Tracs Movie Reviews

Call me a fuddy-duddy, call me a spoilsport, call me a naive romantic, if you dare, but I'm here to tell you that, at best, this "masterpiece" merits only 3 out of 5 stars. (So, how do you like them apples? By the bushel, or by the pound?) Please permit me to expound:

My main criticism of this film--SPOILER ALERT: read no further if you have not already seen this film--is the way in which its two stars (Stewart and Sullavan) repeatedly harp on others' physical "deficiencies."

Now don't get me wrong. I realize that all of us, male or female, have certain standards of physical beauty by which we judge prospective mates. But isn't our ability to overlook such standards and STILL fall in love with someone one of the most admirable, if not defining, aspects of romance? I, for one, believe that it is.

As Mr. Kralik, Mr. Stewart, comes closest to preserving this idea. After all, it's only after Ms. Sullavan's Ms. Novak calls him bowlegged that he mentions that he consciously chose not to comment on how red her hands were. (Alas, even Mr. Kralik succumbs to superficiality in the end when he describes Ms. Novak's supposed pen pal as being pot-bellied.)

But what really stuck in my craw...and what dashed any hope of a realistic depiction of true romance...was Ms. Novak's request that Mr. Kralik lift up his pant legs to show her that he was not in fact bowlegged before she would consent to kiss him--to take the next step, as it were--at the very end of the film. Say goodbye to romance....

I know, I know. You're probably thinking that I'm too sensitive, that in asking him to lift up his trousers, she was only teasing him. Well, I respectfully disagree...especially considering the way the Ms. Novak character had behaved earlier in the film.

If you think I'm completely offbase, consider your past romantic experiences. Was every person you ever fell in love with perfect? Of course not. And of those things you found to be less than perfect, would you have considered it "romantic" to tell him or her about them? Again, of course not.

I guess what I've been trying to say is that if only so-called perfect people fell in love, there would be precious little romance in the world...and even less interesting conversation.

Set in World Depression Era Prague, this is the story of an ambitious store clerk who is falling in love with a mystery woman with whom he has exchanged romantic letters, only to discover that the mystery woman is none other than the sales girl from his shop, who seems to be constantly bickering with the collegue. Add a little twist (the owner is convinced that his favorite employee -Stewart- is having an affaire with the owner's wife), leaving Stewart briefly 'fired', along with an admission that the sales girl 'liked' Stewart all along, the happy ending is inevidable.

Although VERY dated (references to poverty and -I have a wife and two kids to consider- are over-used, along with the indication that many small objects of pleasure, like a musical cigar box, are out-of-reach for common people's enjoyment), this film is much more effective (and more credible) than the 1990s re-make "You've Got Mail". In the re-make starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, the actual odds of the chain-of-events are so unbelievable that the viewer's intelligence is grossly offended.

"Shop Around The Corner" is an innocent stroll down memory lane into a less complicated, less hectic, and more romantic time and place known as a novelist's Utopia. Lovers of Classic Romantic Comedies will enjoy this picture!****

"The Shop Around The Corner" was the first film I watched by the master director Ernst Lubitsch, and despite all of the rave reviews, I was not disappointed. A beautifully crafted film, more complex than "You've Got Mail". In addition to the romance between Klara Novak (Sullavan) and Alfred Kralik (Stewart), the problems of the shop owner Matuschek (Morgan) add depth to the movie and make it more touching. If you like this film, also see Lubitsch's "Trouble In Paradise", considered by many to be the best example of the Lubitsch touch.

Picture quality is excellent, but not flawless. There are some film artifacts throughout, but they do not distract from the timelessness of this movie.

