Stephen-Tobolowsky Movie Reviews

This 1995 spoof of the famous "Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde," is disappointing in its comedy, mostly focusing on body references and sexual humor to only produce chuckles and groans.

Tim Daly (Dr. Jacks) tries to find a potion to cure the source of human evil by adding estrogen to the potion. By doing this, he transforms into sexy (and annoying) seductress Helen Hyde (Sean Young) on occasions. Helpless to stop this process of man to woman and woman to man, Dr. Jacks tries to convince his fiancee, Sarah (sexy and always watchable Lysette Anthony) to help him find a cure for taking Helen out for good.

The movie is delightfully campy in the beginning, but in the last 15 to 30 minutes, suddenly turns somewhat suspenseful, hilarious, and romantic. A hilariously campy movie with a satisfying ending. Rated PG-13 for crude sex-related scenes and humor, sexual innueudo, nudity and language.

I first saw this movie on cable and liked it. A friend of mine had this movie and we watched it. It was great. A remake of the original and ten times better. It starts off when Dr. J canges into Ms. H. Well lets just say she reveales some great parts of her body to us. This is a deffinate buy.

I won't tell you the story because the other reviews already did. Just know that, though this isn't the best movie ever made, it's not that bad either. The other people who reviewed this movie as poor are way too critical. Relax and have fun. A wacky comedy that's enjoyable and weird. Hopefully, it will be released on DVD.

This 1995 spoof of the famous "Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde," is disappointing in its comedy, mostly focusing on body references and sexual humor to only produce chuckles and groans.

Tim Daly (Dr. Jacks) tries to find a potion to cure the source of human evil by adding estrogen to the potion. By doing this, he transforms into sexy (and annoying) seductress Helen Hyde (Sean Young) on occasions. Helpless to stop this process of man to woman and woman to man, Dr. Jacks tries to convince his fiancee, Sarah (sexy and always watchable Lysette Anthony) to help him find a cure for taking Helen out for good.

The movie is delightfully campy in the beginning, but in the last 15 to 30 minutes, suddenly turns somewhat suspenseful, hilarious, and romantic. A hilariously campy movie with a satisfying ending. Rated PG-13 for crude sex-related scenes and humor, sexual innueudo, nudity and language.

I first saw this movie on cable and liked it. A friend of mine had this movie and we watched it. It was great. A remake of the original and ten times better. It starts off when Dr. J canges into Ms. H. Well lets just say she reveales some great parts of her body to us. This is a deffinate buy.

I won't tell you the story because the other reviews already did. Just know that, though this isn't the best movie ever made, it's not that bad either. The other people who reviewed this movie as poor are way too critical. Relax and have fun. A wacky comedy that's enjoyable and weird. Hopefully, it will be released on DVD.

The story of the San Patricio battalion and the Mexican-American war is a compelling one - a group of American soldiers (primarily Irish) end up joining the Mexican army, largely due to the anti-catholic sentiment in the US at the time. The movie One man's Hero does a reasonably good job of getting the basics right, although many layers and details of the story are altered or left out.

Unfortunately, the movie fails as a movie and the story isn't enough to save it. There are some good performances by some of the supporting cast, who outshine the primary actors. Tom Berenger sleepwalks through the picture, mumbling in an affected Irish brogue. Daniela Romo, a female lead thrown in because somebody felt a love interest was necessary, manages two facial expressions - a worried smile and a worried non-smile. Some of the other primaries may have talent, but it's difficult to say as they are drawn as caricatures and not allowed to show any depth (General Taylor's character being a notable exception).

The battle and fight scenes are boring, seeming out-of-place and disconnected from the rest of the movie. The movie as a whole is ridden with cliches; you can see the plot "twists" coming well in advance. The personal relationships pop up with little or no explanation, I guess Riley (Berenger) must fall in love with Marta (Romo) at first sight because there's darn little leading up to it (yes, she nurses him back to health but he was unconscious at the time).

I am interested in this aspect of the Mexican-American War and had done some reading and research on the topic prior to seeing One Man's Hero. I sat down to watch the film ready to enjoy a great story; the story is a good one and would probably make a great movie, unfortunately One Man's Hero isn't it. Anyone interested in the San Patricio battalion is probably better off skipping this movie and reading one of the several books on it (including one by Michael Hogan, who was a consultant for One Man's Hero).

