streaming movies comedy free

Directed by : Jeanne McCarthy, Brian L. Keaulana, Jackson De Govia, K.C. Fox, Phil Dagort, Leesa Evans, Russ T. Alsobrook, Judd Apatow, Shauna Robertson, Jason Segel

Produced by : Jeanne McCarthy, Brian L. Keaulana, Jackson De Govia, K.C. Fox, Phil Dagort, Leesa Evans, Russ T. Alsobrook, Judd Apatow, Shauna Robertson, Jason Segel

Starring : Jason Segel, Mila Kunis, Russell Brand, Kristen Bell, Bill Hader, Steve Landesberg, Kalani Robb, Maria Thayer, Jack McBrayer, Murray Miller

Company : Universal Pictures, Apatow Productions

Release date(s) : 2008-04-17

Running time :111 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English, 日本語, Deutsch

Budget :  $30,000,000

Storyline : This was a refreshing surprise. Quite hilarious at some points, not so funny in others but still refreshing and the cast does a good job.
Entertaining romcom marred by incongruent porn-ish elements

RELEASED IN 2008 and directed by Nicholas Stoller, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is a romcom starring Jason Segel as Peter, a genial musician from Los Angeles who composes music for a popular detective show, which stars his hottie girlfriend, the titular Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). After she breaks up with him he vacations at a resort in Hawaii where, unexpectedly, his ex & her rock star beau (Russell Brand) also happen to be staying. Mila Kunis plays a concierge at the resort who takes interest in Peter.

This is a compelling, amusing romantic comedy with Segel likable as the protagonist and Bell winsome and charismatic as his ex. Brand is great as a Jim Morrison-like rock god who doesn’t drink; the way he performs on stage is laugh-out-loud funny (poking fun at rock stars). The resort locations are a highlight and the story is sprinkled with several notable guest stars (Bill Hader, Jack McBrayer, Maria Thayer, Taylor Wily, Paul Rudd, Da'Vone McDonald, Jonah Hill, etc.).

Unfortunately, there are several NC-17 (aka porn-ish) scenes that I wasn’t expecting since the version I watched was supposedly rated ‘R.’ I’m talking about several scenes of simulated sex, including one involving fellatio, as well as full-frontal male nudity right out of the gate (Seriously?). I basically ignored these scenes or rolled with them and laughed. I’m sharing this info for those who don’t care to see a movie mixed with nigh-porn elements.

THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour 51 minutes and was shot in O'ahu, Hawaii, and Los Angeles, as well as studio work done at Universal City, CA. WRITER: Jason Segel.

GRADE: B but basically ruined (for me) by the porn aspects, so really ‘D’

Directed by : Brian Tyler, Andrew M. Stearn, James Vanderbilt, Brad Fischer, Tripp Vinson, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, William Sherak, Brett Jutkiewicz, Tyler Gillett, Chad Villella

Produced by : Brian Tyler, Andrew M. Stearn, James Vanderbilt, Brad Fischer, Tripp Vinson, Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, William Sherak, Brett Jutkiewicz, Tyler Gillett, Chad Villella

Starring : Samara Weaving, Adam Brody, Henry Czerny, Andie MacDowell, Melanie Scrofano, Elyse Levesque, Kristian Bruun, John Ralston, Mark O'Brien, Nicky Guadagni

Company : Mythology Entertainment, Vinson Films, Fox Searchlight Pictures

Release date(s) : 2019-08-21

Running time :95 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $6,000,000

Storyline : If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Once again, I didn’t know anything going into the theater regarding this movie. In fact, Ready or Not wasn’t even on my watchlist until the beginning of this week. I thought it was just going to be a passable and cheap horror flick, but the tremendously positive feedback from everyone around the world convinced me to give it a go. Fortunately, I wasn’t disappointed! Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett deliver a dumb yet entertaining film with a childish yet fun concept never really explored in the gruesome and bloody way they do.

It’s one of those movies which the only flaw they might have has to do with the viewer’s expectations. You’ll only dislike this story if you don’t accept its lighthearted tone. If you go in expecting a film filled with truly terrifying and scary sequences, you won’t get that. If you go in expecting a movie with a dark vibe and tonally heavy scenes, you won’t get that. It’s one of the most common issues that audiences have all over the world: unrealistic expectations. After watching the trailers, it’s clear that Ready or Not was always marketed as a horror-comedy with more emphasis on the dumb fun that the concept inevitably provides, so don’t expect something the producers didn’t even think of doing.

