Q: Cliche-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.

Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?"

Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.
A: negative
Q: I'm not a regular viewer of Springer's, but I do watch his show in glimpses and I think the show is a fine guilty pleasure and a good way to kill some time. So naturally, I'm going to watch this movie expecting to see "Jerry Springer Uncensored." First of all, Jerry appears in approximately twenty minutes of the film's running time. The other hour and twenty minutes is spent building up this pseudo-farce about trailer-trash, jealousy, incest and deception. Jaime Pressley (who looks hot as HELLLL) is a trailer-trash slut who sleeps with her stepfather (a very unusual-looking, chain-smoking, drunken Michael Dudikoff who finally strays from his action hero persona). The mom finds out about the affair, they get into a fight, they want to take it to the "Jerry" show (that's right, no Springer). And then we have a parallel story with an African-American couple. They take it to the "Jerry" show. The characters collide. Blah, blah, freakin' blah! Trash has rarely been this BORRRINGG!!!! I was wondering why the hell Springer has millions of fans, yet none of them checked out his movie. Well, now it's TOTALLY obvious!! Whether you love him or hate him, you will hate this movie! How can I explain? It's a total mess of a motion picture (if that's what you call it). It's so badly edited, with scenes that just don't connect, and after a period of time the plot virtually disappears and it's simply all over the map! Just imagine a predictable soap opera transformed into a comic farce. With seldom laughs.

My only positive note is a hot girl-girl scene. That's as risque as it gets. Don't get me wrong, the scene's pretty risque, but if you look at the overall film comparing it to the material on Springer's program--this disastrous farce seems extremely sanitized.

My score: 3 (out of 10)
A: negative
Q: One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.
A: positive
Q: Pickup on South Street (1953), directed by movie maverick Samuel Fuller, contains a stunning opening that establishes a double complication. Subway rider Candy (Susan Peters) collides with pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark dipped in shades of Sinatra cool). She's unaware that she carries valuable microfilm; McCoy is unaware of grifting it. Both are unaware of being observed by two federal agents. Thus the grift sets in motion a degree of knowledges. Candy is doubly watched (Skip and the police) and therefore doubly naive; Skip, the overconfident petty thief, is singularly unaware, trailed by federal agents; the feds, all knowing, are ultimately helpless. They can't stop the "passing" of government secrets or the spread of communism.
A: positive