A chapter in the myriad of Pink Panther films, this film is one of the best crafted and most hillarious in the series. Unlike the other films in the series, this film does not focus as much on the Pink Panther as on The Svejk-like inspector Clouseau himself. Valuable to a fan of the series it takes the time to provide a deeper insight into the character of the infamous and clumsy inspector. Investigating a murder in the house of the multimillionaire leads Clouseau to brilliantly farcical adventure, unexpected romance as he tries to defend his lovely object of affection from false accusations and yet a more unexpected conclusion to his case.
Clouseau's developed persona and the mishaps attached to it may be the highlight's of the film, but they do not compensate for the 2-dimensionality of the rest of the characters. There is little to the films secondary protagonist, Maria Gambrelli, as her only feature is a magnificent talent to attract bad luck and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yes, having a well-developed character, Clouseau in this case, is very good, but it seems that there should be more Clouseau's in the film.
So, this dramatic production seems to have spread out a bit too thinly as it tries to focus on Clouseau, the case, and the sparked romance. If the director could perhaps chose a more defined focus, this film could have been improved greatly. Having said that, this film does a far better job in the field of comedy than most modern films that audaciously bear the title of "comedy". Highly recommended

In many ways "A Shot in the Dark" is the best of the Inspector Closeau films, while being the only one that doesn't have a Pink Panther reference in its title. Sellers is in top form, but Herbert Lom as his boss nearly steals the film. And what's truly strange is, it's based upon a play that had nothing to do with Closeau.

Funny that this movie is considered an entry in the Pink Panther series, even though there is nothing in the movie to indicate that it is, except for star Peter Sellers, Blake Edwards direction and the Henry Mancini score (without the Pink Panther theme). Whatever the case, "A Shot in the Dark" is easily the best of the Pink Panther movies. In this escapade, Clouseau (essayed perfectly by Sellers) has been assigned to solve a murder that has occurred in the home of the wealthy Benjamin Balon. The killer appears to be the beautiful housemaid Maria Gambrelli but Clouseau, who is falling in love with her, is convinced she's innocent and sets out to expose the real murderer.

If you haven't seen this movie, you should. Some of the romps Clouseau goes through a real treat to watch, whether he's falling from balconies, shredding his clothes, or running through nudist camps. It all happens in such a charming fashion that you'll find yourself laughing in no time. We are also introduced to the famous karate matches between Clouseau and Kato and the vain attempts of the lunatic Dreyfuss to destroy the bumbling inspector.

What works best about this movie is the fact that Sellers is now the star. He was only a supporting player in the Pink Panther, but this time director Blake Edwards gives Sellers center stage, allowing him to develop his character to the fullest (and funniest). Both Herbert Lom and Burt Kwouk (Dreyfuss and Kato respectively) make thier debuts here, along with Andre Maranne, who plays the likeable Francois.

This is a great comedy. I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone who has enjoyed the other "Pink Panther" films and those who love Peter Sellers.

This is a terrific movie that I would recommend to anyone, unless you're offended by tons of cursing and graphic violence. Sean Astin does not seem the type to be a bad guy, but he is SO amazing in this movie. I was afraid I wouldn't like this movie, but I watched it because Sean Astin is my favorite actor. And I'm super glad I did! You will not regret watching this movie! :)

This is absolutely the best film in history. Don't pay any attention to what the editorial reviewer said. It isn't nonsense at all. It was well constructed, well written, well thought out, and realistic. Sean Astin is an awesome actor. Did he get an Oscar for this? I hope he did because he deserved it as well as the rest of the cast, Keith Coogan, Wil Wheaton, and Louis Gassett. I remember watching this on tv years ago. I finally bought it on DVD at the mall. That was the only place I could find it. It was 20 bucks but well worth it. I bought it 3 days ago and I already watched it four times. It's intense, dramatic, sad, touching, thrilling, entertaining, funny, scary, unpredictable, and realistic. The reason why it was so realistic is because the military helped out in the making of this film. And in the movie nothing went perfect. I don't want to give it away for those who havent seen it. If you havent seen it you're really missing out. I highly recommend picking it up. It doesnt seem like it was made it 91. It's one of the best actions films ever made. It's intelligent and one of a kind. I don't think they have it for rent anymore. I hate when good movies aren't appreciated or remembered. This film is truly unforgettable and my movie collection is nothing without it.