Having that in mind, the film definitely delivers what it promises. It’s a fast-paced hide-and-seek game, filled with suspenseful scenes and genuinely funny moments. Its short runtime doesn’t really let us care about every character, but to be fair, it’s not like it truly matters in this case. Samara Weaving plays the bride who has to hide while the rest of the family tries to find her. Overall, everyone gives good performances, but Weaving completely steals the show with fantastic reactions to different situations, always making space for an extra laugh.

Despite the unique exploration of a strange premise, it has a pretty generic and even formulaic development, which is a bit of a letdown. Granted, the ending is, well, unexpected in the way that it is executed, but its final result is still very predictable. There’s a lot of cheesy moments, some do work, but others aren’t near as effective. The score is actually one of the surprises since it’s not usual for this feature to have such an impact in a rather simple movie. It provides a few chuckles with some witty lyrics, and it helps with elevating the suspense in the more tense sequences. It’s also mostly well-shot and set in one-location, something I always deeply appreciate.

All in all, Ready or Not accomplishes exactly what it set out to do. It delivers a fun and entertaining 90-minute hide-and-seek game like we’ve never seen before. Its R rating lets its makers do whatever they please with the amount of blood and goriness present in a scene, which ultimately culminates in a jaw-dropping, hilarious ending. Samara Weaving is brilliant as the main character, carrying the whole film on her shoulders. Is it cliche? Yes. Is it formulaic and predictable? Yes. Is it cheesy? Hell, yes. However, this movie never intended to be a groundbreaking achievement in the genre. It just wants to deliver good fun. And it does.

Rating: B-
**_An entertaining horror-comedy that takes aim at the decadence and insularity of the 1%_**

>_So distribution should undo excess,/And each man have enough._

- William Shakespeare; _His True Chronicle Historie of the life and death of King Lear, and his three Daughters. With the vnfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to the Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humour of Tom of Bedlam_, 4.i.73-74 (1605-1606)

>_In the long run, men inevitably become the victims of their wealth. They adapt their lives and habits to their money, not their money to their lives. It preoccupies t__heir thoughts, creates artificial needs, and draws a curtain between them and the world._

- Herbert Croly; _The Promise of American Life_ (1909)

>_I don't want to be married just to be married. I can't think of anything lonelier than spending the rest of my life with someone I can't talk to, or worse, someone I can't be silent with._

- Mary Ann Shaffer; _The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society_ (2008)

On August 3, 2018, Patrick Crusius murdered 22 people and injured 24 in a mass shooting in El Paso, TX. Just over 12 hours later, Connor Betts murdered nine people and injured 17 in a mass shooting in Dayton, OH. On August 10, Universal Pictures announced they had pulled Craig Zobel's eagerly awaited film _The Hunt_ from its scheduled release date on September 27. Telling the story of 12 strangers who are hunted for the amusement of a group of wealthy elites, in the wake of the shootings, the film had been accused by hysterical conservatives of portraying liberal elites hunting Donald Trump supporters. On August 7, for example, Matt Margolis of _PJ Media_ wrote,

>_in the past few days we've been hearing a lot about how Donald Trump's rhetoric is apparently to blame for the El Paso shooting, yet Hollywood apparently lacked the foresight to think that a movie promoting violence against "deplorables" might be in bad taste until after the shootings in El Paso and Dayton._

He also claimed, incorrectly, that the film was originally called _Red State Vs. Blue State_, before concluding,

>_apparently, some in Hollywood are more than willing to promote violence against Trump supporters. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals in the media want us to believe that it's Trump's rhetoric that needs to be toned down._

On August 9, Trump himself tweeted, "_the movie coming out is made in order to inflame and cause chaos_" (as opposed to his own balm-like rhetoric, which is renowned for bringing people together), saying of Hollywood in general, "_they create their own violence, and then try to blame others. They are the true Racists, and are very bad for our Country!_" (because responding to a mass shooting by condemning a film you haven't seen makes way more sense than, oh, I don't know, tightening gun laws and outlawing the indefensible sale of automatic weaponry to the public. Way more sense).

