Scream VI

Today, on Paramount+, I finished watching “Scream VI,” which came out theatrically in March, but on Paramount+ in April, and I will let everyone know what I thought of the latest film in this franchise that I hate.

The reboot of the Scream franchise in 2022 might have been planted to be released in the bad time of January, but its unexpectedly high $81 million box office made a sequel quickly. It might a good thing they did, because the new young cast members, notably Melissa Barrera, Jenna Ortega, Jasmine Savoy Brown, and Mason Gooding – are very popular and getting more by the minute.

“Scream VI” finds the group away from the tortured town of Woodsboro, as they have all relocated to the famously safe New York City together. Tara (Jenna Ortega) and twins Mindy (Jasmine Savoy Brown) and Chad (Mason Gooding) are students at the fictional Blackmoore University, while Sam (Melissa Barrera) does her best to keep Tara safe after getting back in touch with her sister in the last film.

The appearance of a new Ghostface killer not only puts all of them in danger, but also new roommates Quinn (Liana Liberato) and Ethan (Jack Champion), along with Sam’s new boyfriend, Danny (Josh Segarra). Helping to find the killer (or killers) is Detective Bailey (Dermot Mulroney) and Kirby Reed (Hayden Panatierre), now an FBI agent after being haunted herself in “Scream 4.”

Alex Bentley said in his review, “Still sticking with the credo of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” the filmmakers – returning co-directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Ginnett, and returning co-writers James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick – go back to the same formula seen many times before over and over again.” The killer attacks, stabs a couple of victims before getting hit by a blunt object, suddenly disappears after the protagonists look away, rinse and repeat.

Bentley said, “At this point it would be surprising if they deviated much at all from what is expected, since fans don’t seem to mind the repetition. That’s not to say that the film is completely devoid of entertainment. The brutal opening scene, another hallmark of the series, manages to bring a degree of cleverness to the film.” Despite most of the kills being shown, the level of violent will satisfy any huge horror fan.

However, the film frequently goes down the easy road. It’s set around Halloween, so the group of people walking the streets in masks, many of them Ghostface masks, seems natural. Instead of heightening the tension, it somehow removes it as the filmmakers can’t use the idea right. Bentley said, “Sam being haunted by her parentage once again plays a big part in the story, but just as in the last film, it doesn’t add up to much.”

Bentley continued, “The lack of good material is a crying shame, as the film truly does have a gem of a cast. Ortega is at the top of everyone’s list after the Netflix show Wednesday and other recent roles.” Barrera has the charm and looks to be the protagonist in many films. Savoy Brown and Gooding have the ability to easily go back and forth between movies and TV.

Bentley is right when he said, “In the Scream franchise, Ghostface will never die because there will always be someone new who’s willing – or psychotic enough – to don the mask and do some more slashing.” However, unless filmmakers are able to insert some new ideas into the franchise, it is best to end the series off, once and for all.

Honestly, I don’t see any reason whatsoever to bring this franchise back. I know this has a huge fanbase, but this film was bad from the start, in my opinion. Each film gets worse and worse, and this film has to be the worst in the franchise, in my opinion. I don’t see any reason why they should make any more sequels. Don’t see this one because I don’t think a lot of people will like it. I have a coworker who was praising this, but I didn’t like this one at all. Just don’t even think of clicking on the title when you’re scrolling through Paramount+. Although they might already be planning more sequels, end the franchise off already.

Sorry for this review today. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Chevy Chase Month.”

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Today my brother and I checked out “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania,” which came out in theaters in February but on Disney+ a week ago, and I will let you know what I thought of it.

Appropriately for the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s smallest heroes, the likability of “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” are small, but still satisfying.

Life is pretty good for Scott Lang, reprised by Paul Rudd, the ex-con and now hero because of his work helping to save the world as Ant-Man, part of The Avengers team who saved half of humanity and defeated Thanos. Now he’s settled down to a normal life with girlfriend, fellow superhero and philanthropist Hope van Dyne, reprised by Evangeline Lilly. Occasionally Scott has to bail his daughter Cassie, played by Kathryn Newton, out of jail for reasons against civil disobedience, and deal with Cassie’s criticism that her dad doesn’t care about helping people.

