Q: Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.

OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The 1967 In Cold Blood was perhaps more like "the real thing" (Think about it: would we really want to see the real thing?), but it was black and white in a color world, and a lot of people didn't even know what it was, and there was an opportunity to remake it for television. Plus, if you remake it, you can show some stuff not shown in the original. The book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote was the first "nonfiction novel". Truman's book was in fact not 100% true to the real story. I thought the Canadian location sufficed for Kansas pretty much for a TV movie. Look for the elements of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll: Dick's womanizing, Perry being an aspirin junkie, Perry playing blues guitar. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a cliched monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: A childless couple (Brooke Adams, Jeff Hayenga) go to a doctor (James Karen) to try to conceive. It works but Adams slowly becomes aware that there's something seriously wrong with the baby...

Pretty interesting idea is thoroughly done in by a lousy script--the basic idea is OK but becomes screamingly predictable towards the end. I saw every "twist" coming. The direction is poor--he seems to have no idea how to shoot a basic scene. The production values are--to be nice--lousy. Very shabby. And, the gore scenes are too unpleasant (I almost turned it off when a pregnant woman started stabbing herself in the stomach) with lousy special effects. The film completely derails at the end when it becomes quite clear they had no idea HOW to end this film.

Some good acting makes it somewhat bearable. Adams, Hayenga and Karen are all good at their roles and kept me watching but that was about it. This film barely got released in 1991 and still remains unknown--it's easy to see why. I give it a 4. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative