Spinal tap without the laughs
352756
This album is supposed to be some sort of parody, but I never understood it and neither does anyone I know . The sad thing is people i know think is great music when the musicians themselves know its just a experimental form .The only reason this isn't 1 star is because of its originalness at least they tried
4292744
Somewhere during the mid 1990s, Mrs Doubtfire moved from being a very funny film to being a decent enough way to wile away a couple of hours. Therein lies the big problem with this film. There is no doubt that it is a good comedy, but it simply is not a film that you can watch repeatedly, as it definitely loses its impact if you watch it too often. I really got fed up with this film sometime around 1995 as I had seen it too often (cinema, television, video). I have not watched the film since, until I sat down and watched this DVD for the review. Returning to it after a break of six years certainly has freshened up the comedy a little and it has turned out to be something of a pleasant experience to do this review. I guess now that I should resist the temptation to watch the DVD again until maybe 2006.

Funnily enough I was reminded of this problem with the film by my brother when it was announced that I had the DVD for review: "Not a film you can watch too often" he said, and reminded me of the fact that I had not seen it for a while.

That is not to say that it is a bad film, but simply that it is a film that outstays its welcome very quickly in my view. The story is a pretty simple one. Manic but loving father of three and sometime actor Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams) has a knack for annoying his busy professional wife Miranda (Sally Field). This is no more evidenced than when he collects his children from school on his son's twelfth birthday and takes them home for a birthday party - a party specifically forbidden by dear old mother - complete with a mobile zoo. Cue one nosey neighbour who drops poor old Daniel in it by telephoning Miranda. Cue the obligatory mid-life marital bust-up and the dreaded D-word. Daniel finds himself in court with a judge passing sentence on him - 90 days to prove he is worthy of joint custody of his children or else: in the interim, Saturday-only visits. Faced with limited options, he gets himself an apartment, gets a job and sets out to impress his case worker. Then, he finds out that Miranda is planning to employ a housekeeper to look after the children and house during the afternoon and evening until Miranda returns from work.

Desperate for more time with his children, Daniel makes the natural choice of gaining the job, which he does by slightly devious means. Thus is born Mrs Doubtfire, the almost perfect housekeeper who miraculously gets everything working almost to perfection, although watching wealthy Stu Dunmire (Pierce Brosnan) muscling in on his ex-wife and children sometimes gets a little too much. The merriment continues as "she" gets the opportunity of a new career at the television station where he works.

Just as Tootsie depended entirely on Dustin Hoffman carrying off the role of the cross-dresser, so Mrs Doubtfire depends pretty much entirely upon Robin Williams carrying off the role of the cross-dresser. Since Robin Williams is an extremely talented actor, even if perhaps not so talented chooser of roles, there was little doubt that he had the ability to carry off the role. However, the film was to a large extent made by the performance of Sally Field playing off Robin Williams, and some of their scenes together are about as good as you can see in comedy. Pretty much the rest of the cast were along for the ride, and it would appear to have been a rather enjoyable ride, with only Harvey Fierstein being completely memorable. The direction of Chris Columbus is pretty taut and this generally is a very decent effort across the board.

Certainly a film to be enjoyed, just not every other day in my view. There might be better around but this is still worthy of consideration.
207495
This is generally quite funny, although the cast is wildly varied. Brent Barrett is hysterical and in good voice as Hannibal (particularly in "If I Could Smell Her ****"). The one plays Clarice, however, uses such a tortured mock-Jodie Foster (MJF) accent that she ruins every song she's on. Apparently, saying "sh" for "s" is supposed to be funny every time. She may have a great voice in non-MJF roles, but this does not showcase her too well. It's a shame, because there are lots of fun moments, from Ardelia's show-stopper to Chilton's now song-length attempted seduction of Clarice.
2784172
I can really only comment on the first 1/2 hour of this DVD, since after 30 minutes of not laughing, the DVD was ejected from the player, never to be played again (at least by me.)