Cassie, helped by Hope and Hope’s inventor father Hank Pym, reprised by Michael Douglas, has been creating a device to see the subatomic universe called the “quantum realm.” When Hank’s wife, Janet, reprised by Michelle Pfeiffer, sees Cassie’s device is sending a signal into the quantum realm, she tells her to turn it off – but not before the device is activated and starts pulling all of the lab equipment, Hank’s ant farm, and eventually the five of them down into the subatomic.

Scott and Cassie get separated from everyone, and end up with a group of rebels trying to avoid the cruel leader of the quantum realm. Hope, Hank, and Janet are somewhere else, with Janet – who spent 30 years in the quantum realm (which was revealed in 2018’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp”) – keeping secrets about why she’s terrified of returning. Sean P. Means said in his review, “Janet leads Hope and Hank through the seedier elements of this place, which mostly involves a not-so-pleasant few minutes with a local scoundrel played by Bill Murray.”

In the end, we find out about who is making Janet petrified: Kang, the Conqueror, played by Jonathan Majors, a supervillain whose evil spreads the multiverse.

Means notes, “Director Peyton Reed, now on his third movie with “Ant-Man” in the title, knows not to take this bug-themed superhero stuff too seriously.” That’s why the rebels include a goo creature (David Dastmalchian), and another a telepath (William Jackson Harper) who’s clearly aggravated by what people always think about. And it’s why Kang has a secondary villain (Corey Stoll), right out of Marvel canon, whose reveal is really funny.

Means mentions, “The screenplay, the first produced feature script by “Rick & Morty” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” writer Jeff Loveness, has some funny bits, along with gaps in its credulity that aren’t papered over by saying “it’s the quantum realm — the rules are different here.” Still, the plot gives plenty of chances for Rudd’s easygoing charm to win us over, and to give the supporting players — especially Pfeiffer — room to shine.”

Means continues, “The most intriguing thing about “Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania” is Majors as Kang — who, we already know from his appearance in Marvel’s series “Loki” and in promises from Marvel Uber-producer Kevin Feige, is going to be the big bad guy for several movies to come.” Based on the evidence here, he will be someone worth following through this new phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Spoiler alert: in the mid-credits scene, every variant of Kang, let by Immortus (Majors), sympathize Kang’s death and plan their Multiverse conquering. The post-credits scene shows Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and Mobius (Owen Wilson) encountering another Kang variant, Victor Timely, on Earth in 1901.

I don’t get why critics were hating on this movie. My brother and I saw this and I found myself enjoying this a lot. There was a part where I felt as though I was going to nod off, but that was probably because of eating while watching this. However, I know that certain parts of this film seems like the scenery was like that in Star Wars, Bladerunner, Guardians of the Galaxy, or Dune, but I didn’t mind it. I still found parts of this funny, it was very humanizing, emotional, and I liked the look and action of this film. I would say this might be another one of my favorite comic book adaptations. Check it out on Disney+ if you didn’t see it in theaters. Don’t listen to the hate, judge it for yourself.

Thank you for joining in on another installment from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Stay tuned this Friday for the conclusion of “Chevy Chase Month.”

Caddyshack II

Rita Kempley started her review by saying, “"Caddyshack II," a feeble follow-up to the 1980 laff riot, is lamer than a duck with bunions, and dumber than grubs. It's patronizing and clumsily manipulative, and top banana Jackie Mason is upstaged by the gopher puppet.”

Jackie Mason, looking gentle and miserable, replaces the irreplaceable Rodney Dangerfield as the cultural hero in loud golf pants. Mason plays a self-made Armenian millionaire who tries to get into the Bushwood Country Club to please his social-climbing daughter, played by Jessica Lundy. Naturally he is ridiculed by the arrogant members.

He avenges himself by purchasing Bushwood to turn it into a messy golf theme park open to the public. “I want to make sure that everyone has a taste of the good life,” says the tycoon. Kempley said, “Led by their snooty president (Robert Stack), the club members are determined to destroy the tee-totaler. But fear not, working-class audience members, blue blood will be spilt yet -- in a winner-take-Bushwood golf match between the antagonists.”

