John-Candy Movie Reviews

I have never met another person in my nearly half century of life who saw this movie in the theaters when it first came out. I was a child of five sitting on the front row and the star who plays the press agent in the movie came out on stage afterwards and asked me to dance with him in front of the packed house at the wonderful, old Metropolitan Theater in downtown Houston. "Tomboy and the Champ" is the story about a little girl who overcomes obstacles to raise a champion angus and features a cameo by the cowboy singer/star Rex Allen. The movie itself is pretty simple and silly at times with somewhat weak acting and dippy interjected songs, but nowhere will you get a better feel for life in the 1950's in Texas. You will see many Houston landmarks which have either been outgrown or torn down (just like the Metropolitan where I viewed this film). The story line includes a bout with the outdated disease polio. Sickly sweet, but definitely a walk down memory lane for retro buffs and any "child" who had the opportunity to experience the Fat Stock Show and climb on the rails at the old Houston Coliseum to shake hands with a rodeo star.

Tomboy and the Champ tells of a teenagers dream and love of animals. The Fat Stock Show and Rodeo is an experience in itself and to realize the fun and excitement they bring. I saw this movie when I was about 9 when the whole town of Katy, it seemed like, rode in a caravan to downtown Houston to see the premere of this show with the stars. What excitement to see the different parts that was shot in the town and then placed into the movie. It was an experience that I will never forget! My Grandfather was in the movie as well as my mom and brothers and seeing us for the brief moment was neat. To see the town now and how it has grown with the highway, mall, and such is what I like to see. This movie would be more for young kids, I would think, who have dreams and to see that anything is possible if you set your mind to it. Being at the Astro Dome with the rodeo is not anything in comparison to seeing the show of the kids' champions in the Houston Coliseum and being so close to the events and the stars. What a movie!

this was a very good movie i watched it all the time when i was a little kid

I've heard that any movie in which the star dies during filming will be "jinxed"; that is, people will lambaste it. "Wagons East" is a perfect example of this phenomenon. I'm not sure why I decided to watch this film after all I'd heard about it...but, for some reason, I did.

And what did I find? Not a horrible movie...but what *could* have actually been a *good* movie (among other things, it's based on actual events-settlers *did* often decide to return east), made mediocre by the fact that the footage filmed after John Candy's death was so easy to spot. And some of the anachronistic humor (including the very presence of the Richard Lewis character), admittedly, did not help.

But there were quite a few good laughs. The gay guy turning out to be a masterful gunslinger comes to mind. And the scuzzy Ferguson brothers (even the most distinctive of them made unrecognizable by blank expressions and layers of filth) were hilarious.

This is one of John Candy's best movies, even though he passed away while filming. Some reviewers are much too harsh on this very funny movie. Richard Lewis is very well cast and anyone should enjoy this great Western Comedy, similar to Blazing Saddles!

I highly enjoyed this movie. Some reviewers say you have to know your history, but [thats not true]. All you have to know is who the Donner Party was. John Candy's death was unfortunate, but it did not "jinx" the movie. I think it is one of his best. The gay book store owner, Julian, does steal the show, however. All in all a good movie.

I've heard that any movie in which the star dies during filming will be "jinxed"; that is, people will lambaste it. "Wagons East" is a perfect example of this phenomenon. I'm not sure why I decided to watch this film after all I'd heard about it...but, for some reason, I did.

And what did I find? Not a horrible movie...but what *could* have actually been a *good* movie (among other things, it's based on actual events-settlers *did* often decide to return east), made mediocre by the fact that the footage filmed after John Candy's death was so easy to spot. And some of the anachronistic humor (including the very presence of the Richard Lewis character), admittedly, did not help.

But there were quite a few good laughs. The gay guy turning out to be a masterful gunslinger comes to mind. And the scuzzy Ferguson brothers (even the most distinctive of them made unrecognizable by blank expressions and layers of filth) were hilarious.

This is one of John Candy's best movies, even though he passed away while filming. Some reviewers are much too harsh on this very funny movie. Richard Lewis is very well cast and anyone should enjoy this great Western Comedy, similar to Blazing Saddles!

I highly enjoyed this movie. Some reviewers say you have to know your history, but [thats not true]. All you have to know is who the Donner Party was. John Candy's death was unfortunate, but it did not "jinx" the movie. I think it is one of his best. The gay book store owner, Julian, does steal the show, however. All in all a good movie.

"I'm a die-hard zombie fan," you tell yourself, "I thrive on low budget."

Not this low of a budget.

"Looks like it was handmade in my backyard with a bunch of 'actors' who can't even stand around convincingly? That sounds cool!"

Trust me, you'd think so, but not really.

SHATTER DEAD is a thing of torture for the zombie film fanatic. On one hand, you've got a great idea - something to breathe new life into the genre. On the other hand, this is SO low budget, you'll never get past the first thirty minutes. And if you do, you'll never watch it again.

As you know by now if you've read up on this flick, the zombies in SHATTER DEAD are not menacing, mindless monsters, just second-class citizens who don't stop moving after they die. Lead "actress" Stark Raven is a zombie-hating living human on a quest to get back to her boyfriend whilst shooting (and showering with) zombies along the way. If only it was a better film.