So, what does any of this have to do with _Ready or Not_? Well, it's just curious that _Ready or Not_ has a very similar plot (elites hunting common folk), yet it has arrived in theatres without the slightest hint of controversy. Of course, despite what right-wing commentators would have us think about _The Hunt_, the theme of elites hunting the less privileged is nothing new. As far as I'm aware, it was first explored in Richard Connell's short story "The Most Dangerous Game" (1924). And now in _Ready or Not_, except with tongue firmly in cheek. Written by Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy (aka Ryan Murphy), and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, _Ready or Not_ is a horror-comedy and a social satire that comically exaggerates the anxieties attendant with marrying into a wealthy family and mocks the insular nature of such families, so obsessed with their wealth that they've become disconnected from the real world. And whilst it can be a tad episodic at times, and the manner in which it presents some of its violence is somewhat problematic, this is a very enjoyable and funny film that's well worth checking out.

After a brief prologue, the film cuts to the wedding day of Grace (an exceptional Samara Weaving) and Alex Le Domas (Mark O'Brien). The Le Domas family started out printing playing cards but earned its fortune making board games, and the family has now become decadently wealthy, owning several sports franchises (when Grace asks Alex if they refer to themselves as an "empire", he half-jokingly says they prefer the term "dominion"). Several years previously, Alex turned his back on the family, even though he's in line to inherit the business, and it's only since he met Grace (a foster child eager to have a family to call her own) that he has started to rebuild bridges. His return to the fold has made his mother Becky (Andie McDowell) especially happy, and she makes sure Grace knows how appreciative she is. Alex's father, Tony (a barely sane Henry Czerny) is more ambivalent; he's polite and respectful to Grace, but she's convinced he doesn't like her. There's no such ambiguity with Helene (a hilariously acerbic Nicky Guadagni), Tony's sister, who makes no bones about the fact that she hates Grace. Elsewhere there's Alex's brother Daniel (Adam Brody), an alcoholic locked in a loveless marriage to Charity (Elyse Levesque), but who is deeply thankful that he has Alex back in his life. Offering Grace a get-out-of-jail card just prior to the wedding, Alex tells her if she wants to leave, he will let her go. She dismisses the offer, however, and the two are wed. Shortly thereafter, Alex and Daniel's cocaine-addicted sister Emilie (a wonderfully hapless Melanie Scrofano) and her husband Fitch Bradley (a scene-stealing Kristian Bruun) arrive at the estate, apologising for missing the ceremony. It's at this point that Alex explains a strange family tradition to Grace – whenever someone new marries into the clan, they must participate in a game, chosen at random by a mechanised box using a deck of cards (Charity got checkers when she married Daniel). Alex is worried that Grace might get the hide and seek card, but Tony assures him that's highly unlikely – stating that in his lifetime, only one person has ever gotten that card; Helene's husband (something of which we saw in the prologue). At a disturbingly austere ceremony, Grace is asked to operate the box and so the game can commence…and she receives the hide and seek card, with Tony explaining that the only way for her to win is to stay hidden until dawn. And so, Grace hides in the mansion, unaware that the family (_sans_ Alex) are arming themselves with crossbows, axes, hunting rifles, and assorted antique weaponry. This is no ordinary game of hide and seek.

The film's various psychoanalytical/satirical subtexts are fairly obvious – a lampooning of blue blood families clueless as to how the real world works, a savage deconstruction of the institution of marriage, and a gynocentric/fempowerment celebration of a woman fighting back against old-world patriarchy. In relation to these last two themes, nowhere are they more apparent than in Grace's wedding dress, that most classic symbol of marriage, which becomes dirtier and more damaged as the film progresses, with costume designer Avery Plewes using the dress to show the stages of Grace's symbolic dismantling of the institution of marriage (to survive the night, she must make the dress more conducive to running and hiding, which involves a lot of ripping and tearing). In this sense, each time Grace evades capture or strikes back against her pursuers, she is chipping away at the foundation of everything in which the Le Domas family believe, quite literally deconstructing the very concepts of marriage and old-world patriarchy.

Concerning the film's engagement with wealth, essentially it suggests that, yes, as we all know, the rich are very different from you and I, but could it be that not only are they different, maybe they're actually evil? Maybe their wealth is built on the suffering of others in a very literal sense and maybe the difficulty they have accepting it when someone who they see as their social inferior marries into their circle manifests itself in actual violence. Of course, it's not suggesting this with anything even approaching realism, and much of the film's humour comes from the Le Domas family itself; sure, they're wealthy, evil, violent, and powerful. But so too are they hilariously incompetent. For example, it's been so long since anyone has got the hide and seek card that everyone is a little fuzzy on the rules, and they spend a good chunk of the film arguing with one another about the hunt – people like Fitch and Charity want to use modern weapons, but Tony maintains they have to use antique weaponry, nor are they allowed to use the castle's security cameras to track Grace.

