APRTW wrote:

I dont watch crappy movies.  If they have not drawn my interest in the first 30 minutes I stop watching.

wait until you find yourself sick, in a far-away country, in a 9 by 9 room without a window, and the only thing you have to read is deepak chopra's 'jesus'.  you might sit through 'reign of fire', too.

I dont watch crappy movies.  If they have not drawn my interest in the first 30 minutes I stop watching.

Do you like Woody Allen's romantic comedies?

And yes, there's very little difference in our take on the Little Reiner, with the point that I was trying to emphasize being that each of his first seven movies were so different that there was no "Reiner style" other than that they were all excellent.

My version (focusing only on director)

This Is Spinal Tap – Actor, Director, Song-Writer (1984): son of world's most famous comedian/producer makes off-beat fake documentary that pokes fun at the pretensions rock and roll, . . . and becomes a cult classic.

The Sure Thing – Director (1985): for his second movie, he tries a standard late high school / early college romantic comedy and makes a surprisingly watchable and funny film.  Launches John Cusack's career as a male lead.  Watches like an A-list B-movie, something that is unexpectedly very good.

Stand by Me – Director (1986): For his third movie, he changes course again and goes for a coming of age movie.  Launches River Phoenix's career.  Watches like an A-list Hollywood hit . . . but good. 

The Princess Bride – Director (1987): Again changes direction for an offbeat fairy tale.  Classic.  Highly original. 

When Harry Met Sally... – Director (1989): By the time of this movie, Reiner had an amazing streak of four successful hit movies, enjoyed by fans and critics alike, with each movie being utterly different.  For his fifth movie, he once again moves in a completely novel direction, and decides to make a Woody Allen style romantic comedy for adults and succeeds in spades.  Probably his most successful movie up to this point.  Possibly the peak of his career, if I look back.

Misery – Director (1990): Changing directions once again, for his sixth movie, Reiner makes a Hitchcock-style thriller, and has his first task of directing a star in a lead.  At this point, James Caan was well past his peak, but still had some drawing power.  Like Travolta cast in Pulp Fiction, Caan was probably grateful to the director for the chance and turned in an excellent performance.  Kathy Bates was incredible, however. 

A Few Good Men – Director (1992): Heading into making his seventh movie, Reiner has an amazing streak of successful movies, each one different from the other, all driven by story, none with a bona fide currently-popular star to sell it.  In perhaps the biggest shift yet, Reiner goes for an all-star cast.  At this point in time, the only thing that could have predisposed me to dislike this movie more than casting Tom Cruise as the male lead would have been if Steven Spielberg had directed it.  I watched it and was appalled by all of the stars I saw in screen, behaving like big movie stars with fire in their eyes.  "That's it, Reiner has gone Hollywood," I thought.

North – Director (1994): Almost parodying Robert Altman's parody of the Hollywood movie factory, "The Player" (1992), in which every movie is pitched with Bruce Willis in the lead, Reiner cast Bruce Willis as an overgrown pink bunny.  This movie was appallingly bad.  I recall a zinger from a Rob Reiner roast where roaster claimed that OJ's alibi the night of his wife's murder was that he had been in the movie theater, watching North, but unfortunately, no one was there to corroborate his story.  That about sums it up. 

After that Reiner died for me as an ongoing concern.  I suppose he's made movies since then, and I might have seen some of them, but I don't think about them like I did the first seven.  My opinion of A Few Good Men has flipped, and I see it as a very good Hollywood movie, with a full-blown A-List cast.  That in itself makes it impressive, as I think the chance of success goes down as the number of stars goes up.  Someone should package the first seven movies as a boxed set and just remember him by those.  There's nothing close to a bad movie in the bunch and each is completely different from the others.

"REALLY Crappy Movies (These almost need to be seen to understand how bad a movie can be)
Road House 2
The Lost Boys: The Thirst"

I've seen neither, but sequels are a different discussion, Alz. Sequels are a studio's way of taking another long draw from the trough. A co-worker once told me the only two sequels that are at least as good as the originals are Godfather II and Toy Story II, and I've wracked my brain on several occasions and can't really dispute her.
Taking everything into consideration, I'd offer "Caddyshack II" as the worst movie ever made. It would have been dreadful as a stand alone, but that it drew from the legacy of one of the best comedies of all-time is almost criminal.
Just before "Beverly Hills Cop II" was released, Ebert suggested the trailer ought to be a 10-second clip of a grinning Eddie Murphy in front of a solid background, looking into the camera and saying "Is it as good as the first one? The only way you're going to find out is if you buy a ticket ..." followed by the famous Murphy cackle.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0090981/

While nothing crazy stands out (a lot of TV Series appearances are big name), it's still an impressive acting resume to come from that one role.

"Thus began Wolfgang Bodison's acting career."

Are you being sarcastic? I've not seen him in anything since AFGM.