Kempley continued, “Peter Torokvei and "Caddyshack" writer Harold Ramis are just a couple of hackers with typewriters. They pillage the original right down to a gung-ho psycho (Dan Aykroyd instead of Bill Murray) who becomes obsessed with the Twinkie-loving gopher puppet. Aykroyd has never been so awful, his ineptitude eclipsed only by the director Allan Arkush's.”

The adorable rodent, love interest Dyan Cannon’s front muscles and Randy Quaid’s terrific work as a sick are the movie’s only pros. Mason does get off an occasional punch line. When advised by a Zen golfer, played by Chevy Chase in a cameo, to “be the ball,” he rejoins, “IF I wanted to be a piece of sports equipment, I’d be a lady’s bicycle seat.”

And “Caddyshack II,” released in 1988, viewers would as soon be golf clubs in an electrical storm.

As everyone might have guessed, this is one of the worst sequels ever made. Everything that made the first one a comedy classic is destroyed in this heartless sequel. If you loved the first movie, then avoid this one at all cost. You will loathe this, especially since no one, except for Chase, returns in this sequel. Nothing about this sequel is likable.

Sorry for posting this really late. I was really tired after work. However, stay tuned next week when I talk about a movie that I saw a little bit of as a kid in the finale of “Chevy Chase Month.”

Three Amigos

There’s hardly a moment in “Three Amigos,” released in 1986, that isn’t silly – make that incredibly outrageously and breathtakingly silly. Maybe that’s why this story of a trio of clumsy silent-movie actors turned real-life heroes is such an enjoyable ride. Patrick Goldstein compared in his review, “It’s like a cross between a big-budget Three Stooges movie and a Hope-Crosby road picture, with dozens of old cowpoke gags thrown in to spice up the brew.”

Nothing is real in this silly Western travesty – not even the poster-board sunsets. Goldstein said, “And it’s this giddy artifice that gives “Three Amigos” a delightfully fresh spin. Who would’ve thought that a movie loaded with so many corny jokes and wobbly slapstick routines could be one of the daffiest comedies of the year?”

The film takes place in 1916, when the small Mexican village of Santa Poco is being terrorized by a group of banditos led by El Guapo, played by Alfonso Arau, a criminal outlaw who looks like, as Goldstein puts it, “as if he hasn’t brushed his teeth since the Spanish-American War.” When an innocent senorita (Patrice Martinez) sees a silent movie starring the Three Amigos (Steve Martin, Chevy Chase, and Martin Short), she is so taken by their heroism that she asks their help in defeating this evil villain.

By the time the famous actors get her confused telegram, they’ve been kicked off the Goldsmith Pictures studio for demanding a raise. Now out of work, the bumbling trio are really happy to travel south of the border, thinking they’ve been hired (for 100,000 pesos) to make a quickie personal appearance.

Goldstein said, “Needless to say, these Hollywood tenderfoots are in for a rude awakening. They hit town, dolled up in their fancy, prop-department “charro” duds, only to find real bullets buzzing by their heads.” (You know they’re in trouble when a street beggar asks, “Can I have your watch when you’re dead?”) It’s the comedy of misunderstanding, and director John Landis feeds the situation for every laugh possible, taking playful enjoyment in showing how unprepared these actor heroes are for life outside the studio.

The amigos see everything as an act. Even when the bad guys start shooting, the three find time to divide the villains’ performance before the smoke clears. Goldstein mentions, “Soothing a clump of Mexican children, Short--who plays a former child star named Ned Nederlander--regales them with Dorothy Gish anecdotes. Landis even stages a deliciously loony campfire scene, where the amigos croon a Randy Newman sagebrush ballad (“Blue Shadows on the Trail”), aided by a back-up chorus of desert critters, including a scene-stealing tortoise.”

Goldstein continues, “It’s a testimony to the sad state of Hollywood these days that this is one of the few comedies in recent memory which has actually benefited from the presence of bona-fide stars.” While Martin, Newman, and “Saturday Night Live’s” Lorne Michaels have given a serviceable script, the real enjoyment here is the amigo trio’s well-done comic timing. Goldstein said, “Their trademark “Amigo” salute--which plays like a mixture of an elaborate soul-shake and a Carmen Miranda dance step--is one of those inspired pieces of nonsense that gets funnier each time they do it.”