As you might expect from the early retreat, I found the film to be a crude, pointless attempt at showing the worst possible behavior of two middle-aged losers who are forced to coexist when their parents marry.  (Think Brady Bunch with 40 year old "kids" and lots of f-bombs thrown in.)

The premise is funny, but that's as far as the humor goes in this movie.  The sons act like they're 12, not 40.  The combined IQ of the step-brothers is apparently about 90.

If you feel that "F - you" / "No, F - you" is witty repartee, then go ahead and take a chance on this movie.  Otherwise, I suggest you pass.
4108611
There's nothing wrong with this movie. Accept the fact that it's not a very good film.
I give it two stars. There's a scene in the beginning when both boys get knocked over by old people driving cars. Old people. Driving. They can't see very well, so they knocked the kids over. There's about 1 minute of the film spent on this scene.
Making fun of old people is so funny. I'm a sarcastic reviewer.
841882
I never expect much from chick flicks.  But this one actually hurt my head.  I'm all for no-brainer comedies.  The kind that takes no cognitive function whatsoever...I find they're good for background noise when magazine reading or painting one's toe nails.  Not Employee of the Month.  There's about five minutes worth of funny in this movie.  The rest of it is a waste of your life.  And mine.  I don't HATE hate it.  But I wouldn't watch it again.  Not even for the background noise.
4178051
This is a hilarious concept, but if you're reading this review, you already know that.  The laugh, however is very un-Freud-like.  He laughs like a deranged muppet, while shaking.  The laughing continues just long enough to be mildly annoying, but still extremely funny.
3662015
I love this movie its hilarious, some of it is just a little to racy for me.  It is alot like Scary Movie, or Austin Powers, the humor is so stupid, and mindless, that you cant help laughing!
1776116
Will Ferell and John C. Reilly really complement each other so well, it's good to see them together in a movie. Perhaps they starred together in this movie after the success of 'Taladega Nights'. But while 'Taladega' is one of the great movies, 'Step Brothers' is so-so. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Ferrell's college slap-stick, you'll probably be wondering how many times saying the f-word is a joke - not to set a moralistic precedent, but just saying that word constantly is hardly a joke in itself - when done for the thousandth time.

The behaviour of the two 'step brothers' Dale (Reilly) and Brennan (Ferrell) is more than childish, it's so over the top it stops being funny and starts being absurd.

Not that there isn't anything to like about this film, there is. Heaps of the jokes are funny, and even if some of the other characters are bland, Brennan's younger brother Derek adds a bit of spice to the mix. A bit. But more often than not you're left wondering 'why is a 40-year old man acting like a two year old'? Is it comedy or desperation?
265933
Prior to viewing "Shrek", I was intrigued by the animation I had seen in the previews and I had liked the idea it had of parodying fairy tales. I loved "The Princess Bride" and how it mocked the standard fairy tale in a way that both crucified the genre and honored it. It made fun of the frivolousness of the tales, but still also offered an experience that rivaled even the best traditional fairy tales. It was also a "family" movie and it managed at times to capture the grandeur of a fairy tale through the emotional attachment. A good story has to at least hit us on an emotional level. The score itself was moving enough to be worthy of a serious dramatic tale. "The Princess Bride" was a much better paced piece of work and did not attempt to simply crack jokes every few seconds as "Shrek" did. The major flaw of "Shrek" was that it tried to be too funny too often and managed little effective humor at all. The audience is numbed by the lack of emotion to counter all the frenzied dippy humor that no child could ever understand anyhow.
As well as the jokes being way too adult oriented than children could possibly understand, I was absolutely apalled by the music used in Shrek. I could understand pop music being used in Disney movies like "Beauty and the Beast" because those Disney movies always wound up being musicals anyway. At least in the case of those Disney movies the music had something to do with the movie. I cringed right off the bat when Smashmouth's "Allstar" started playing early in the movie. I thought,"Why use that in a movie about an ogre?" It had nothing to do with what was happening on the screen.
So watch "Shrek" once renting it and laugh at some of the adult oriented humor.(Some of it is funny) Quickly forget about what you saw because it sure wasn't anything memorable. The actual story of "Shrek" is weak to say the least. So "Shrek" winds up a mix of humor for adults with a (...) story for kids that moves at a pace of a Concorde jet. The sales are huge. I wonder why.(Sarcasm intended)
4691787
Everything else about this film is just laughable. That's why its fun to watch. Its laughable. The main stars mentioned above are pretty interesting to watch and have gone on to daytime tv and larger films.  There are some crude words and actions info the film that could have been left out. It would have made it better.
3747768
Ted and Fred (Chris Kattan) are twins separated at birth for some unknown reason. They do not know the other one exists. Fred is a psychologist while Ted is a mental patient. Fred visits the institution to sign papers and through a series of improbable circumstances they swap places, very much to the dismay of Fred. There is also a subplot involving Dolores (Brooke Anna Leedy) a patient who Dr. Fred had to sign papers to continue being committed, someone he has never talked to and is apparently sane.

