Q: The Tooth Fairy is set in a small town somewhere in Northern California where Peter Campbell (Lochlyn Munro) has brought a farming property which he is renovating & planning to turn into a holiday inn, he is joined by his girlfriend Darcy Wagner (Chandra West) & her young 12 year old daughter Pamela (Nicole Munoz) who arrive to help for the weekend. While exploring the property Pamela meets another young girl named Emma (Jianna Ballard) who warns her that evil lurks within her new home, she tells a tale of an evil old witch known as the Tooth Fairy who takes baby teeth from children & then kills them. Pamela is worried & becomes even more so when she falls off her bike & her last baby tooth falls out, it's not long before the evil ghost of the Tooth Fairy has her eyes on Pamela's tooth & just for kicks she also decides to kill anyone she comes across...

Directed by Chuck Bowman I thought The Tooth Fairy was just another poor straight-to-video low budget horror film that fails to distinguish itself from the countless other's which litter video shop shelves & fill late night obscure cable TV schedules, basically it's not very good. The script by producer Stephen J. Cannell, Corey Strode & Cookie Rae Brown is a complete snooze-fest for the first 40 odd minutes, nothing of any great interest happen during this period at all & is basically dull exposition as if this stuff was going to surprise anyone. It introduces the character's, sets the Tooth Fairy legend up & that's it. The second half of the film improves slightly but even then it's hardly spectacular stuff, there are a few decent set-piece gore scenes but apart from that it's all very predictable & forgettable stuff. The character's aren't great & most of them are there purely to be killed off, the story has inconsistencies like the story of the Tooth Fairy herself, it says she kills children after they give her their baby teeth so why does she go on an indiscriminate killing spree that has nothing to do with teeth? What happened to her after the prologue set during 1949? Why has she come back as a ghost? Despite being a ghost of some sort she seems very human having to open doors herself & using weapons to kill people, there is no attempt to make any use of the supernatural elements except the ghostly children who are played for maximum sentiment.

Director Bowman does OK, it's reasonably well made & there are a couple of half decent scenes but nothing to get that excited about. There's nothing I would describe as scary or atmospheric in here & don't take any notice of the comparisons between this & Darkness Falls (2003) as besides the teeth thing they're quite different. The gore is OK, someone is shoved into a wood-chipping machine, there's a decapitation, someone has their penis chopped off & the best scene when someone is nailed to a door & then has their stomach hacked open with an axe & their guts slide out.

With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 The Tooth Fairy is generally well made but there's nothing special on show here. The acting isn't anything great but it's not too bad & unusually I didn't find the child actors that annoying so that's something I suppose.

The Tooth Fairy is the usual just below average low budget modern straight-to-video horror fare that seems everywhere these days, if you can find a cheap copy then it might pass 90 odd minutes if your not too demanding otherwise it's pretty poor & forgettable stuff.
A: negative
Q: There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.

I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.

I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers.
A: negative
Q: After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.
A: negative