeLoreans in the Old West, Johnny Depp with scissors for hands, and as for these two guys, a comedy that isn't only about ex-Mafia figure Vinnie Antonelli trying to stay out of trouble with FBI agent Barney Coopersmith's help, but also Barney finding love in divorced policewoman Hannah Stubbs after his shrew of a wife leaves him.

If you haven't guessed, this was written by a woman; the late Nora Ephron to be exact, who is a successful novelist. I'd take whatever books she wrote over any of Stephanie Meyer's (or Sara Shepard's) work, but I digress.

This isn't a bad movie. At all. But it's nothing to right home about, either. It's just... meh. It doesn't even assure us if Barney and Hannah got married or not in the 1-year time skip at the end.

My rating: 6/10

Fresh off of Willow, which I have yet to see but am somewhat curious about, Ron Howard's next movie to direct is Parenthood, and this was the last movie from a time before some of Howard's later films started to come off as, well... somewhat rather pretentious (excluding Apollo 13, which I also didn't see yet).

The movie focuses on a family known as the Buckmans, mainly Gil and Karen, who, out of all of the characters, seem to be the closest to living an okay life, even though they're worried about how their oldest son is turning out, and they may have another baby. Steve Martin and Mary Steenburgen do pretty well, and I loved the Cowboy Gil scene, where Martin succeeds at entertaining us.

There's also the Huffners, and they're a close second on the high end of the "how good someone's life is" meter. There's Gil's once-rebellious sister Susan (played by Harley Kozak), her obsessive-compulsive husband Nathan (played by my favorite actor Rick Moranis), and their 3-year-old daughter Patty (Ivyann Schwan, at age 6?!?). Nathan educates little Patty to comedic extremes. I mean, come on, it's one thing to teach a 3-year-old karate, but I draw the line at Franz Kafka books (seriously?). And Susan is so desperate for another baby that she lapses back into her free-spirited ways and resorts to childish behavior if she doesn't get Nathan to do what she wants. To be honest, it kinda actually hurts me to the point of giving me a rather nauseating feeling in my stomach because despite being a free-spirit myself and how harsh Nathan was in the broken diaphragm scene, I just can't say that either of these two parents are really in the wrong whatsoever outside of their foibles.

What hurts me even more (and not like with Susan and Nathan) is what happens to Gil's other sister Helen (Dianne Wiest), who is divorced and seems like she's ready to crack. Her anarchist teenage daughter Julie (Martha Plimpton, a.k.a. Stef from The Goonies) and her boyfriend Tod (Keanu Reeves) are stupid enough to take a picture of themselves going to third base and elope after that poor woman's latest breakdown due to that incident, while her son Gary (Joaquin Phoenix) is secretly watching porno tapes. Despite the facts that I kinda like Keanu and Joaquin, and that I feel sorry for Helen, these subplots shouldn't really exist...

There's also youngest Buckman brother Larry (Tom Hulce), the black sheep of the family, who turns out to be the father of a black kid named... Cool (*sarcasm* ha ha, very funny, Mr. Howard *sarcasm*). And last but not least, there's Grandma (Helen Shaw), hands-down the best character in the movie. She is fun, hilarious, and actually dispenses a nugget of wisdom in the 3rd act.

I'm not very keen on character studies, which is one of the reasons why I didn't care for The Breakfast Club, but Parenthood? Well, it's a mixed bag for the most part. But one thing's for sure: the ending is worth all of the ups and downs you sit through.

My rating: 6/10

Throughout the history of cinema, family films went from being timeless classics that hold up to this day (i.e. The Wizard of Oz) to being sophomoric, bland, etc. (i.e. I can't think of anything...) And what about Honey, I Shrunk the Kids? Well, during the 80's and a good bit of the 90's, this movie was a big deal, especially when it was fresh, leading to a few parodies on Saturday morning cartoons like The Super Mario Bros. Super Show. And I can perceive why it was.

The special effects were really sublime for its time, and somewhat still hold up, the sets look like that the kids were actually shrunken, the bee and Anty look as realistic as possible, the characters are all likable and quirky, and the humor can be sharp and witty.

So, yes, overall, even after over 20 years, this movie is still fun to watch.