This all goes back to a century-old deal made between the family's original patriarch Victor and a mysterious traveller named Mr Le Bail, who may, or may not, be Satan. Le Bail promised Victor that the family would become hugely wealthy, but only if they maintained the tradition of having new family members play a game on their wedding night, laying out the rules for what was to happen if they got the hide and seek card. Tony argues that the rules can be no different from those originally established by Le Bail, but, really, his argument never amounts to much more than "_tradition...reasons_". The film makes no bones about the fact that the family is comically inept, and it gets a lot of laughs out of showing characters trying to get to grips with their weapon – from Fitch taking time out from the hunt to look up "how to use a crossbow" videos on YouTube to Emilie accidentally dispatching several maids due to her inability to handle her weapon (more on this in a moment).

Another theme, although one not developed to the extent of the above, is religion. Le Bail, for example, is believed by the family to be a demonic figure, and his name, obviously enough, is an anagram of Belial, the demon from the Tanakh, who is described in _The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness_, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as the "King of Evil" and the "Prince of Darkness", and who would later form the basis for the Christian and Jewish depiction of Satan. On the other hand, Grace's name most likely references the idea of Divine grace, which is defined by _ChristianEducation.org_ as,

>_a sharing in the divine life. It is the infused presence of God, a presence that is supernatural, not merely natural. Human persons are not born in a state of grace. And there is nothing we can do ourselves to earn grace. Rather, divine grace is favour, and it is freely bestowed._

Elsewhere, the film depicts a pit of slaughtered goats, alluding to ritual animal sacrifice, which is a pre-Christian practice. Goats are also important in Christianity, especially in the practice of scapegoating, whereby a goat takes upon them the sins of the community and is cast into the desert, symbolically removing the taint of those sins (as per Leviticus 16:8-10; "_Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And Aaron shall bring the goat on which the LORD's lot fell, and offer it as a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness._") Along the same lines, Grace injures her hand on a nail, in a veiled reference to the Stigmata. However, whether or not we're supposed to interpret her as a Christ figure is hard to say as, although these references are interesting in isolation, they never really coalesce into anything concrete.

Looking at some other problems, despite its themes, the film is, generally speaking, very slight; it's short and it's silly, and it's not going to change your life or lead you down the road of esoteric revolution. The violence is also (somewhat) problematic. The film maintains the stance that the rich are insane and the violence they mete out is contemptible. However, some of the biggest laughs are reserved for Emilie's accidental killing of the maids. And I have to admit, I found the way she haplessly dispatches two of them exceptionally funny (especially her comment after the second one, "_why does this keep happening to me_"). Also funny is that after one of the kills, the family are trying to have a conversation, which is continually interrupted by the gurgling of a mortally wounded maid; until Helene takes an axe to her head. And again, I have to admit, I laughed a lot at that scene, even though I recognised that the film was essentially asking the audience to see this violence as funny but some of the violence elsewhere as not so much.

In this sense, it kind of wants to have its cake and eat it. In _Natural Born Killers_ (1994), Oliver Stone gets away with asking the audience to laugh at horrific violence because he's fairly consistent in depicting all violence as funny (whether it's being shot by a bullet that stops in mid-air, getting drowned in a fish tank and simultaneously beaten with a tire-iron, having a perfectly circular hole shot through your hand, or having your head literally ripped off by rioting inmates). Here, the film picks and chooses when the audience should laugh; it takes Grace's stakes seriously but also encourages us to laugh at some (and only some) of the violence, which is problematically inconsistent.