Fred has been in the dog house sleeping in the guest room, so when Ted shows up, there is no hanky-panky keeping the themes relatively kid safe. There were some good scenes, but most of time I saw missed opportunities. For instance , they both snoop through files. This would have been better if they showed this as a juxtaposition to show the similarity of the twins in different situations. In fact the whole film would have been smarter and funnier had they followed that formula. Likewise, they should have used known stars as inmates, create more diverse characters and allow the stars to showcase their egos and talents. Really? What is Robin Williams doing now a days?

It is a film for family night, good for a few laughs. Don't expect a lot.

Parental guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity.
3959621
If you are looking for a movie done in the spirit of the original Scooby series, you will be mostly disappointed. This movie is full of mocking, ironic, "hip" self-referential humor for "grown-ups."
Irony was something devoid from the Scooby-Doo cartoons, it was part of what made them so endearing and long-lived in popularity. In this, it was similar to Spongebob Squarepants, a contemporary cartoon on Nickolodeon that is currently winning the hearts of children and adults. It makes one wonder if someday we'll see a Spongebob live action movie in which, for example, there is innuendo about Spongebob having substance abuse problems with Krabby Patties...
At any rate, in this movie the filmmakers have decided to mock the character of Fred by turning him into a smug narcissist. Daphne is now a helpless ditz frustrated by her own ineptness, Scooby and Shaggy are the victims of pot jokes, and Velma's high intelligence is lampooned.
The performance by Matthew Lillard as Shaggy is brilliantly performed and well-written; together with Scooby it is perhaps the one character that (other than the aforementioned pot joke) doesn't suffer from the kind of jokes at its expense that are lobbed at the others. He put a great deal of care into creating an authentic portrayal and it really shows on screen. Linda Cardellini plays an excellent Velma, but as with the other characters the script has her acting out of character for intended comedic effect. With a more faithful script she would have also been dead-on. Rowan Atkinson puts in a fine turn as the gang's client, although his small role leaves little opportunity for displaying his enormous comedic talent; it's a little like using a Ferrari to get groceries.
If you feel somewhat embarassed and self conscious about liking the old Scooby Doo cartoons, you will probably enjoy this movie with no qualms, and have a good laugh as the movie pokes fun at Freddie's clothes, etc. The filmmakers are embarassed too. For the rest of us, it is still entertaining to see the characters moving around in real life, and the relationship between Shaggy and Scooby is the one bright spot that captures something of the original fun, warmth and camaraderie in the cartoon. Otherwise, the movie leaves one feeling a little unfulfilled, like they've eaten a hollow Scooby Snack.
4000223
Unlike ingenuous(simple) slapstick or sex-based comedy ..."This is Spinal Tap" is truly ingenious(brilliant). If you want to watch this out of the corner of your eye while you're cleaning...you are not going to enjoy this movie, IF you do actually concentrate on the film you will see some absolutely hilarious, often tongue-in-cheek humor (i.e the band members when talking about a controversial album cover all sport herpetic lesions around their mouth and lips; wrapping cucumbers in aluminum and putting them in their tight trousers - emulating a massive personal member; lyrics in a song entitled "Big Bottom" ....i.e. "How can I leave this behind?"; ...among many other hilarious bits.