Short is a disappointment, giving little more than juvenile silliness. However, Chase, even if he’s a little rough in his bolero jacket, is filled with charm, more mischievous and endearing than he’s been on screen in years. Goldstein credits, “Best of all, Martin emerges as a screwball comic wizard, whether he’s slyly imitating the swaggering stride of a gunslinger or gamely wrestling with dungeon manacles as if they were a clanking maze of Nautilus equipment.”

Goldstein continues, “All this nuttiness may drive you crazy--it’s like being forced to watch 90 minutes of David Letterman’s “Stupid Pet Tricks.” But Landis is a shrewd comic craftsman who realizes that attitude can be everything, especially when you’re aiming for the ridiculous instead of the sublime.” “The Three Amigos” reaches low for its silly jokes. However, in Hollywood, sometimes you have to condescend to conquer.

This is a comedy classic. If you haven’t seen it, you are missing out. Especially if you’re a fan of these three actors, who have shown up together in so many different shows, this is a must. I had seen a little bit of this movie as a kid, but I decided to go back and watch it after hearing everyone talk about how funny this was. They were not wrong, as I think everyone will have a great time laughing at this film. See it if you haven’t because this is a must.

Next week we’re going to look at another really bad sequel in “Chevy Chase Month.”

Caddyshack

For the month of May, I have decided to pay tribute to one of the funniest actors of all time, Chevy Chase. Let’s start off this month with the 1980 comedy classic, and hands down, one of the best, “Caddyshack.”

This may be a tad outdated, with its catchy soundtrack and music by Kenny Loggins, but it still shows the talent for amazing comedic timing. Mike Massie said in his review, “Director Harold Ramis would write, direct, produce, and even star in several influential, important comedy works of the ‘80s, but it’s this envelope-pushing laugh-fest that kicked off his directing career.” Although the late amazing one-liner comedian Rodney Dangerfield, Chevy Chase, and Bill Murray could definitely use more screen time (their involvement was originally meant to be simply cameos), especially seeing how much of the film is improvised, “Caddyshack” still intelligently utilizes its cast. Succeeding on so many ways, this film is also highly quotable, often being called one of the all-time funniest comedies, with a handful of lines of dialogue ranking among the most memorable in cinema. Who knew golf could be so much fun?

Danny Noonan (Michael O’Keefe), a member of an incredibly large family (Ron Frank, Patricia Wilcox, Debi Frank, and Dennis McCormack), is preparing to disappoint his parents (Elaine Aiken and Albert Saimi) with news of failed scholarship opportunities. He’s faced on finding a career at the laborious lumberyard, but currently spends his time as a caddie at the exclusive Bushwood Country Club, fighting with old people, drugs, fighting, his girlfriend Maggie (Sarah Holcomb), a desperate newcomer (Cindy Morgan), crazy partiers, and generally debaucherous activities. When he hears of a caddie scholarship that could change his future, he wants to win a golf tournament and to kiss up to Judge Smails, played by Ted Knight from the “Mary Tyler Moore Show,” the man who can recommend him for the scholarship. As events develop, a $40,000 illegal game of golf and a plastic-explosive-obsessed maintenance man raise the climax.

Assistant greenskeeper Carl Spackler, played by Bill Murray, is a solitary crazy man with an obsession for older women, constantly saying nasty things silently, charged with taking care of a destructive gopher haunting the golf course (he’s got a six-year plan for eventually becoming head greenskeeper). Massie said, “Treating the rodent like the Vietcong, he wages a personal war that’s sure to cause more damage than an entire army of critters could unleash.” Ty Webb (Chevy Chase) is a millionaire golfer who never keeps score and a philosopher with odd advice and random comments, and Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield) is a wealthy invest with one-liner jokes and crude sarcasm always ready to be said. For these strange people, it’s just an average day on the golf course.