Nevertheless, as I said, these scenes did make me laugh, so make of that what you will (it may say more about me than the film). Although _Ready or Not_ is slight, its satirical ire is focused, even if the tendency towards irreverence doesn't always chime with the tone of the socio-political agenda. Is it the greatest horror-comedy of all time? Good Lord, no. Indeed, it doesn't have much in the way of scares at all. But it sure is funny, allegorically skewering inherited wealth, marriage, tradition, even religion on occasion. With atavistic rules and sense of entitlement, the Le Domas family embody the concept that old-money can lead to an insularity from modernity, preventing the work-a-day world from entering their gated estates. Offering us a match, the film suggests that perhaps the only way to deal with such irrelevancies and their sense of self-importance is to burn them to the ground. And it has a blast showing us why.
‘Ready or Not’ doesn’t sport as many laughs as you'd want for this ridiculous story, nor is it dark enough to be a true horror; it's just gory and violent with the occasional jump scare and anxiety-ridden scene. So while it doesn’t meet expectations or desires, it’s still a fun, thrilling, wicked romp through the blood-soaked mansion and goat barn.

So prepare yourself for squeals of fear, squeals of delight, squeals of patriotism and the occasional giggled “WTF!?”... because here it comes!
- Jess Fenton

Read Jess' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-ready-or-not-not-quite-horror-not-quite-comedy-but-a-wickedly-good-time
Fun little horror-thriller-(dark)comedy that was entertaining enough and features a great performance from Samara Weaving, who has similar command of the scene like her uncle. Story-wise, not groundbreaking but as someone who generally doesn't enjoy dark comedies, this one worked for me. **3.5/5**
I've never kept it secret that I have a personal issue with Samara Weaving, but I try to keep things like that out of my mind, and, even though I know it's impossible to be truly objective about something as subjective as art, at least attempt to be **impartial**. And bearing that in mind, _Ready or Not_ is... Okay. Pretty good even. Disappointing, if I'm honest, given the hype and the trailer, but still. Pretty good.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Fantastic watch, will watch again, and do recommend.

This is such a great crazy, survivalist premise: an average lady that just wants to marry her man gets served up into a human hunting game, and she's a bad ass. Samara Weaving nails every aspect of this role. I did recognize a couple other actors: Melanie Scrofano (Wyanna Earp), Adam Brody, and Andie MacDowell, but none of the family really stands out other than Melanie, and that is more of circumstance, but they put the right person in that role at least.

The setting is limited to the estate grounds, but even if they built the sets for that place, it is bloody amazing and lends to the visuals both when they're displaying the house as being expansion and when they're showing it as a trap.

I'm actually short on words to why it is as good as it is, the writing is top notch and the set it great, but the acting is only good (other than Samara), and there aren't huge effects. Maybe it's the subtly of the effects they do show, and the details they go into in both presentation of the scene and the chosen dialogue. This movie definitely creates a permeable atmosphere for the audience.

If you're okay with blood / gore / violence, then give it a go, it should be a good time.

Directed by : Alexander Courage, Daniel Mandell, Nelson Riddle, Irene Sharaff, Joseph C. Wright, Roger Heman Sr., Harry Stradling Sr., Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Warren Newcombe

Produced by : Alexander Courage, Daniel Mandell, Nelson Riddle, Irene Sharaff, Joseph C. Wright, Roger Heman Sr., Harry Stradling Sr., Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Warren Newcombe

Starring : Marlon Brando, Jean Simmons, Frank Sinatra, Vivian Blaine, Robert Keith, Stubby Kaye, B.S. Pully, Johnny Silver, Regis Toomey, Sheldon Leonard

Company : Samuel Goldwyn Productions

Release date(s) : 1955-12-23

Running time :150 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $5,500,000

Storyline : I've always been a bad guy, and a bad gambler. From now on, I would like to be a good guy, and a good gambler. I thank you.

Guys and Dolls is directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and collectively adapted to screen from the play by Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling, Abe Burrows and Damon Runyon. It stars Marlon Brando, Jean Simmons, Frank Sinatra, Vivian Blaine, Robert Keith, Stubby Kaye, Sheldon Leonard, B.S. Pully and Johnny Silver. Music is by Frank Loesser and cinematography by Harry Stradling Sr.

Gambler Nathan Detroit (Sinatra) has few options for the location of his big craps game. Needing $1,000 to pay a garage owner to host the game, Nathan bets Sky Masterson (Brando) that Sky cannot get virtuous Sarah Brown (Simmons) out on a date. Despite some resistance, Sky negotiates a date with her in exchange for bringing people into her mission. Meanwhile, Nathan's longtime fiancée, Adelaide (Blaine), wants him to go legit and marry her.

