Maybe at the time it was first made it may have been great. Very very average TV movie
938803
I don't get all the rave about this movie. Maybe at the time it was first made it may have been great. Very very average TV movie.
1551229
In 2002, when this film first came out, and people were just starting to log on, I could see where such a film might have been popular if done right. However since this time, similar and better films have come out putting this film on the junk heap of films that could have been.

Detective Mike Reilly (Stephen Dorff) and Terry Huston of the Dept. of Health (Natascha McElhone) investigate some bizarre deaths. If you read the title to the film, you know what they all have in common. The film wasn't put together well. It should have created a mystery the audience wanted to solve and then drop clues along the way. The film attempted to do that in a haphazard fashion, but you really didn't know you were looking for something. The film really needed a star in one of the lead roles, which it didn't have. The ending was a fairly jumbled confused mess as they tried to squeeze too much into it.

Parental Guide: F-bomb, nudity.
4436647
I guess after the blush of success by such like-minded comedies like Groove Tube, Kentucky Fried Movie and other skit-based films (and we're also in the first couple years of SNL by this time, 1977) Neal Israel produced this to cash in on a new youth culture.

Featuring members of Ace Trucking Company, Firesign Theatre and Credibility Gap all improv-type comedy troups to perhaps duplicate the growing success of Second City and Cheech and Chong at the time this film, the plot is ostensibly related to California falling into the sea after a large earthquake. The film collects a series of skits that have little to do with California or earthquakes. I guess they thought everyone who would see this would be high.

I saw this at a sneak preview in 1977 double-billed with of all things the new King Kong.  I was attracted by the promise of another Groove Tube and seeing some of the Firesign Theatre on screen.  It was horribly uneven and went on much longer.  Now at barely 80 minutes, I seem to remember a lot of dead weight that has been trimmed, including some of the wraparound with Fee Waybill as a scientist which seriously slowed things down.  Also, things have been moved around from what I remember from 30 years ago. The great bit in the mattress store was near the middle and had people rolling in the aisles during the preview, clearly the best bit. It is now almost at the end, better placing for their strongest skit.

Although this is no great movie, it is a great snapshot of the comedy troups working at the time.  The bit in the mattress store and the concert promoters who are booking the Who, Guess Who, etc are both based (the 2nd one literally) on Abbott & Costello-style word-play misunderstanding. Pretty dated comedy.  Wildly uneven and sporadically funny it at least has enough nudity and politically incorrect humor (before such things bothered us) to give it an R rating. For that, it's kind of amazing and certainly nothing like they would make now.
1897705
There are some pretty good parts, but I probably wouldn't watch it again. It's a lot like Memento, but not as good.
4841455
Sometimes it is better to leave things alone and this was one of those times. If the older and better version never existed, this one might have been okay. Too many changes from original blended with some of the old story line. For the younger generation that didn't grow up with the eighties movies this was probably good. For me was a disappointment.
407391
I think this is a very good movie on first watch but I don't think this one holds up well on multiple views. Rent it.
180864
Considering when this was made, it was better than average, but by today's standards it is very melodramatic account of a family that is rather hard to believe.  Down in Applachia the moonshiners and happy hay cartel under the Cornbred Mafia's leadership could have been more mundane and less worthy of a movie in real life!
2963827
I got caught up in the nostalgia and hype when this movie was first released. I'm one of the few people who actually saw it in the theaters. The line that best describes this movie came from another reviewer (can't remember who):
"Not only does The Avengers make you think that the filmmakers never MADE a movie before, it makes you think they've never even SEEN a movie before."
That about sums it up. The film has a temporal problem - it's a 90's movie that's a remake of a 60's tv show and it's not entirely sure what decade it's in. It looks kind of 60s-ish then it looks kind of like it's taking place in modern times. The generic 60's English thugs with the mod haircuts look like they've been on ice for a few decades.
Sean Connery is pretty much wasted in the title role. He's blustery and over the top, but it's mostly a great sound and fury signifying nothing. Connery's not nearly as wasted as Ralph Finnes (excellent in Strange Days). Uma Thurman shows that she can't hold a candle to Diana Rigg. She ends up in the leather catsuit but doesn't have much to do once she's in it.
There are some odd bits in the middle where the movie gives a nod to some of the more mind-twisting elements of the series, but with no real effect. The cgi killer-robot bees are at best laughable and at worst downright embarrasing.
The final mano-a-mano battle royal at then end is  pretty forgettable.
4875583
what should have been a very good movie turned out to be just awful
957736
I finally saw this on Youtube, and there isn't much for me to say about it.  I saw the original incarnation of the TV series on PBS when it was first imported to the US, and found it appealing on a number of levels.  It had a very dry and droll sense of wit.  The kind of underspoken humor that was so popular in British comedy; i.e. you were told the joke and given a moment or two to churn it in your head and then laugh as you saw fit.

So, imagine my surprise when this comedic style was held over as an afterthought for a feature film, but predominantly replaced by a huge Hollywood like production with grand SFX, a giant score, massive amounts of CGI and props permeating with a kind of high energy zest harkening from screwball comedies.  What do make of a film like that?  In a word?  Interesting.

It wasn't bad as such, but I had a hard time connecting with this film.  When I read Douglas Adams' books there was a kind of movement and energy to them, but again a more literary type of humor that you had to translate from the author's imagination to your own.  The original BBC series had found a formula for that, and gave it an appropriate low budget gloss to finalize the product.

This film, however, explodes with production values.  So much that said production values actually explode and drown out the humor in all its forms.  That's not to say that there isn't a laugh here and there, because there is, but the movie that might've been is pushed aside in favor of wowing the movie goers with massive amounts of special effects and high energy acting.

Well, the film is what it is.  If a revamping of the series were to be done, or rather a fresh take on the original material, I think a TV series dealing with installments would be more appropriate than trying to cram all of the books into one huge two-hour plus long feature film.

Not a bad film, but a bit too much for me.

Take it for what it is.
4485285
The movie was alright, but the first one was better.
2434922
This was a good movie.  It was made years ago and you can tell.  It was missing something that would have improved it immensely. The characters were developed sufficiently but the events and situations that the characters found themselves in lacked depth.  Things happened too fast and we were supposed to infer people's feelings and motivations.
I'd give it a B+.
2029429
Interesting film that may have been intriguing and forward for its time, but it did not age well.
3290286
This movie has not aged well. Creative concept well acted but special effects are had by today's comparison making it really dated
4179322
It was worth watching once, I defininatly would not buy this movie, but it is worth watching once. The plot is a little silly even for fiction movie.
3821004
I was excited to see it.  People told me how good it was.  It was just okay and in the end was just to unbelievable to really enjoy
4402274
You've already seen this movie a bunch of times and probably done better...but not terrible and a little thin in story.