Massie noted, “The story itself is rather disjointed, with three characters all trying to achieve separate goals. The gags appear to have been written first, with the plot formed around various witty setups, much like every “Saturday Night Live” movie adaptation. The premise is simple, rarely interfering with the delivery of humor, as if in place just to get the actors to cross paths – the oddball characters are the constituents that quickly become the best parts of the pervasive nonsense. It’s infrequent for three vastly different comedians to have such fitting performances together without trampling on each other’s skits; here, they pull it off admirably. Complete with an iconic dancing gopher, hilarious dialogue, and edgy elements that would lead the way for raunchy teen comedies of the future, “Caddyshack” proves that irreverence toward everything can be gut-busting and that golf doesn’t have to be just for the elderly (though predominantly for the rich).”

This movie is a must for everyone to see. It doesn’t matter if you like golf or not, this movie will make everyone bust out laughing. See it, especially to hear some of the funniest lines from Rodney Dangerfield. This movie is famous for the line, “Cinderella story. Outta nowhere. A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole!” Do not miss your chance to see this.

Look out next week when I review another classic comedy in “Chevy Chase Month.”

Blues Brothers 2000

“Blues Brothers 2000,” Jon Landis’ 1998 sequel to his 1980 film “The Blues Brothers,” follows the pattern created by the first film: It mixes comedy with musical numbers by a wide array of legendary R&B performers.

That might sound like a good trade-off: Sit through the comedy. Float along with the story. As a reward for being patient, hear Areatha Franklin sing Respect. However, think of it this way. Franklin sings once – Dan Aykroyd sings three times. John Goodman sings an entire song – and B.B. King sings half a song.

Yes, “Blues Brothers 2000” does have cameos by Franklin, King, Sam Moore, James Brown and Eric Clapton. However, it makes an audience pay for every two seconds of enjoyable with 10 seconds of torture.

This is torture. Mike LaSalle said in his review, “There was always something a little discomforting about the Blues Brothers. To watch them was to feel as though one were indulging a fantasy. Without John Belushi, the fantasy seems a lot less vital and even more pedestrian.”

Belushi’s passing is explained when Elwood Blues, reprised by Aykroyd, is released from prison and hears that his brother, Jake, is dead. Elwood’s mission is to reunite his band, and for that he teams up with a singing bartender, played by Goodman, and some musicians and drives off.

Aykroyd can’t sing, but he tried hard, and trying hard makes everything look even worse. The same goes for Goodman, and for Joe Morton, plays a National Guard commander-turned-bluesman. You could think, “There, but for the grace of God…” LaSalle asks, “After all, if someone told you that you could sing, and offered to put you in front of a great blues band, wouldn't you do it? And wouldn't you want to crawl under a rock when the movie came out?”

The film is dead on arrive for 30 minutes, until Franklin comes on and gives three minutes of life. LaSalle says, “Talent is a wonderful thing, and one especially appreciates its splendors and mysteries after enduring Goodman and Aykroyd.” From then on, the only good parts are the songs by the real R&B singers.

LaSalle says, “For reasons that I suspect are demographic, there's a boy (J. Evan Bonifant) in the movie, a 10-year-old who leaves an orphanage to join the band.” The kid does not contribute anything except giving the cops a reason to chase the Blues Brothers everywhere they go. There are chase scenes and car pileups. This wasn’t new in 1980. It hasn’t gotten any newer.

There’s also a subplot with the Russian mafia. Since the Russians don’t sing, there’s no reason to pay attention.

This is hands down, one of the worst sequels ever made. If you loved the first one, never see this sequel. It will kill you every minute you are watching it. It has the famous line, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” You would be saying that throughout the duration of this film. Was there any reason to make this travesty of a sequel? There was absolutely no reason for Elwood to get the band back together. The first one had a reason, and it was funny. Here, there isn’t a reason. The comedy just doesn’t work. However, if you would like, get the soundtrack because that is the only redeeming factor of this film. How can such great people who made one of the best comedies ever make one of the most pointless and worse sequels ever? I can’t even fathom the idea of this hideously atrocious sequels even existing. Just avoid this at all cost because this film is like a new form of punishment.

Alright everyone, we have now come to the end of “Dan Aykroyd Month.” I’m sorry that I started it off great and ended it off on a bad note. But that’s just how it is sometimes. Actors star in great and bad films. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

North

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.”