Once in every long while Hollywood lives up to its responsibility to portray subject matters of substance and import to society and humankind at large. "One Man's Hero" is one such example.

The US-Mexican War is the pivotal chapter in the history of North America. It is the war that sealed the fates of it's two participants. For the United States, the War garnered huge amounts of territory and wealth, bootstrapping the fledgling democracy onto the world stage. For Mexico, the War sent the emerging nation into a tailspin that it is still reckoning with today, one hundred fifty years later.

In the United States the US-Mexican War is virtually forgotten, and for good reason, as it is the clearest example of our historical hypocrisy. The US-Mexican War was waged upon Mexico out of pure greed and moral righteousness. The remarkable part of the story is that at the time of this unjust invasion of our peaceful Catholic neighbor, Irish immigrants fresh off the coffin-ships from the Famine identified with Mexico's plight.

Over a hundred years before the conscientious objectors of Vietnam, the 'San Patricios' were true heroes who fought and died for their religion, their convictions, their brethren, and their adopted homeland Mexico. While Henry David Thoreau invented civil disobedience in Massachusetts, refusing to pay his taxes to support this unjust invasion of Catholic Mexico, and while Abraham Lincoln stood in opposition to President Polk's scheme in Congress, the 'San Patricios' fought to the death in the front lines against the invading Yankees.

Through the eyes of these Irish immigrants, we come to see the underbelly of North American history, and come to understand how we have arrived to such debates as anti-bilingual education in California, our collective guilt manifest in NAFTA, and anti-immigration xenophobia.

Rarely does one film illicit such critically profound self reflection, and "One Man's Hero" makes us consider who we are and how we have arrived at the United States' Empire here at the turn of the millennium. The acting is superb, melding a stellar cast of as-of-yet unknown talent with Tom Berenger's best performance to date. The script is Shakespearean in it's tact and art. The direction demonstrates an unparalleled intimacy with the subject matter which leaves us gasping for air one moment and reaching for kleenex the next.

This is a film in the grand tradition of Hollywood, a huge epic wrought large on the silver screen in the tradition of "Braveheart" "Dr. Zhivago" and "Dances with Wolves."

One Man's Hero depicts an important part of United States and Mexican history that is not taught in the schools in the U.S. It tells the story of persecuted Irish immigrants landed in the U.S., moving to and becoming Mexican citizens and their role in the subsequent Mexican-American War making them Mexican heros. In Mexico, St. Patrick's day celebrates the heroism of the San Patricios. The history does not compliment the U.S. government and therefore is most likely the reason those of us in the U.S. have not been told about it. While the movie seems to drag in the begining, subsequent viewings reveal more important details to the viewer. While I would not give the movie 5 stars, the importance of the story itself surpasses the average qualtiy of directorship and hollywoodizing and therefore deserves 5 stars in the knowledge it reveals.

Badly written, badly cast, badly acted, badly directed - it's all here. And the embarrassing cameos don't help. At all. One would be hard pressed to pick out the worst of the bunch; Whoopi or Weinstein? Would've been way better if Billy Barty had Ryan O'Neal's role though.

However, there's this 'inspirational' line in there somewhere: "If we believe in film - and we do - then don't we have the responsibility to protect the world from bad ones?" Indeed.

Too bad the film makers didn't take it to heart.

Funny at some parts, very witty too. Alan Smithee (Eric Idle) has just made the biggest Hollywood Picture ever starring Jackie Chan, Whoopi Goldberg, and Sylvester Stallone. But when Smithee kind of goes crazy the film doesn't come out and it makes a lot of people mad. This is the story of that. Has a lot of potential, this movie that is, but doesn't quit live up to it. Very funny in some parts, then it lags and get's annoying in others. If you liked "Waiting for Guffman" and could stand and liked Julia Sweeny's "God Said 'Ha'". Then this is your movie, otherwise, let it go by.

