Q: I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.

So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliche you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.

Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.

It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.
A: negative
Q: A very silly movie, this starts with a soft porn sequence, ventures into farcelike comedy in the art gallery, adds a shocker of a discovery in the hotel room then introduces a random murder for no obvious reason.

What follows is bizarre and surreal (the stopwatch scene in particular is exquisitely unnecessary), culminating in a revelatory "twist" ending which is as obvious as it is unfair on the viewer (see the trivia section for precisely why it's deliberately unfair).

The movie goes out of its way to be offensive to as many groups as possible - transsexuals, the insane, and the wonderful "Huggie Bear"-style racial stereotyping on the subway - and condescendingly treats the viewer like an idiot in the closing scenes, as characters endlessly explain to one another in great detail and over and over again what just happened in the film. Though the background female characters in the restaurant scene at the end are a joy to watch.

In fact, the whole movie is a joy to watch: Despite its many, many flaws, the whole package just, well, works.
A: positive
Q: I didn't expect to like this film as much as I did. I got it simply because I saw it on the list of Top 25 Most Controversial Films of All Time. It didn't look particularly great. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was one of the most cleverly composed films of recent memory.

It's about a twenty-year-old woman wants to know everything. She stores every bit of information she collects in an enormous archive. She experiments with experience in sex, political activism, and human relationships. Meanwhile, film's crew is shown making the film and we view their reactions to the story and each other. Nudity, explicit sex, and controversial politics kept this film from being shown in the US while its seizure by Customs was appealed. The film is a narrative yet it's a documentary that shows us the behind-the- scenes world of the filmmakers during the narrative, the fourth wall being broken. This film is the most direct possible way of making a movie I have ever seen. The movie predominantly works as a time capsule of 1960s psychedelic goings-on, freedom-fighting and sexual liberation. I like to think of it as much more than that.

I didn't think I would want to waste my time with the blue version of this movie, but I actually really do. This film is a buried treasure. Give it a try.
A: positive
Q: Two great comedians in a great Neil Simon movie based on his hit play.

Great combination, especially when the comedians in question are Matthau and Burns. Small wonder why Burns won an Oscar for this; he's as sharp and as funny as ever. And Matthau is every bit his match, if a tad more crotchety.

This is familiar Simon territory: two old vaudeville partners reunite for a TV special but still can't stand one another after all these years.

It's a delight to watch these two pick at each other, their scenes together make this film an absolute delight. Myself, I especially enjoyed the "knock, knock, knock / ENTER!" scene. And if you're a fan of either Burns or Matthau, you'll enjoy it, too.

In fact, you'll enjoy the whole movie.

Ten stars. Put a little "Sunshine" in your life.
A: positive