You know what ticks me off. Is the fact that this movie is really good and it cant be found anywhere. I tried renting it at Blockbuster and they didnt have it. I tried four other movie places and they didnt have it either! I use to watch this years ago and there isnt anything else like it out there. I hate it when good things are underappreciated and forgotton about. I havent seen it in years and I would like to. It says it's out of stock on this site. Of course!

What a disappointment! This is one of the famous pair's worst film together - only the leaden and preposterous Keeper of the Flame is worse. Strange as it may seem, Tracy and Hepburn display almost no onscreen chemistry in this film. Instead of a sharp, witty spoof of the dawning computer age, we get a flat-footed film with almost no laughs. Stay away from this one!

This 1957 film directed by Walter Lang was the eighth of the nine Tracy-Hepburn films and their first in color. Based on the play by William Marchant (which had starred Shirley Booth on Broadway), Katharine Hepburn plays Bunny Watson, a reference librarian who works for a television network. Bunny becomes quite concerned when she learns that the new computer being installed by Spencer Tracy's Richard Sumner is supposed to put her and the rest of her staff out of work. Gig Young has his standard role as the nice guy who ends up losing the girl in the end, while Joan Blondell, Dina Merrill and Sue Randall make up the rest of Bunny's brainy staff.

In terms of pairing Tracy and Hepburn "Desk Set" is certainly unique because it is the only film where she gets the upper hand at the end and he gets the comeuppance. Tracy is really nothing more than a misunderstood villain; his new toy is suppose to help the girls in the reference library not replace them. But none of this really matters because in the end it is clear than the women are a lot smarter than the machine (although they do get the baseball trivia answer wrong). The one priceless scene in the film is a roof top lunch between Tracy and Hepburn. He just has a few simple questions for her that turn out to be brainteasers, and Hepburn's character disposes of each and every challenge with an ease grace and guileless naiveté that is quite charming, while Tracy sinks lower and lower as she beats him at every turn. The rest of the film is fairly pedestrian as we wait for the expected happy endings for the computer and romantic plot lines.

After receiving Academy Award nominations for her work in "Summertime" and "The Rainmaker," Hepburn had made a film with Bob Hope that was totally butchered, the astonishingly unfunny film "The Iron Petticoat," and "Desk Set." It would be another two years before she made another film, although Spencer Tracy's failing health was as much if not more of a contributing factor as the sudden drop off in the quality of her films. Hepburn would turn to the stage and perform Shakespeare and then return to the screen with four consecutive Oscar nominated roles. Consequently, in retrospect, "Desk Set" clearly defines the end of a period in Hepburn's career. You can not help but look at the next two decades of her film career, where virtually every film is based on a play by a great dramatist (Tennessee Williams's "Suddenly Last Summer," Eugene O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey Into Night," Euripides's "Trojan Women," Edward Albee's "A Delicate Balance") and not think that this was very much a conscious effort by Hepburn in the wake of this particular fluff piece.

I hesitate to write this review, since "Desk Set" is not merely my favorite Hepburn-Tracy movie, but also my favorite movie. Moreover, it includes my favorite scene in the movies, the "scene on the roof." Hence, I ain't objective. The roof scene, in which Tracy gives Hepburn what is essentially an I.Q. test, and Hepburn aces it, is not merely brilliant Tracy/Hepburn (told you I was biased), but a classic example of the jousting that occurs when a very smart guy meets a very smart woman. Inevitably -- because this is Tracy and Hepburn -- Richard Sumner admires and, eventually, falls madly in love with Bunny Watson, who dumps her long-time, self-centered, unappreciative boyfriend in order to marry him.

Everything about this film is delightful, from Tracy's cautioning Hepburn, "Never assume!" before relating the famous "detective" problem (see title of this review), to the office jokes between the legal department and the librarians, the floating-island dessert, Tracy's bongo drums, and the rousing climax in which, as the new library computer spews out all 87 verses of the poem, "Curfew," instead of data about the island of Corfu (having been mis-programed by a female in god-forbid -- a suit), Hepburn theatrically recites the poem, rounding off each verse with a resounding, "Curfew will not ring tonight!"