Having never seen the play I have no frame of reference about the transfer to the big screen. Whilst concurring with the strongly held belief that both Brando and Sinatra are indeed miscast, the former a great actor who can barely sing, the latter a great singer given the wrong character role to play, the pic still comes out in credit for joyful entertainment.

Samuel Goldwyn forked out big money to put the source to the silver screen, and it shows as no expense is spared across the production (though Goldwyn was hugely disappointed with the box office returns). The songs are simple but all hit the foot tapping mark, the dancing choreography superb, while the booming colour photography gladdens the eyes. All told, Mankiewicz, directing his first ever musical, does a fine job.

One has to wonder how much better the pic could have been if MGM had of released Gene Kelly to play Sky Masterson, while in truth the pic is 30 minutes too long. Yet with Simmons and Blaine beguiling, and Stubby Kaye superb, it's easy to forgive the flaws and just sit back and enjoy the colourful ride. 7/10

Directed by : Quentin Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino, Tim Roth, Robert Richardson, Harry Cohen, Zoë Bell, Victoria Thomas, John Dexter, Nancy Haigh

Produced by : Quentin Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino, Quentin Tarantino, Tim Roth, Robert Richardson, Harry Cohen, Zoë Bell, Victoria Thomas, John Dexter, Nancy Haigh

Starring : Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Julia Butters, Austin Butler, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern

Company : Heyday Films, Columbia Pictures, Bona Film Group

Release date(s) : 2019-07-24

Running time :162 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English, Italiano, Español

Budget :  $95,000,000

Storyline : The movie isn’t for everyone, of course, but it’s a fun ride back to the past with fantastic performances, hilarious comedy and beautiful aesthetics. Tarantino is the one director in 2019 that can get huge names without people referring to his films as “that Leo film“, and I think that’s worth something whether you’re a fan or not. It’s rare for a film like this to be a mainstream release, and in the lacklustre year of 2019 I think it’s about time we got something in cinemas that's original.
- Chris dos Santos

Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-another-tarantino-classic
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

Quentin Tarantino is one of the best filmmakers of all-time. He has undeniable talent behind the camera, and his movies are fated to leave a mark in each year they’re released. In addition to that, he’s also an extraordinary screenwriter, as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood proves once again. His knowledge of the early decades of film is vast, so every feature he produces is always going to be filled with references to those “fairy tale” years. And that’s precisely what this movie is: a fairy tale in Hollywood, hence its title. Let me just leave this here right off the bat: I’m not going to address any controversy surrounding this film (namely, the whole Bruce Lee depiction and the Manson Family, in general), as I’m always fair and impartial to the movie I’m reviewing. Moving on …

My knowledge of the 60s isn’t that good. Obviously, I know the whole Sharon Tate story, as well as the famous Manson murders, but when it comes to actual films from that decade, well … Probably, I only know a few by name, a classic scene, or a memorable soundtrack. Tarantino uses his large runtime to place tons of references to that period, and that’s one of the reasons the first act of the movie drags. There’s a lot of time spent with characters just driving cars while listening to music (references in the songs), wide shots of the city as they drive by (references in the buildings), or even just playing an LP and dancing to it (reference in the songs, again).

I understand that these mean something, but if they don’t develop the character in any way, then these are just Easter Eggs and have no impact on the actual narrative. The first hour or so is filled with sequences which sole purpose is to show how much Tarantino knows about that time, and there’s nothing wrong with it, as long as it tells a story. That’s the second issue I have with the first act: it takes too long to establish its characters, and there’s no apparent objective within the story. It feels like a person just strolling around with no destination, which in itself isn’t a bad thing. But if you put together repetitive sequences plus a story that no one knows where it’s going or how it connects to the only thing people are actually expecting (the Sharon Tate event), then you’ll bore the hell out of the audience (a lot of people constantly left my theater to get more food or something, and they weren’t in a hurry).

Nevertheless, from the moment we start understanding who Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are, what they do, what they did, and what they want with their lives, then the film becomes incredibly captivating. It’s definitely a character-driven story. It’s a fairy tale where Rick tries his best to overcome his own personal issues to be the very best movie star, after being on an exponentially negative path. Cliff, as his stunt double, lives off of his buddy by doing everything he needs around the house and everywhere else. These two are inseparable, and their scenes are always filled with laughter and joy, even in the darkest moments. OUATIH works because of its beautifully-written characters.