The artists most successfully lampoon "England's Loudest Band".

If you're completely unaware of rock and roll and it's performers and their nuances and fancies ....this movie may/will seem dumb.

On the other hand....

IF, you ARE aware of Rock and Roll and its' musicians....this movie will hit the mark!

5 stars ONLY because I can't give more!
3877557
Private Parts isn't *nearly* as outrageous as it once was. Yes, back in 1997 this was probably considered a pretty shocking film with many whacky and disrespectful antics on the part of Howard Stern and his cast of misfits, but in todays world -with the variety of films we have today intended solely for shock value- not so much. It's fairly tame in comparison, actually.

Sure, the storyline does a decent job showing you how dysfunctional Howard Stern really is, specifically because of his upbringings (his father kept calling him a moron, for one thing) and the movie does a *very* good job showing you how Stern got into the radio broadcasting business, but the once considered downright *daring* style of comedy that made Stern so popular and innovative back in the day honestly doesn't seem nearly as outrageous as it does today, so Private Parts kind of feels boring and... dare I say, fairly normal, in several spots as a result.

However, I fully realize Howard Stern's dirty and shocking comedic style was completely original at the time- it's just these days we've become *used* to these kind of comedy films dominating much of our movie selections on any number of movie channels, so the best thing a film like Private Parts can accomplish is allowing us to reflect on the days when this kind of disrespectful humor was brand new and actually lived up to its name of being *shocking*.

That doesn't mean I'm calling Stern's style of humor mild or anything- just mild in comparison to the world we live in today. What does this mean for you? It means you shouldn't expect Private Parts to offer anything you haven't already seen over the last 10 years of watching comedy films.  Only one or two moments honestly made me go "Wow, that's intense!"  One of them being the naked woman who walks into the studio and actually makes out with Stern right there on the floor.  Very shocking.

Now, I'm not sure if every single attempt to shock his radio listeners that we see in the film actually took place or not, but let's be honest here- his wife must be the greatest single living breathing person in the entire WORLD if she was actually able to see through Howard Stern's insulting personality and his many constant aggressive attempts to shock his listeners.  Only the most understanding woman in the world would want to start a family with someone like him. Talk about *extremely* impossible to believe.

I mean come on- Stern completely trashes his wife on the air and yet... she cares about it and feels insulted *sometimes*, but not nearly as often to seem believable from where I'm standing.

I'm sure in reality the arguments that took place between Stern and his wife were much angrier and on the brink of separation than this film makes their relationship appear. It would be pretty darn hard to imagine *anyone* in a relationship not having a problem with their partner going on the air and spouting what most normal people would consider very personal and realistic problems. I simply refuse to believe the fighting incidents you see between them was ANYWHERE near as tame as Private Parts made them seem.

Overall, sure, you'll experience a few worthwhile and solid laughs watching Private Parts, no doubt about it. But watching the film this afternoon, I'm more surprised the most interesting aspect of it was Howard Stern's coming into the world of radio, and MUCH less interesting to me was the actual shock value of his dirty attempts to draw in listeners (which felt disappointingly tame because, again, we've seen worse these days).
1983160
I picked this up used because it had Henry Rollins,Iggy Pop,Alice Cooper,and Malcolm McDowell. I was expecting it to be stupid,but was pleasantly surprised. It was for real funny. If you liked This Is Spinal Tap,and dig cheesy vampire flicks,you'll love Suck.
4200485
We should probably all get over _Roll With The New_.  Rock's most classic bits all come from that CD, and it won't be topped anytime soon.  Even with that in mind, I find _Never Scared_ to be almost a total waste of time. There are some funny bits, but much of the album is Rock expressing anger or other negative emotions in a non-comic way.  It really feels more like venting than comedy.  Bottom line: few laughs.