app354

"Howard the Duck" was a critical and commercial failure when it was first released in the summer of 1986. Since that time, the movie has become synonymous with one word: BOMB. However, while it is not a very good film, I feel "Howard the Duck" is not nearly as bad as many people seem to believe.

How can you dislike a film about a midget duck from another planet who (with the help of Lea Thompson and her gigantic '80s hair) saves Earth from impending doom? Not only that, but the menace threatening Earth is the Dark Overlord of the Universe, an evil force that has invaded the body of Jeffery Jones! "Howard the Duck" is one of those movies that is enjoyable in a mindless way. It is by no means classic cinema, but if you are in the right frame of mind, it is very fun to watch.

And don't miss the musical number at the end, when Howard and the cast do the "duck waddle"!

"Cop Rock" was a typical police drama, except for the fact that it was also a MUSICAL. Everybody sang: the cops, the criminals, even the judge and jury in the courtroom during trials. With its many lavish song-and-dance routines and catchy tunes, "Cop Rock" was almost like a Broadway musical adaptation of "Hill Street Blues".

"Cop Rock" was heavily promoted by ABC in the weeks before its premiere in the fall of 1990. Apparently, ABC thought that they had a huge hit on their hands, even though it was the first-ever cop show/musical on TV. Not surprisingly, the show was savaged by critics and ignored by audiences. Despite the large amounts of publicity and money invested in the series (which was one of the most-expensive TV shows ever made up to that point, at a cost of nearly $2 million an episode), it was canceled after only three months.

In my opinion, "Cop Rock" was a very unique show. Although the singing wasn't always that great, the songs were usually decent. Randy Newman wrote a number of good songs for this series (including the opening theme, "Under The Gun", which he also performed). The problem with "Cop Rock" was that it combined two genres that do not go well with each other. I can understand why "Cop Rock" was not able to catch on with TV audiences: not only was it a musical series with fictional characters and weekly storylines (something never seen before on American network television), but it was also a police show. Also, with the exception of the Broadway-style musical numbers, the show was average at best.

VH1 reran an all-day marathon "Cop Rock" a few years ago, but the series is not currently on cable (as far as I know). I think this original (but strange) series would be perfectly suited for a network like Court TV.

"Cop Rock" was a show that was far from perfect, but it was definitely very memorable.

Considering all the old TV shows that have been remade for the big screen ("The Addams Family", "The Brady Bunch Movie", "The Flinstones", etc.), it was only a matter of time before Scooby and the gang were featured in a big budget film. Unfortunately, the end product is little more than a routine episode of Scooby-Doo (in live action), except it is 86 minutes long and cost over $80 million to make. I have always been a fan of most of the Scooby-Doo series (not a hardcore fanatic, mind you, but a casual fan). Even today, I find most of the episodes (excluding those featuring the ANNOYING Scrappy-Doo) to be enjoyable in a mindless sort of way. However, as I watched "Scooby-Doo" the movie, I knew there was something missing. It had all the basic elements of Scooby-Doo, but none of the innocent charm that made the original series so fun to watch. I guess I shouldn't have been too disappointed about this movie (considering how difficult it must have been to remake a 33-year-old cartoon show as a major Hollywood film), but so much more could have been done.

Some other notes about "Scooby-Doo":

-the best part of the movie was easily Matthew Lillard. His impression of Shaggy was dead-on, from the look of the character to the voice and mannerisms. I'll bet he made Casey Kasem (voice of the original Shaggy) proud.

-the visual effects were impressive, as well as the special effects. Then again, the film (with no real A-list stars) cost $84 million to make, so it should have looked good.

-I thought the CGI Scooby looked very good, considerng there was nothing else the producers could have done to make him look realistic in a non-animated film (Large animatronic puppet? Person in an oversized Scooby suit? No way). I only wish that Don Messick had lived long enough to provide Scooby's voice for this movie. Messick was *THE* voice of Scooby-Doo, and he cannot be replaced by anyone.

-was the farting contest between Scooby and Shaggy really necessary? I know little kids (the target audience for this movie) would find it really funny, and the use of gross-out humor (a la "American Pie") is widespread in comedies today. But I thought this was a little bit too much.

-I don't understand why Freddie Prinze Jr. is so popular (true, he is young and good-looking, but there are so many other actors who fit in those two categories). Honestly, Prinze is a wooden, charmless actor who has no real onscreen presence. Only Prinze could screw up in the role of Fred (who is SUPPOSED to be bland and superficial), and just hearing him speak in this movie irritated me. Note to Freddie: your career may be red hot right now, but once your youthful looks disappear...

-Linda Cardellini is hot. That is all.

Overall, "Scooby-Doo" is not a horrible film, but watching three episodes of the original "Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!" would be more entertaining than watching this one movie.