If you don’t care about them, then you won’t enjoy the film at all. In addition to this, if you don’t know anything regarding the art of filmmaking, then you’ll probably hate it since it will become extremely dull. It’s one of those movies that anyone can like. However, for someone who knows and understands how films are made, it will always be a better time at the theater. You can love this movie, sure. But if you love filmmaking and you have knowledge of its techniques, you’ll love it even more. There are so many technical achievements worthy of appreciation that I can’t get to all of them, so I’ll just address two of my favorites. The first has to be the black-and-white flicks inside the actual film. Putting Leonardo DiCaprio acting on classic westerns with over-the-top performances is an absolute delight. Watching those features in a 4:3 black-and-white screen, filled with classic sound effects, and cheesy one-liners … Wonderful.

The second allows for my favorite scenes of the whole movie: the extensive one-take dialogues. I mean, 10 or 15-minute sequences where DiCaprio just gives it his all. This is how every single film should be done. There’s even a joke in the movie where Rick criticizes a particular type of filmmaking because they would film every character separately saying their lines and then editing them together. Unfortunately, that’s how most features are done today. Therefore, from watching a simple dialogue scene with DiCaprio and Julia Butters (a 10-year-old little girl!) to a bar sequence which belongs to a movie Rick is filming (this one even has Rick asking his lines, and the camera has to go back to its starting point), everything with no cuts whatsoever … What can I ask more from a director?!

Obviously, if this is a character-driven narrative, the cast has to be genuinely compelling. Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie … I mean, do I even need to explain how phenomenal they are? DiCaprio proves once again he’s one of the greatest actors of all-time. The ability that he has to put 200% in every single scene is unbelievable. I even started to tear up once his character is able to find his footing, solely due to the actor’s performance. The Oscar nom is guaranteed, let’s see about the win. Brad Pitt also has tons of nominations on his lap with an astonishing supporting display. He has a subtle performance, but it’s pretty incredible how much he can transmit to the audience by putting (apparently) so little effort. Margot Robbie doesn’t have that much screentime, but her character had the simple objective of showing how glamorous and dreamy an actress’ life could be at that time, so she didn’t exactly need to deliver her A-game.

It’s always good to see Al Pacino (Marvin Schwarz) on-screen, and I’m thrilled that Margaret Qualley (Pussycat), who I know from The Leftovers (one of the most underrated TV shows of the century), is finally getting some recognition. Technically, like I said above, it’s close to a masterpiece. It’s Tarantino, everyone knows what he’s capable of, but having in mind his most recent features, it’s a pleasant surprise and evidence of quality to the naysayers that he was able to produce a film with less bloody action. There are terrific demonstrations of great cinematography (Robert Richardson), and the editing is always impeccable in Tarantino’s features (this time due to Fred Raskin). The score is addictive, and it carries a very significant role in the movie. I would say that if Tarantino was able to shorten its runtime and control its pacing better, this would be a technically perfect film.

All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood isn’t the best Quentin Tarantino’s movie, but it’s undoubtedly one of the year’s best. Filled with award-winning lead performances (second Oscar for DiCaprio, please), this character-driven story is packed with references to the 60s which will be the divisive point in whether people will enjoy the film or not. Its first act is slow and takes too long to set up its story, but from the moment it’s able to find its footing, it’s an entertaining ride. If you love filmmaking and you know the insides of the art, Tarantino delivers a near-perfect technical production. Its alternate ending to real-life events is meant to be controversial, but for me, it’s a vision of how everything should have happened if the world was fair or, indeed, a fairy tale … in Hollywood.

Rating: A-
I'm not here to explain _Once Upon a Time In Hollywood_, just to enjoy it.

_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
***Tarantino’s revenge on the Manson psychos***

In the late 60s, Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a popular TV Western actor, finds his career taking a downturn and tries to recover with the encouragement of his kick-axx stunt double and best friend, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). Sharon Tate (Margo Robbie) & Roman Polanski are neighbors with Jay Sebring always hanging around (Emile Hirsch). Meanwhile the Manson Family nutjobs are lurking in the background, prepping to attack.

“Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood” (2019) is Quentin Tarantino’s 9th full film and, for me, ranks somewhere in the middle of his oeuvre. It may not be as great as “Pulp Fiction” (1994) and “Django Unchained” (2012), but it places well with “Inglourious Basterds” (2009), “Jackie Brown” (1997) and “The Hateful Eight” (2015).

