After seeing this popular 80's horror-comedy, I just have one question: That's it?

Rating: 6/10 (4 January 2005)

After finally seeing Gremlins, after hearing so much about how much better it is than the second(which I've seen two or three times, as my favorite Danish TV network seems to be crazy about it), I can't help but think: That's it? That's what I've been hearing so much positive stuff about? The only horror lies in the horrible out-dated effects, and the humor, or lack thereof, is typical for 80's comedies. Really, what does this film have to offer that any other film doesn't? It's got all of the typical monster-film clichés just to show exactly how uncreative and unoriginal the writer and director is. The main cliché being; no one believing that there is such a creature, until they see it with their own eyes... and even then, they're doubting the hero. The jokes are tired and dull, and repeated into endlessness... the father-character's inventions not working, the Gremlins acting senselessly, noisy and destructively(strangely reminiscent of bratty children or the typical guy who's a jock and/or drunk)... not to mention them acting like humans("look, it thinks it's people!"). What's funny about dressed up obviously fake puppets smashing things, anyway? I can't imagine why this would be funny to anyone but the kids. The really small kids. The infants. The plot is lame. The pacing is off(I was bored throughout most of the film and was half-asleep when it was done) and uneven. The characters are mostly poorly written clichés not to mention terribly unimaginative... the old lady who's basically a Mrs. Scrooge, the old wise Asian guy(Japanese, Chinese, whatever... he's got those Asian eyes and he's old, so he must be very intelligent, reserved, and spouting nonsensical fortune cookie slogans), the old guy who complains a lot... come on, I mean... did Joe Dante and Chris Columbus just want the paycheck really, really bad, and didn't feel like bothering with giving us viewers a decent product? The acting is nothing special. The special effects are instantly see-through and awfully outdated. The humor is dull and repetitive. Well, I suppose if you like seeing stuff blow up(which the father-character's inventions always do, eventually) and poorly designed puppets destroying pricey items, you might like it. Otherwise, I don't really recommend this to anyone... unless they're die-hard fans of 80's films. One last thing; what the heck was up with the supposedly depressing black comedy-like story Phoebe Cates' character gives towards the ending of the film, to explain her not celebrating Christmas? I mean, I understand her and all, but was that really necessary? It felt very out of place. I don't mind a depressing story about Christmas, not at all, but it just seems like they were originally making a much darker film, and then decided to redo some scenes, but forgot that one. OK, one last thing(I promise): why am I not surprised that the US is one of the few countries to give this film a rating that says that children can watch it? It's got plenty of violence and disgusting imagery, so I can't see why... oh, that's right... there's no sex in it. Silly me. Because, as we all know, sex is the very worst thing in the world and children may not, under any circumstances, be subjected to it(or even a hint of it) on screen. Please. The MPAA are ridiculous in their ratings. This is a childish film, no doubt about that, but hardly a children's film. I recommend it to fans of 80's films and not really anyone else, as I doubt anyone else will enjoy it. My rating is only above 5 to acknowledge the effort put into it. 6/10