The film stars Elijah Wood, who was a wonderful child actor (Ebert pointed out, “and if you don't believe me, watch his version of "The Adventures of Huck Finn").” Here he is stuck in a story that no actor, however great, however young, should be punished with. He plays a kid with distracted parents, who decides to go into court, emancipate himself from them, and travel the world to search for nicer parents. This is all helped by his friend Winchell (Matthew McCurley) and his aid Arthur Belt (Jon Lovitz).

This idea is greatly flawed. Ebert is right when he said, “Children do not lightly separate from their parents - and certainly not on the evidence provided here, where the great parental sin is not paying attention to their kid at the dinner table.” The parents, played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jason Alexander, have provided little North with what looks like a million-dollar house in a Frank Capra neighborhood, all on his dad’s income as a pants inspector. Ebert said, “And, yes, I know that is supposed to be a fantasy, but the pants-inspecting jokes are only the first of several truly awful episodes in this film.”

Ebert said, “North goes into court, where the judge is Alan Arkin, proving without the slightest shadow of a doubt that he should never, ever appear again in public with any material even vaguely inspired by Groucho Marx. North's case hits the headlines, and since he is such an all-star overachiever, offers pour in from would-be parents all over the world, leading to an odyssey that takes him to Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, and elsewhere.”

What is the point of the scenes with the auditioning parents? (The victimized actors range from Dan Aykroyd and Reba McEntire as Texans, Keone Young and Lauren Tom as Hawaiians, Alexander Godunov and Kelly McGillis as Amish parents, Abe Vigoda, Graham Greene, and Kathy Bates as Eskimos). They are all seen as broad, desperate comic cartoons. They are not funny. They are not touching. There is no truth in them. They don’t even work as parodies. There is an absurdity here that seems almost intentional, as if the filmmakers thought to leave anything of interest or entertainment value out of these segments. We also have Faith Ford, John Ritter, Scarlett Johansson, and Jesse Ziegler as a nice family, but for some reason, North doesn’t feel like he belongs there.

North is followed on his journey by a mysterious character who appears in many disguises. He is the Easter bunny, a cowboy, a beach guy, a standup comic, and a Federal Express driver who works in several product plugs.

North thinks it is funny the guy looks familiar. That’s because he is. All of the appearances are played by Bruce Willis, who is not funny, or helpful, in any of them.

I can understand what Ebert meant when he said, “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”

Ebert continued, “I hold it as an item of faith that Rob Reiner is a gifted filmmaker; among his credits are "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Sure Thing," "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me," "When Harry Met Sally...," and "Misery." I list those titles as an incantation against this one.”

“North,” released in 1994, is a bad film – one of the worst made that year, maybe ever. Ebert ended his review by saying, “But it is not by a bad filmmaker, and must represent some sort of lapse from which Reiner will recover - possibly sooner than I will.”

What were people thinking when making this film? At first, it feels like a harmless family comedy until it goes on to offend all these people. The Texans want to fat up North so he can be like their son who died in a stampede, the Hawaiians want to put North on a billboard where an octopus pulls down his speedo, mooning people into thinking it will promote tourism, the Eskimos say goodbye to their elders before sailing them off into the sea where they die with dignity. Ok, when that was done, it was done in time of famine and was extremely rare, only done as a last resort. Also, no one does that anymore! At least they had Graham Greene in here, but why did they spray paint Kathy Bates and made her into an Eskimo? Don't they know how offensive all of this is to others? And how is it that North travels all over (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, China, Africa, France) and not find a single family that he likes? On top of that, why are NONE of the jokes funny!? Siskel and Ebert said this film was first-class junk, it made Ebert cringe, and Siskel said they felt unclean just sitting there thinking about it.

If you get a chance to pass this film up and never see it, don’t. I saw this briefly as a child and as a teen and I thought nothing of it, but it wasn’t until I saw the Nostalgia Critic’s review of it that I went back and saw it. Boy is that a mistake I highly regret making. I can’t believe that such a great director, Rob Reiner, could have even thought of such a dirty idea. This is one of the worst decisions that any director has made.

Sadly, we’re going to have to end off “Dan Aykroyd Month” with another bad movie. Hold on to your vomit bags next week to find out. In the meantime, I’m going to clean off after typing up this review.