I was very pleased with the video and I received it very fast!! Would buy from this seller again!! :)

Of the four shorts on this DVD, only one Alkali, Iowa, is worth seeing. The other three have none of the emotional resonance of the three short stories of the first Boys Life trilogy. The acting in Must Be The Music was pathetic and the story almost non-existent. Nunzio's Second Cousin also lacked a purpose, and The DadShuttle was simply annoying. Rent this to see Alkali, Iowa but I wouldn't recommend wasting money buying it. I was disappointed.

The stories in and of themselves were well directed and performed; however, having seen the first Boys Life, these stories were not what I was expecting. Some of the stories were just too, for lack of a better word, weird. Primarily, I cite "Nunzio's Second Cousin." I sat through this story wishing that it would hurry up and end. "Alkali, Iowa" was the best story on the video for it dealt with being gay and multigenerationality. ...

None of the 4 shorts on display are bad, but MUST BE THE MUSIC isn't very inspired, just 4 teenagers out clubbing and that's it. THE DADSHUTTLE is OK, featuring a conversation about mundane things between a father and son. Lots of words left unspoken there. Too long, though.

The standouts are ALKALI, IOWA, a novelettish subject worthy of Checkov given subtle treatment by Mark Christopher. NUNZIO'S SECOND COUSIN is an actor's dream, Vincent D'Onofrio hamming it up something wonderful as a gay Chicago cop out cruising, being harassed by gaybashers. Eileen Brennan as his chatty Italian mama
has a jolly old time, as well.

This is worth buying, for ALKALI, IOWA alone.

Jason Priestley as box office draw? Get real! -- The story here is that of 3 childhood buddies and their obcession with Marilyn Monroe, told in flash backs. Nice 1950s & 60s "Americana", complete with golden oldie tunes, fashions, movie clips, cars and other period gimmicks. Other than the "time travel" perks, there's not much to see. A perpetually cigarette-smoking, babyfaced Priestly becomes annoying. The "tough guy" image of his character reminds on the just as unbelieveable Prince in "Purple Rain". This is no "Stand By Me", so be prepared for a disappointment.**

"Calendar Girl" is about three young men in the '60s who go on a trip to Hollywood to try and meet their dream woman...Marilyn Monroe. Roy (Jason Priestly) is the leader of their little group and gets his hands on both a car and some cash to finance their adventure. Unfortunately, he didn't exactly obtain those things honestly. A couple of goons called the Gallo brothers go to Hollywood to try and find Roy. That's because the money that Roy got his hands on was stolen from them. The Gallos end up being the sole bright spot of the film. One of them is deaf and they use sign language to communicate. What's really cool is the way that they sign in unison throughout the film. They are so smooth in their signing that it is fascinating to watch them together. Stephen Tobolowsky (Antonio Gallo) is his usual humorous self and plays the part of a sarcastic thug quite well.

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't have as good of a flow to it. The three main characters don't have much in the way of charm or intelligence. They just kinda stumble along, occasionally coming up with pathetic schemes to try and get close to Marilyn. One of them eventually goes on a late night drive and stroll with Miss Monroe. However, it all seems rather anti-climactic and the movie quickly ends afterwards.

For those of you so inclined, you might want to check out "Calendar Girl" for the scene when they try to find Marilyn at a nude beach. It's extremely revealing for a movie that isn't rated R.

This movie is light and funny, particularly if you like juvenile themes. The only reason I bought this film was because Steve Railsback is in it. Steve gives his usual solid performance and his role is the only meaningful one, as far as I am concerned. His portrayal of a father who is out of touch with a son who feels alienated from his father is touching and sad. The final confrontation between father and son and their reconciliation before the boy leaves for Viet Nam is the best part of the picture.