"Should Bunny Watson marry Richard Sumner?" Tracy types into his computer. "I thought that you said that it couldn't evaluate?" asks Hepburn. "I programmed in the answer," Tracy responds.

So have I. This is a great movie: it has humor, romance, intelligence and wit. Love it. Buy it. Most importantly -- make the studio put it out in DVD.

People always forget that Tom Hanks actaully is a good actor and he shines like a star in this classic. You've got gambling, drinking, drugs,booze and whores. Who could ask for more?
As a small child I was torn apart by the fact that Tom had this hot chick he was going to marry and a chance to sleep with another chick that was even hottier. Personally I would have taken Colt up on his offer and sold my bride to be for a cool million.

I love this film.......absolutely love it! This was that glorious time in the 80s when R rated sex comedies were box office blockbusters. This is when Tom "I'm a really really serious actor now" Hanks was funny; I mean EXTREMELY funny. This film has all the laughs of the sungenre, but it's also got something that it's peers don't, and that's(don't laugh) a good love story. Maybe it didn't affect you this way, but I saw this as a very touching love story amongst all the silliness. I saw this film as a true test of Hanks' love for his fiancee-just look at what he has to deal with: 1)His beer drinking, sex crazed buddies are against the idea and rather than support him, give him a bunch of flak(is that how it's spelled?). 2) His fiancee's ex keeps trying to buy Hanks off with money and appliances. 3) Hanks's future in-laws hate his guts and aren't afraid to let him know. 4) He's surrounded by hookers and people having sex at his bachelor party. Hanks brushes all of this off and in no way lets it hinder his decision to marry his fiancee. There's even a scene where Hanks' ex girlfriend(played by the gorgeous Monique Gabrielle), takes off her clothes and tries to seduce him. That takes a real man who must really be in love to walk out of that bedroom! I think that's the best part of the film; The fact that every one and every thing is trying to derail Ricks marriage, but he never gives in and gets his girl at the end of the film. Very moving. Plus there's hilarious scenes of juvenile sex humor if romance isn't your thing. The combination of these two factors make this one of the best comedies I've ever seen.

I have been a fan of Bachelor Party since first seeing it on HBO back in 1985. I was hooked the first time I saw it, and have yet to outgrow it. Some critics pan the movie for being too dated because of the fashion and music of 1984. Well, unless the movie is sci-fi, fantasy, or a western, it's probably not going to date well from any era. These critics could just-as-easily pan a film like Saturday Night Fever for the same reasons. Anyway,the laughs in Bachelor Party start before the opening credits roll, and don't stop until the end credits. The dialogue is fast, memorable and quoteworthy, and the acting is very satisfying for what is essentially a 'raunchfest' of a comedy. The soundtrack is quirky (basically a collection of basement tapes from IRS Records), but the songs are fun and fit the party atmosphere of the film. We even get to hear some great tracks by The Police, Oingo Boingo, and *good* Wang Chung.

The DVD transfer is excellent. The picture has been restored beautifully, and the sound, while originally recorded in Dolby 4, is clear and in the center - basically as good as it could be restored. There are no deleted scenes, but there are a few promotional shorts that are fun to watch, dated as they are. The original trailer gives you a good indication of how well the picture was restored for the DVD.

This is a highly recommended purchase, and if you're a big fan of the movie, there is a brand new tribute site at bachelorparty.tk that you will absolutely love.

Add this DVD to your collection, you won't regret it!

10. It removes the issues from history. The Scopes trial was a publicity stunt that had a limited effect, and muted participants.
9. It demonstrates how ensemble acting reflects a libertarian society to which we can all strive.
8. Type-casting and against-type-casting are equally balanced.
7. It lifts reasoning up by way of demonstration, i.e., proof.
6. The anti-McCarthyism points were not obvious, but are still merited.
5. Points of view are shown to be what they are, ever-changing.
4. The core issue of the place of religion in science is not lost, but made clear.
3. The best and worst in religion and science are scored easily by centering on the people who apply them, their selfishness, and thier selflessness, both shown for effect.
2. A rarely seen, important point is made at the end:
Atheists can believe in God. It is not that complicated. God does not exist. But I believe in God anyway. Why. Because faith is in essence the human imagination, and the faculty of reason provides enough meat that faith can be the candy. Belief does not have to be reasonable, it is all in your head anyway. That is what faith is, believing in what you know is not so, for comfort, pragmatically. The sinner is "Without God". The bible says that we are all "Seperate from", or "Without God." Atheism means " Without God." We are all atheists, believing if we choose, in god, by way of faith, the imagination, because it helps us to get along with each other, rather that obeying more powerful people overtly. Simple.
1. Finally, the character of Drummond comes across with a point that must be restated repeatedly:
The Bible is a good book, but not the only one. It contains many truths, but it does not need to be true in order to carry those truths.
There is so much in this film that provokes great thought, I just cannot "Praise it enough."

After over forty years this remains a truly powerful film, and the secret is not hard to locate: Spencer Tracy and Fredric March. These two great actors, both near the end of their respective careers (both would make other films, but it would be the last great performance in March's career and one of the last in Tracy's, though he did go on to excel in both JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG and GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER). Remove them from the film, and there wouldn't be a whole lot left. Luckily, they are in it, and between them they manage to chew up scene after scene as they display movie acting at its very finest.

The story, of course, is loosely (though not too loosely) based on the Scopes trial, where Clarence Darrow defended John Scopes from charges of having taught the theory of evolution in a public school. William Jennings Bryan, former US senator, secretary of state, and three-time presidential candidate, argued the case for the prosecution. Although the real-life trial was covered by a huge press corps, the movie focuses on only one reporter, the fictional E. K. Hornbeck, who is loosely based on H. L. Mencken and played somewhat against type by Gene Kelly (sadly, it would also be Kelly's last major role; unlike his friend and rival Fred Astaire, his career was cut short partly by the demise of the musical and partly by injuries that made dancing harder for him as he aged, but also unlike Astaire he was unable to find quality acting roles as he aged).

The film is also served well by an excellent supporting cast. Harry Morgan, later familiar from M*A*S*H, capably plays the judge in the trial. Dick York, later the first Darren in BEWITCHED (interestingly, a TV show based on I MARRIED A WITCH, in which Fredric March played the "Darren" equivalent) is a familiar face. Claude Akens, who guest starred in literally hundreds of television shows from the 1950s through the 1980s, got one of the larger roles of his career as Rev. Jeremiah Brown, like Kelly against type since he usually played cowboys, criminals, or police officers.

I have often had mixed feelings about director Stanley Kramer. While I like several of his movies--especially ON THE BEACH, THE DEFIANT ONES, and this one--I always get the impression that I like them despite his direction. His films always seem to drift in the action, seem to lack focus, and have a poor pace. The overall structure of his films seems to be weak. On the other hand, he seems to have been an actor's director, and many of his films feature strong performances. This is all to say that this is not a well-directed film, and without the two stellar leading actors, it might not have been much to see. As it is, however, it remains a riveting film, and even if there isn't a great deal beyond the two leading performances, that alone is sufficient to make this a must-see film.

This film is as valid today as it was when it was first made; perhaps even more so. I used this film in my Sunday School class to portray the issues of fundamentalism and its impact on mainline education and culture.
Though there are some digressions, understandable in movie making, much of the dialogue is right out of the trial transcripts and the characterizations of Darrow (Tracy), Bryan (March) and H.L. Menken (Kelly) are close to the truth.
Contrary to one reviewer, who probably got his information from a fundamentalist/creationist preacher or the popular overweight draft dodger's radio program, Darrow's request for scientific expert testimony was rejected. (See Scope's memoirs as quoted in "Clarence Darrow, The Creation of an American Myth" by Richard Jensen, p 99).
The acting is superb, the directing outstanding, and the script excellent and thought provoking. Thought provoking is goal of this film and what those still writing these Salem-style laws in the states of the old Confederacy(not to mention the judges of the Kansas Supreme Court) are against.

Ok this movie is tight, I admit it. If you are a fan of skiing and sex its like ur greatest fantasy. Shannon Tweed is totally hot in this flick doin what she does best(if you've seen some of her other stuff you know what I'm talkin about)And the action is also pretty tight. There are two reasons I gave it a 4. 1 is because I think it should have had one or two more party scenes is it, and a few less skiiing scenes. The other reason is the sport of choice. I love winter sports, boarding, mobiling,..... but not so hot about skiing. Sorry guys but a real athlete works without poles. But other than that it was a pretty good movie.

Did you ever own white Vuarnets? Are you stoked that padded ski sweaters are coming back in? Did you ever want to be the toast of Tahoe, ski all season long, party every night and hang out with a wacky bunch of ski bums with names like "Thrasher" and "Squirrel?" Then check out this early 80's classic (I know, it came out in '84, but it's SO '82). Harkin Banks is the wunderkind from the sticks who hooks up with Dan O'Callahan, the good time Squaw Valley veteran who's a permanent fixture on the competitive ski scene, sharing slopes and hot tubs with his party hardy co-horts: the nutty Squirrel Murphy, who digs zinc oxide, sexy ski bunnies and long gondola rides; Kendo Yamamoto, who doesn't speak much English, but can tear down the mountain like a Kamakaze; Thrasher, the punk rocker who dances to his own tune, even at parties; and a host of semi-nameless others. And what would a crazy party flick be without some bad guys? Enter Rudy Garmisch, zee Austrian ski champ and nemesis of the Squaw Valley locals. He and his loyal "Rudettes", also from zee Austrian slopes, push some of the locals out of the upcoming competition with promises of good television ratings and new sponsorships from internationally minded companies. Uh-oh! Dan's not happy with that at all...and the battle begins. Not to worry, all's well that ends well. After all, what tiff can't be settled over a friendly game of Chinese Downhill? Not sure you wanna play? No worries...perhaps you'd enjoy one of Dan's famous "Leg Spreader" cocktails. And to top it all off, there's some fantastic ski footage set to even more fantastic early 80's synth music. Buy this movie...the gondola at Squaw will never be the same.

This movie rules! It is tacky, corny, slapstick, juvenile, gratuitous and every other quality that endears it to my generation. As a skier of the seventies, I can look at this and laugh at myself. Offer up a quote from this movie and most folks in their thirties will know just what you mean. The acting is awful. The humour is basic. The plot can be summed up in two sentences. But it is part of americana and is worthy of the title "Best Ski Movie Ever", (Sorry TJ Burke).

I saw this on TV in the mid-seventies when I was a kid, and while it did freak me out, I managed to recover. I still have friends to this day who will not watch this as it really messed them up when they were younger. I am refering to the third segment in this trilogy.

The first story, titled Julie, was interesting and had a nice little twist at the end but I think suffered a little due to not having enough time to flesh out the story and characters more.

The second story, titled Millicent and Therese, has Karen Black playing a duel role of two sisters, one good and one evil with an ending that most anyone could see coming a mile away.

The third story is the kicker. It is titled Amelia, and watching it now, it seemed to have lost a little of it's zing, but it still has enough to make it fun. If you have this DVD, and you know someone who hasn't seen it, show it to them at night with the lights off. And I while I remembered the part near the end, I had forgotten how this story actually ended. It was funny, because watching this now, having some idea of what happens, this story really wasn't that shocking....until the very end. I had forgotten what happened at the very end, and how creepy that last scene was.

Karen Black plays the title character in all the stories, so if you're a fan of hers, this is a pretty good movie to get. It was a made for TV movie, so don't expect a widescreen format or a lot of extras. The only extra is an interview printed on the booklet inside the case. Interesting stuff.

So, in closing, the first two stories are like appetizers for the third. Not a bad little movie, with some fun to be had.

Trilogy of Terror is a rather nicely done film with some creepy and disturbing bits, but I found that the first two segments were almost completely unnecessary. The third segment is obviously the best, with the strange doll chasing the beautiful Karen Black around her apartment, and could have been made into a full-length feature alone. I gave this film four stars, only because of the third segment. The first two parts were really boring and were not scary and terror-filled as we would've expected from the gothic title. I love the way this film ends with Karen Black's creepy but slightly cheesy teeth given to her from the mysterious doll.

I can't believe my parents let me watch this on TV when I was four years old. I'm sure I was pretty obnoxious in my begging, because I've always loved horror stories, but I am now 32 and I still vividly remember images from the Zuni doll segment of this movie. I took me years to find out what the movie was called, since all I had to go on was the memory of that horrible face with its clacking teeth, and guessing it was released sometime in the 70's. But the impact was so strong that I just had to see it again, and thanks to Google (and looooots of time searching), now I can! If you're trying to decide if this DVD is worth a try, then yes, it definitely is, just watch it on a Friday in case you don't sleep for the next couple nights!

I liked both of these instructors from their back up roles to LEISA HART in Buns of Steel, both now York is a bit goody and annoying but Michelle Dozios seems to be getting better. She's a cute one and fun, and this Pilates is so much better than Stott. I liked it.

I have a lot of pilates/yoga tapes and this one is pretty good because it adds a lot of variety and the instructors are fun. It has a good pace that keeps you going beginning with a yoga/pilates section and finishing with a ballet section to help with balance and to tone the legs.
This is a good workout and a lot better than their other tape they made together with the same pilates/yoga theme. (That one is so boring, I did it once and threw it away) This tape is different because it keeps things moving along.

I love this workout! The instructors do a great job decribing the movements. No endless repetions. It's effective and so much fun. One of the very best routins in the market.

First let me say, I agree with most reviewers. Joe's Apartment is a movie for the "Far Side" crowd and I loved it. But who was the dirty rotten SOB that decided to release it in "Full Screen" format? There is too much going on in this film to butcher it by omiting the widescreen format. This Will probaby be only one of two or three DVD's that I will ever buy in this format. I'm not a movie snob I just want to see "Everything" I saw in the theater. Especially in a campy gonzo movie like this. They ruined some of the visual jokes simply because we can't see them anymore.


If it was up to me, I would slap every person who makes the call to release good or even bad movies in "fullscreen mode" we are all cheated when this is done. Rant's aside, if this is the only way I'll ever get Joe's Apartment then so be it. But I wish more reviewers would stand up and tell the Movie industry where to stick "Fullscreen" especially when we are continuously pushed to buy HDTV and widescreen TV's.

Maybe I'm pushing it a bit here giving the film five stars... However, Joe's Apartment is one of the few low-key camp-films that came out in the mid-nineties (Mortal Kombat being another example) before Hollywood went overboard with the CGI and it definitely should only be viewed alone or with a younger sibling due to the overall tackiness. What I really find great about this flick is that instead of fully focusing on "MTV-esque" anarchy more attention was devoted towards hyperactive pacing. Such as the way that the film took the horrors of living in low-rent apartments and twisted it to be conveyed with a cartoon like lunacy. As far as the toilet humor goes, it's hardly as extreme as it is in teen films as cockroaches mainly provide the main gross out moments.
My only complaint was the minor use of the sacred f word which is probably the contributing factor why this film was given a higher censor rating and wasn't as big as totally pathetic blockbuster hits such as Kangaroo Jack *shudder*... However, I'm glad it isn't very well known, as I feel it's like a secret guilty pleasure where you can just sit there and let yourself go and laugh insanely at juvenile slapstick for a while.
Some people felt that the musical numbers from the cockroaches were carried on too many times. Personally, I feel they're just great to watch, pleasing to the eye and the ear and twice as wacky.
Who knows? Maybe this film might achieve a high cult status in years to come?

I will never look at a roach the same way. This movie is FUNNY!!
If you just wat to "VEG" out , watch this movie.