IN: Review: The 1997 low-key indie dramedy Henry Fool would seemingly have been a secure choice of movies no one would bother to revisit for a sequel. A rumpled, dissipated drifter (Thomas Jay Ryan) strolls into town. His anarchistic rantings and delusions inspire a nerdy garbage collector (James Urbaniak) to write poems, while Henry half-heartedly tries to boink the guy's sister (Parker Posey). As the poet prospers, Henry declines. Nothing special about any of the characters or the story. A pitch for Harold and Maude's Ghost would have been quoted higher odds of ever making it to a screen.

But Parker Posey ain't the semi-official Queen of the Indies for nothing'. So when writer/director Hal Hartley came up with a new incarnation for his cast, a film was born. Though we catch up with the same characters many years, they're in a completely different sort of dark comedy; this one's laced with espionage! Henry may have been an international spy - and possible double, or even triple, agent - for years before meeting the others. He's either dead or in hiding from agents and authorities of many countries. Everyone wants his rambling, incoherent journal which just may contain coded secrets that could destabilize nations and economies. Posey's Fay is either the wife he left to go on the lam, or his widow, depending on who's telling the truth. Fay's efforts to find Henry and/or the hotly-contested journals include a globe-trotting gauntlet of multinational hit-persons and henchmen at every turn. She never knows who to believe or trust. Nor do we.

While herding these unlikely characters into Jason Bourne/Jack Ryan territory, Hartley's script retains the ironic deadpan humor of their first appearance, steering clear of slapstick in exposing them to physical menaces. His sly lampoon of the paranoia, duplicity and musical-chairs alliances of today's geopolitics starts to crumble towards the end. Even so, fans of the first movie will be pleasantly surprised by the novelty of Hartley's recycling methods. (5/18/07)
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is an in-name-only sequel to "A Christmas Story," originally entitled "A Summer Story." Ralphie narrates his family adventures during the summer when they moved to a small hick-town in the middle of nowhere. Hilarity, unfortunately, does not ensue.

The original worked because of its irreverent nature and honesty - everyone could relate to it. This one is simply stupid and not very funny at all. Charles Grodin's last movie - no wonder! It's one of his poorest roles. I felt sorry for him.

Mary Steenburgen is given little to do, everything's formulaic, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.

And I mean, come on - a competition with spinning tops?! Sadly, it's the best part of the movie...
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.

From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.

Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.

The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.

After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...

Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.

I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.

For shame, BBC...for shame...
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.

The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative