input: David Zucker has directed one of the most enjoyable comedies of the year with this goofy farce. Yes, it's a matter of acquired taste and depends upon a wealth of sophomoric gags, but it is consistently funny throughout unlike some recent comedic efforts. The film is loaded with all kinds of jokes ranging from the blatantly obvious to the more subtler kind that you must pay attention to everything in the frame or you'll likely miss them. Like his previous efforts which include "Airplane!", "Top Secret!", and "Naked Gun," the humor flies out almost every second. There are so many moments that work, it's easy to overlook the few that fall flat. What sets this movie apart from other pale imitations in the spoof genre is that it has an actual story line. While others have depended upon making fun of too many famous scenes in almost random movies (take "Mafia!", please), this film tells a new story with likable characters. It touches upon sports films in general as well as satirizing the real sports industry instead of lampooning any specific movies. Even for people who don't care for "South Park," its creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, make a good pair of leading actors with natural chemistry. The film also makes extremely effective use of cameos of athletes, sports announcers, and other celebrities, especially a hilarious bit with Robert Stack of "Unsolved Mysteries." By the way, stay through the credits for a final joke with Bob Costas and Al Michaels. All in all, Zucker has achieved, in words perhaps applying to the movie's mix of sports, a home dunk.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and "is" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: After the debacle of the first Sleepaway Camp, who thought that a franchise could be born. SC II is superior in aspect. More inspired killings and just whole lot more fun. While that might not be saying much (compared to the first movie), Sleepaway Camp II is worth the rental.

Pros: Entertaining, doesn't take itself too seriously like SC I. Inspired Killings. Cons: Crappy acting and mullets abound.

Bottom Line: 5/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This film is awful. Not offensive but extremely predictable. The movie follows the life of a small town family in the mid-60's. The father, the principal at the school, is going through a mid-life crisis. Enter a pretty teacher from the big city who starts challenging her students' minds with some thought-provoking stuff, like think for yourself. The principal doesn't agree with her teaching but she is pretty. You can connect the dots. His teenage daughter (Winona Ryder wannabe Tara Frederick) is fed up with the small town lifestyle and wants to live. She gets some bad advice, hangs out with some bad boys and apparently family planning wasn't being taught at her school. Shocking! Seeing that director Paul Shapiro has mainly worked in TV, this movie plays like a more adult version of an after-school special or a very special episode of one of the more mundane sitcoms.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative