Q: In order to rate this movie fairly you have to think about the genre it's supposed to be: children's. They had more guidelines to follow in order to make this movie (meaning it could not get away with some of the humor and or language from the 1st) taking all that in this movie was fun and enjoyable to watch. Sequels usually make me nervous, however this one did pretty well for itself. Knowing that it didn't have the star power of Fraiser as George they capitalized on the humor and i believe Showeman did pretty well as the lead. The plot being easy to follow and maybe campy at times fits well for a younger audience, if you want to watch a movie and hope for academy award honors this is not it, but if you want to watch a simple, fun, energy filled movie you would make a good choice with this one.
A: positive
Q: This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.
A: negative
Q: This movie was absolutely ghastly! I cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. Nothing against the cast of the movie, of course, this is all the fault of the writing team. You take the old average plot - let's dance our way out of being poor and destitute - or STEP in this case. But this one lacks any semblance of a true plot - or at least one that anyone would care about. With Canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an American setting - this film falls very flat. On a positive note, the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. Looks like the production budget was very generous as well. My only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. Net result - How she move is How she sucks.
A: negative
Q: This low-budget erotic thriller that has some good points, but a lot more bad one. The plot revolves around a female lawyer trying to clear her lover who is accused of murdering his wife. Being a soft-core film, that entails her going undercover at a strip club and having sex with possible suspects. As plots go for this type of genre, not to bad. The script is okay, and the story makes enough sense for someone up at 2 AM watching this not to notice too many plot holes. But everything else in the film seems cheap. The lead actors aren't that bad, but pretty much all the supporting ones are unbelievably bad (one girl seems like she is drunk and/or high). The cinematography is badly lit, with everything looking grainy and ugly. The sound is so terrible that you can barely hear what people are saying. The worst thing in this movie is the reason you're watching it-the sex. The reason people watch these things is for hot sex scenes featuring really hot girls in Red Shoe Diary situations. The sex scenes aren't hot they're sleazy, shot in that porno style where everything is just a master shot of two people going at it. The woman also look like they are refuges from a porn shoot. I'm not trying to be rude or mean here, but they all have that breast implants and a burned out/weathered look. Even the title, "Deviant Obsession", sounds like a Hardcore flick. Not that I don't have anything against porn - in fact I love it. But I want my soft-core and my hard-core separate. What ever happened to actresses like Shannon Tweed, Jacqueline Lovell, Shannon Whirry and Kim Dawson? Women that could act and who would totally arouse you? And what happened to B erotic thrillers like Body Chemistry, Nighteyes and even Stripped to Kill. Sure, none of these where masterpieces, but at least they felt like movies. Plus, they were pushing the envelope, going beyond Hollywood's relatively prude stance on sex, sexual obsessions and perversions. Now they just make hard-core films without the hard-core sex.
A: positive