My rating: 8/10

It appears that Ghostbusters was so successful that a sequel was in order. While Ghostbusters gets better the more you watch it, Ghostbusters II... yeah, it's no Empire Strikes Back.

As STUPID as the idea of stripping any vindication away from our heroes for this movie was, the darker tone compared to the first movie actually kinda makes up for it. Oh yeah, Ghostbusters II is actually pretty dark. You got an ancient tyrant looking to be reborn in a baby. You got people's emotions manipulating and being manipulated by pink slime found under New York City. Need I say more on how dark this is compared to the first movie?

One good thing, in my own personal opinion, is giving Louis a vital role in this movie: he helps take down the slime barrier while our heroes battle Vigo. Although if you had played the NES game distributed by HAL, the company responsible for the Kirby series and the SNES EarthBound game, you may already know.

Even though it's not as good as the first, it's still surprising on how much potential it actually has. And I'm hoping that Ghostbusters III, whenever it comes out, would do better than the second movie.

My rating: 7/10

P.S., Ray is my favorite Ghostbuster.

Out of all of the Mel Brooks movies, Spaceballs, a parody of the original Star Wars trilogy, would have to be my personal favorite. Casting fresher faces for most of the main characters was a nice touch.

I found those characters to be quite lovable, much like the Star Wars characters, well, before Jar-Jar Binks was conceived in George Lucas' crazy brain. The one character that entertains me the most is Dark Helmet, naturally. No matter how intimidating Helmet tries to be, he's still the ego-maniacal man-child that is the butt of a lot of jokes.

The gags are so funny that they border on cartoonish, such as when Lone Star learns to master the power of the Schwartz by lifting the giant Yogurt statue. Barf is impressed with Lone Star, who gets distracted and accidentally drops the statue on Barf's foot, which gets flattened in a cartoon-y manner. If you liked Star Wars, then you'll like this.

My rating: 8/10

It's really sad that a movie like this is ignored in favor of Top Gun (Tom Cruise is overrated!). But anyway, let me explain what I truly feel about Little Shop of Horrors.

Generally, I, like the rest of the world, show disdain at remakes. However, this movie is one of the few good remakes out there. The original Roger Corman movie was good, even though it's hard to hear in some places due to being made in 1960. Then, in the early 80's, two men named Howard Ashman and Alan Menken had an idea: turn this obscure darkly comic B-movie into a successful musical that is not only a dark comedy, but also a romance. And then Warner Bros. and Geffen Records had an idea: adapt the successful musical into a movie, and during the holidays in 1986, it was released and did fairly well both financially and critically, but personally, I think it should have done so much more.

Having Frank Oz direct the movie was a good choice. The only way it could possibly get better is if Tim Burton was the director instead, but either way, Oz works just as well, and the movie still feels a bit Burton-esque. Reprising her role as female lead Audrey is Ellen Greene, who was practically tailor-made for this role. Everyone else was played by actors that are both veteran and more recent at the time. Rick Moranis' portrayal of Seymour Krelborn is among the best acting that he's ever done, his singing was actually pretty good, and I'm wondering why this movie didn't earn him a Best Actor nomination. Steve Martin's portrayal of crazy dentist Orin Scrivello D.D.S. is crazy-awesome, and Levi Stubbs stole the show as Audrey II, as did the plant's other actor from the stage musical. Heck, nearly every character comes off as likable in one form or another, even Audrey II and Orin. I don't know what helps that, the writing, the casting, the performances, or perhaps it's most likely all of the above. The romance between Seymour and Audrey is genuine and sweet, and as the movie goes on, the romance seems stronger, more believable, and adds more sympathy to these already sympathetic characters.

And now we have come to the most controversial part of this: how it ended. I've seen the original ending when the teenagers at my mom's old high school did, and I was moved. By the time of the movie's DVD release, that ending turns up, and then the Blu-Ray came out and restored it, but sadly, I don't have a Blu-Ray player. The ending they ultimately went with, while not technically canon with the story, isn't really a bad ending since with or without it, the movie still doesn't talk down to its audience. Although it's obvious that there may be a bit of sugarcoating.

Bottom line, to me, this is the perfect movie to me rather than The Godfather. I'm sorry if you don't really feel the same way, but these are my most honest and heartfelt thoughts.

My rating: 10/10