Q: The youthful group in "St. Elmo's Fire" who just graduated from college barely seem able to make it through high school much less four years at any prominent university. For the most part, these kids are irresponsible, selfish, greedy and stupid, yet co-writer and director Joel Schumacher appears to hold them up as touchstones for a generation. With a now-outdated cast of "up and comers", a background score that sounds awfully similar to that of "Terms Of Endearment", and writing which lords the smugness of this circle over us, "Fire" is a paltry blaze, one that gets even more embarrassing as the years pass on. *1/2 from ****
A: negative
Q: After "A Dirty Shame", I never thought that I was going to see another John Waters movie. That movie was really so bad, that I was convinced that all his movies would be like that. But when the DVD of this movie was reviewed in a popular magazine and they said that this was an excellent movie, I decided to give it a try anyway. Only a couple of days later it was shown on television. I taped it out of curiosity and now that I've seen it, I can tell you that this "Pecker" sure is a lot better than "A Dirty Shame".

In this movie we see how a young 'nobody' from Baltimore becomes an overnight sensation in the art world of New York. He's a sandwich shop employee who photographs his weird family or things that he sees on the street as a hobby. When he keeps his very first 'exhibition' in the shop where he works, his pictures are noticed by a gallery owner who loves the pictures full of misery and weirdness. His photographs are sold for enormous prices, but when he sees how his family, friends and strangers react to his success he decides that he will no longer go to New York, they will have to come to him if they want to see more of him. And they do, but what they get to see there, is a bigger shock than they could ever imagine...

It's not difficult to see why I loved this movie a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". The first reason is that this movie has an actual story. This movie really has something to say and isn't just intended to shock as many people as possible. The fact that they make fun of the art world who considers everything out of the ordinary as art because they don't know what the reality is like, isn't just funny, it's not that far from the truth either. I guess there are many people who feel about modern art that way. Nobody understands why they are making such a fuss about it, but apparently we are all supposed to like it. The second reason why I liked this movie is because this one had much better acting performances to offer. I'm not saying that everything that you will see is great, but at least the characters have some meaning thanks to the performances of the different actors like Edward Furlong, Christina Ricci,...

Overall this isn't a great movie, but thanks to its criticism and some good jokes - which never really go too far - this is an enjoyable movie. It certainly isn't the best comedy ever, but I liked it a lot more than "A Dirty Shame". I give this movie a 6.5/10.
A: positive
Q: When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.

I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time Avoid at all costs.
A: negative
Q: Ah, true memories. I lived in Holland at the time and looked eagerly forward to it every Sunday evening and later Tuesdays. I saw it during my 14-16s. Very good for my (at the time school-)English, as Dutch TV provides subtitles for other languages, except for kiddies shows nowadays. So you would hear the original voices and language. - The best series were the first three ones and then after the third series, the great character, Nazi Von Gelb, who was such a formidable enemy, disappeared from the series (I don't think they ever really caught him, he always escaped, leaving room to have him appear again in a next story) because evidently the series also was distributed to Germany, and a Nazi enemy wouldn't go over very well! Too bad, because Geoffrey Toone did such a wonderful convincing job of portraying the intelligent Nazi aristocrat, who had this ongoing obsession to take revenge on England. It was a true delight to see this kind of high quality performance in a youth series, but Ronald Leigh-Hunt was a good counterpart and the youngsters were so normal. They were very believable to me at the time and as a kid I could just imagine to be part of these youngsters, who at the time were about four years older than me. It was a very exciting series to me, standing out in my memory of those times as a special show with "the Prisoner" as well. I hope they will publish a good quality DVD of the series, that would be wonderful. Even the bad copies around are still enjoyable to watch. The later series were not as good, watered down and just not as much fun as the first three. Hopefully they also find the other series with Von Gelb to be put on DVD. Greetings from Canada.
A: positive