This tale of Gene Wilder as a Gary Trudeau-like celebrity political humourist doesn't work as comedy, drama or romance. The screenplay by Norman Steinberg and David Frankel is based on an Esquire article by Bob Greene entitled Convention of the Love Goddesses, which is represented by Wilder speaking at an all female college, declaring that men are "self-pitying" and in awe of women. However this hardly qualifies as feminism, which director Leonard Nimoy amusingly plays with by having Wilder's car pass a line of phallic trees. The only relationship he seems to have with a woman where Wilder isn't controlling or negative is his affair with the much younger Mary Stuart Masterson, and even this is invalidated by his unwillingness to declare his emotion, echoed in Sotto Voce being the name of a featured restaurant.
The main romance here is with Christine Lahti. At first her disinterest in him gives her some strength. She is a waitress at a book signing event of his yet unimpressed with his fame. However wardrobe dress her in Annie Hall-wear and soon she is revealed to be self-consciously weak, which diminishes Lahti's otherwise appealing qualities. The inability of the couple to bear a child sours their relationship, and Lahti bears the teary-eyed guilt.
What is noticable about the treatment is the parallels to be made with Woody Allen movies, specifically Annie Hall and Manhattan. Masterson is a bad driver like Diane Keaton was, and swears the way Keaton did in Manhattan, and the age difference recalls Allen and Mariel Hemmingway. Wilder too gets his share of arrogant jokes at the expense of others, and has Allen's ability to extend his performance beyond the comic persona. His reductive James Cagney imitation is about the only thing I liked.
At first Nimoy paces at a clip, aided by the music score of Miles Goodman, but soon the timing comes to a holt and we're left stranded with people we'd rather do without. It's not encouraging that Anne Jackson as Wilder's acerbic mother is quickly disposed of. The treatment's continued coverage of Lahti telegraphs events, and only the most desperate of romantics can be pleased with the conclusion.

Gene Wilder rules in this romantic comedy also co-starring Christine Lahti.It's a must see!!

funny as hell all the way through, though is lags in some of the action parts and Eric Roberts seems like a dumb blonde with his blonde hair. my favortie part is when Zahn and Lawrence meet and then that damn bumblebee comes along and it looks like on a camera that Zahn is beating Lawrence up and he goes to jail. Zahn and Lawrence both have great one liners

favorite line
Martin Lawrence- Ma'am, you can repracure your vehicle(then it blows up and he turns to her and says) what the problem is?

National Security is the perfect movie to see this year. I saw it the day it came out and I want to see it again. It stars one of the best comedians today (Martin Lawrence) and another funny misfit (Steve Zahn from SAVING SILVERMAN). The movie is funny yet has good action. Here is the plot.
Steve Zhan plays Hank. An LA policeman who is bent on revenge to finding the guy who killed his partner in gun battle. Lawrence is Earl. A guy who just got kicked out of the force after turning a practice session into a disaster. Plus Earl always thinks that people have a problem with him because he is black- not because of his attitude. One day while Earl is trying to have a regular day, he realizes he left his keys in his car and tried to stick his hand in and get it. Hank catches him and interrogates what is going on. While that is happening, a bee comes by and Earl is allergic to bees and so Hank tries to get the bee away but the way they were positioned, it looked like Hank was beating on Earl and a guy who near by got the whole thing on camera. Because of that, a huge commotion started thru out the state about a white cop beating a black civilian. Hank is fired from the police and sent to jail for 6 months and Earl just kicks back and lets the whole thing happen even though he knows it was a bee.
Hank serves his six months and after getting out he tries to do something similar toward police work- a job as a security guard. While on the job, Hanks gets called about a robbery and goes to check it out. It seems that the robbers were the guys he had an encounter with in the past and one of the guys was his partner's murderer. Hank goes into action right away and a fellow security guard who worked in the building comes to back up Hank and that person just happens to be Earl!! The two would've had a long argument but realized it wasn't the time and chased the bad guys but they were stopped by the police. Police that Hank kidnapped Earl for revenge but Earl decided not to have anything bad happen to Hank this time although it would have felt real good. Hank goes on to try find these guys who did the robbery because its personal and Earl thinks it is personal too because one them called him a monkey- and he thinks he was called that because he is black. Both Hank and Earl go on the case even though they are not policemen and along the way they go through many arguments that sometimes lead toward zany consequences like fighting over which to go on the street- right or left and they end up jumping the highway into a pile of portable toilets. Hank and Earl must try to put the past aside so they can help each other to try and find these bad guys.
National Security loaded with intense action, thrilling chase scenes, gun battles, fist fights, and many parts that will make you laugh hard. It's definitely as good as blue Steak and you should see it while it is still in theaters.