Once she reaches her boyfriend, he's already slashed his wrists and joined the undead (why would anyone attempt suicide if it was well-known you wouldn't die?) - and so she's stuck in a conundrum - one that isn't solved until she straps a pistol to his groin and makes gross, hardcore love to it. Enough to make you buy the movie? Not after you've seen it.

SHATTER DEAD is an incredible idea rendered absolutely unredeemable by poor production, abysmal acting, and indulgent, extraneous scenes like that described above. Sure, we zombie fans love a little useless nudity - demand it, even - but this is just useless. Still, I can't say "don't buy this film," because it has to be seen to be believed and if you've made it this far, I won't be able to change your mind anyway.

OK, I basically agree with all the negative things people are saying about this film's low-budget unwatchability, the talkiness, etc. And if you want to say the acting could be better, fine. But I'm amazed by all the outright hostility toward the lead actress, who is actually a very attractive woman. In fact, pretty much all this movie has going for it is the "sexy" element (and the way it's being marketed, with all the revealing photos of Stark Raven, shows the filmmakers are well aware of this!). So it seems that the people who like the lead actress are staying silent. I wonder if some of the reviewers are displaying a masculinist phobia--as if they feel the need to "punish" a woman who engaged in some very unconventional nude scenes. But it took guts for Stark Raven to do these scenes (a Hollywood actress needn't worry, since with all the lighting, post-production, etc., she's practically a special effect by the time she hits the screen). And the x-rated scene that people consistently refer to is actually very subdued, considering that it's shot in an "artsy" way with all this overlaying of images. In sum, I think this DVD is worth buying, if only for her. And this DVD edition has a welcome guest appearance by her in the special features section--seven or eight years after the original movie, she looks amazing, way better than she did in 1995! Instead of condemning Stark Raven, I say that horror filmmakers should give her more roles, if she's interested.

Well...unlike most everyone else here, I enjoyed this film. Does it have the lowest production values of basically any movie I've ever seen? Yes. I'm sorry, but it really does. I was actually so shocked by how bad it looked that it took my eyes a few minutes to adjust. (Although, quite honestly, Clerks looks a whole lot worse. At least the director of Shatter Dead seems to understand which end of the camera should be pointed at the set, which is more than can be said for Kevin Smith. The difference being that Clerks was shot in black-and-white, which makes its flaws much less evident. Shatter Dead opts for garish video color -- and I don't mean digital video -- making the whole thing look like the cheapest sitcom ever made.) Anyway: You have been warned. Whatever visual ugliness you're imagining right now, I promise you the movie is uglier.

But!

As I grew accustomed to the cheaposity of Shatter Dead, a strange thing began to happen. I began to stop silently chastising myself for buying a movie because "it sounds cool," and appreciate first what the director was obviously trying to do, in spite of his lack of resources, and then actually appreciate what he'd done. If the film is dreary and banal, so is the world that Susan, the protagonist, lives in. The world of Shatter Dead isn't, and maybe shouldn't be, a big-budget Hollywood world; it's mundane and ugly and depressing. The look of the film matches its tone.

And, as a few of even the nastier critics have noted, there are some cool ideas here. The mirror tests (the person who didn't understand why Susan carries a mirror around all the time wasn't paying much attention), the baby, the whole reworking of pretty much every zombie movie made since Night of the Living Dead (and in a way I think Romero would appreciate). Things like Susan's dream and the...uh...gun sequence may not sit right with more conservative horror fans -- the former may seem pretentious, and...did I see someone call the gun thing gross? Personally, I couldn't believe my eyes. I never, never, NEVER expected to see anything like that in any film that even kind of targeted a mainstream audience. Aren't horror films supposed to go to extremes?

This film is not perfect, and not for everyone. Would I like to see a sequel/remake with a real budget (and the same production team)? OH, yeah. But it's clear that everyone involved gave it their best, and the result is a unique little movie I like a lot.

That's the best way to explain this movie. Silly plot, bad acting, and a cheap way to sell sex. I mean, if you're going to sell sex, at least deliver. One of the worst movies in it's genre.

William Shatner has to support his life of luxury. Horses, girlfriends. He plays a Presidential candidate in this one. Although I can't say his performance has changed through the years; it was his over acting that makes this so entertaining. The ending where he battles the Jeff Speakman "good guy" character makes this worth it. Seeing Shatner jump out of a helicopter was like somthing out of his Captain Kirk era. Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have a field day with this one! The former program could be revived with all of Shatner's bad films. Now if only he would sell the rights........

Aiden Carvill (no relation to James, and portrayed by William Shatner) is a Senate candidate who is also the kingpin in a conspiracy of right-wing militias to take over the country. Fortunately, he hires a martial arts expert, former Navy SEAL, and survivor from the explosion of the planet Krypton, whose wife used to drive in demolition derbies, as an aide. When the FBI gets the aide to check on some incriminating info on his boss, he is caught, and the militias make the mistake of going after Superman and his family. The movie goes downhill from there, ending in the hero committing first degree murder. The other members of the conspiracy survive, but apparently are too intimidated by this man to take further action. The bad guy's influence in the Justice Department and the federal judiciary is similarly intimidated. The ghost of Ed Wood may have been involved, but is not mentioned in the credits.