Q: "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.

Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.

The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.

Before "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of it.

A: negative
Q: The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.

Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste.
A: negative
Q: The more I watch Nicholas Cage, the more I appreciate him as an actor. Watching this movie now (in 2005), I can see that it doesn't really fit into the genre of movies that was coming out in the early 90s. I don't really think it can be considered a film noir, but it is pretty dark at times, due mostly to the lighting and odd personalities of the characters.

Typical performances from each of the three main actors, who all did a good job with their roles. I thought, however, that Hopper and Boyle's characters were left undeveloped, as it was sometimes hard to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it. Hopper is a love him or hate him kind of guy. The plot is really good, and although I found some parts to be very unrealistic, there were parts where I had to hand it to the director (i.e. when he first sees the sheriff). All in all, this movie is definitely worth watching. ***1/2
A: positive
Q: A long time ago, I watched this movie from the middle on cable. I then had a crush on Mary Moronov. I saw her again in Eating Raoul. I was convinced that she's the hottest woman on screen.

I maybe biased about this movie. 9 out of 10.

This's the only movie I own on original tape.
A: positive