I thought that this was great. I didn't think it was rasist at all (I'm not black, but srtongly apposed to rasicm.). I thought that it was very funny. I saw alot of reveiws saying that it was stero tyipcal, but of whites too so everyone was stero typed. It was a great film and it had some great action scenes although over all it was a comedy.

This was basically your average comedy movie. First half wasn't very funny; second have was hilarious. First of all, Leslie Nielsen plays a great Quincy Magoo, acting like he is blind, and all. Angus, the dog, is a pretty good part, too, though some of the gags near the beginning with Angus didn't really hit the spot. Some jokes hilarious, for example, the chicken scene. Only poor Mr. Magoo could end up sandpapering a boiling chicken!

The other acting wasn't that great, unfortunately. If the other actors hadn't acted like it was so much of a drama, and treated it more like a comedy, it could've turned out a little better. I would recommend this for lovers of comedy.

Recommended for ages 6 and up. Rated PG for mild language (hardly noticeable) and some action sequences.

This movie may be a bit scary for younger children, because of some of the gun fighting, but this is lightened up by the near-sightedness (or is it pure stupidity?) of Magoo. Younger children will enjoy the silly slapstick comedy.

We really liked the movie, the kids all love it, they find it very funny. We have seen the original Mr. Magoo cartoons and enjoyed them. This movie is as funny as the cartoons.

It is indeed very interesting and amusing to see the cartoon Mr. Magoo 'come to life' acted out by non other than the great comedian Leslie Nielsen. I burst out laughing a few times watching this movie, for example, the part when Mr. Magoo was trying to prepare the 'chicken dish' for the lovely but fatal Prunela (Kelly Lynch). He was watching a 'cooking' program when it was changed to an 'aerobics' program and next to a 'carpentary' program. Mr. Magoo as usual being visually impaired, went through all the 'rituals' with his chicken. It was hilarious! Get this movie and laugh your way through with Mr. Magoo from the beginning when the jewel was stolen to the end when he restored it to its rightful place, all the while not realizing the dangers he was in. This is because as in the cartoon, he always walks away smoothly from all harm despite his bad eyesight. This is a wonderful movie for 'tired, sore' eyes!

It pains me to have to think about this movie again, but I thought I'd write a review to warn people away, if I could. Some of the other reviewers don't sound too fond of the Brave Little Toaster movies, period, but that's not the case with me! I loved the original movie, and the other sequel (part two in the Disney-adapted storyline) "The Brave Little Toaster to the Rescue," is an enjoyable extension of the Toaster series, if not quite up to the original. This dreck, just forget it. I don't care how nuts you and/or your kids are about the Brave Little Toaster, if you're over 3 years old this monsterpiece will give you brain cramps. (And why would you want to traumatize a 3 year old with this!?) I watched this film with a 7 year old and a 9 year old, and we all agreed about how awful it is.

When I first watched this very convoluted movie, it brought every "what were they smoking" cliche to mind about the screenwriters and director. Seriously, it was hard to imagine that people whose brains weren't chemically fried could POSSIBLY think that some of the nonsense and downright creepiness in this flick was a good idea. Then I finally read the Brave Little Toaster books by Thomas M. Disch (which are excellent, by the way, and I highly recommend them.) A large part of the awfulness of the "Mars" movie sequel seems to result from the unfortunate collision of the Disney- and Disch-authored plots. Disney pretty much took Disch's concept of anthropomorphic appliances and ran with it, adding their own human characters and greatly altering the plot. The "master" of the appliances Rob McGroarty, his girlfriend/wife Chris, the veterinary school thing --all 100% Disney.

Not that I have a problem with Disney re-writing the storyline; as I've said I enjoy both the movies and the books which inspired them. But in the "Mars" movie, Disney seems to have decided to include every bizarre element of the Disch book (appliances travelling to Mars under their own power, gigantic talking refrigerators, talking toy balloons surrounding the Earth, "Christmas Angels" on Mars etc.), failed to integrate said bizarre elements into the Disney storyline or explain them, and then they added MORE convoluted nonsense of their own. The Disch story is a lighthearted fantasy with a sci-fi edge; the Disney adaptation never gets off the ground.

Anyway, enough about how the plot of this mess is, well, a mess, and onto to the creepiness! One of the constants of the first two Toaster movies, and a feature of most "inanimate objects coming to life" movies (think Toy Story), is that the talking appliance characters only come to life when people are NOT around. But in "Mars" we watch a truly terrifying musical number with the McGroarty's new baby and the appliances... something about how Rob's appliances are watching out for the kid while they dance around and cuddle. And for the rest of the film, appliances can "come to life" around the baby. (That kid is REALLY going to need some therapy when he grows up.)

Perhaps the creepiest aspect of "Mars" is the fuzzy boundary about what can and cannot "come to life" with human speech and sentience. Usually in Disney films, this includes people and non-human animals. The Toaster films extended this to electrical devices, which was charming and unique since we tend to think of our favorite and least favorite appliances and electronics as having personalities anyway. In "Mars," not only do animals and appliances talk to one another, the kitchen sink talks! And toy balloons can talk! Christmas ornaments can talk! It's a regular talking extravaganza, and it raises eerie metaphysical questions about what ISN'T alive in this whacko movie.

As other reviewers have noted, "The Brave Little Toaster Goes to Mars" has some serious plausibility problems as well. That may sound like a funny complaint about a film whose title character is a talking toaster, but believe me, you'll be scratching your head too. The plot (such that it has one) revolves around the McGroarty's infant son being kidnapped by a rebellious band of appliances who have somehow relocated themselves to Mars. It's not too well explained how the baby is transported to Mars, but once he's there, he floats around in some kind of impervious air bubble (which can survive re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, of course.) Thomas M. Disch may have written some far-out stuff, but at least in the book he made a point of explaining how ONLY machines could survive the extreme temperatures of Mars and the vacuum of space. (I mean the absence of air, not Kirby:))

I could cite many comparable examples about how this movie was very poorly adapted and put together, but already my brain is cramping up from too much thinking about it. Bottom line: Watch the OTHER Toaster movies and read the books, just avoid this one!!!

The Brave Little Toaster goes to Mars is on my list of my top five least favorite animated kids movies (Number one is Tarzan and Jane, number two is Cinderella 2 dreams come true and number three is the movie you're reading the review of)! The hair-brained idea (for starters) is terrbile. What are the chances of a Martian taking the baby that happens to be in the same house that has the talking accessories? Probably a 21% chance because we don't even know if Martians exist! Anyway, the plot is so gooney, and the movie is so slow, and animation is so corny, you'll be sorry if you watch this! I can't think of enough bad things to say about it! And the rat can talk to the toaster! Who ever heard of a rat talking to a toaster??? It's so bad, it makes you wish you would have watched the first one! And if you think THAT you KNOW it's a bad movie (By the way, the first Brave Little Toaster is number 4 on my list, I haven't seen the other Brave Little Toaster movie and I hope I NEVER do!) Look, if you want satisfaction in a video, either buy: Uncensored Bosko Volumes 1 and 2 (That's a DVD), Out of the Inkwell Vol. 3 The Birth of Ko-Ko, The Bugs Bunny/ Road Runner Movie, or Betty Boop the definitive collection (all of these are available at Amazon). If you don't want to be bored out of your skull, do NOT watch this movie. Over and out...

I've never seen so many applicances get around so often. Perhaps NASA should hire the Toaster and his pals to get them to Mars! This is an entertaining installment but the plot is a bit confusing for some small children. There are very few little ones who know who Albert Einstein is, much less the theory of relativity (or the unified theory). There's also few children who know what hearing aids are for. I'd suggest watching this movie with your kids to explain (to their comprehension)the confusing bits of the story.

The second film to be produced in this trilogy (although the last in it), Mars is the second best. The colorful backgrounds, songs and adventure will capture your child's attention. It also provides a great dialog about values, misunderstandings and prejudice. It's also a entertaining movie. It's a pity that Disney didn't invest a bit more money in this sequel (it was actually done outside of Disney if I'm not mistaken and picked up by the company). The animation could have been a bit smoother but your kids probably won't notice.

The songs are enjoyable and the difficulties the characters have provide excellent examples of conflict resolution for kids. The plot is less dark than the first film but, again, may require a bit of explaining.