A famous director once succinctly defined a great movie as such: Three good scenes, no bad scenes. While the second part of this definition is debatable with "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood,” seeing as how the movie could've certainly been tightened up (there are some dull sequences), there's no doubt that it fulfills the first part.

My three favorite scenes are: The amusing satirical Bruce Lee confrontation; the great Spahn Ranch episode, which effectively creates an underlying sense of menace; and, of course, the entertaining hippie attack in the final act.

Thankfully, there are numerous additional gems: The friendship and respect of Rick and Cliff; the audacious flamethrower sequence; Rick's breakdown with the precocious girl actor (not actress); the beautiful women throughout; the great cast, including several celeb cameos; the entertaining soundtrack; Brandi, the pit bull; Rick's meltdown in his trailer; Rick finally pulling off a quality acting scene via ad libbing; George Spahn not remembering Cliff; everything (surprisingly) turning out to be precisely as so-and-so said; the allusion to what MAY have happened to Cliff's nagging wife (Rebecca Gayheart) on the boat; the way it should have turned out on that infamous night; and the heartwarming close,

The film runs 2 hour, 41 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area.

GRADE: A-
Well, the last 15-minutes were great, the first 2.5 hours on the other hand was... uneventful. I have an interest in Hollywood, more from the 1980s though, so some of the slower scenes still kept my attention, but there's no real plot and minimal character development.

That said, DiCaprio and Pitt both give great performances and Margot Robbie of course had her moments, however I could only chuckle during the theater scene when she kicked her bare feet up. Okay, Quentin, lol. **3.0/5**
“When you come to the end of the line, with a buddy who is more than a brother and a little less than a wife, getting blind drunk together is really the only way to say farewell.”

‘Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’ is a chilled blast from the past told like a fairy tale. It’s both aimless and yet meaningful with the commentary on the new era in Hollywood. The movie pays tribute to old Hollywood, film making, Sharon Tate, stunt work, and actors. This is perhaps Tarantino’s most personal and mature movie his made, until the last 10 minutes (which I love) goes complete ape sh*t.

I can’t think of any other director where the passion and love for movies is so transparent through Tarantino's craft. He’s such an old school film maker that he and Martin Scorsese are the last golden age directors, as every new release feels like an event. In this movie, Quentin presents 69’ Hollywood at its peak, as he remembers it from his childhood. He manages to rebuild classy LA thanks to the crew and creative team.

Bright neon lights, fashionable clothes, and late 60’s automobiles. There’s a couple of scenes where Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), drives around LA and there are long shots that shows off the environment and it’s amazing the amount of detail and effort went into the setting - with Robert Richardson brilliant Cinematography bringing it all alive.

Leonardo DiCaprio was absolutely excellent as the fading Western star, Rick F**king Dalton. Dalton, a self-centered, yet vulnerable actor that you both laugh and pity. I will often forget about DiCaprio comedic chops, something similar to Ryan Gosling. I also like the subtle stutter that’s sprinkled through out, which is sad when given some thought that it’s something he’s got to deal with. There’s a heartfelt scene where Dalton tells his young co-star about a book his reading and mid way through explaining the story he realises it mirrors his life, and breaks down in tears with me crying with him. Yep, I teared up in a Tarantino movie. Leo was the pulse of the movie.

Brad Pitt was amazing as the deadpan and cool Cliff Booth. This is probably my favorite performance from him. Cliff’s main character trait is his strength and he demonstrates it multiple times, but leaves the scene before anything can escalate. The chemistry between Leo and Brad was electric. Pitt was the meat of the movie.

Margot Robbie was an absolute delight portraying the late Sharon Tate. Despite her slim screen time, but whenever she has screen time, I couldn’t help but smile. I instantly fell in love with her and it’s painfully to think something so sweet and pure could be taken away from us by brainwashed zombies who don’t deserve a life, just a jail cell. I thought her portrayal in the movie was a beautiful tribute and how they handle her gives new life into her legacy.

There’s a great scene where Sharon Tate watches a movie in cinemas that’s she’s in, but instead of Margot Robbie re-creating those scenes, they just show the real Sharon Tate in the movie. Now people were left a bit confused over this decision, although it’s clear to me that erasing the real Tate out of the movie would be more disrespectful to her memory, so leaving her in is a touching tribute to her career and her work. Robbie was the heart of the movie.

The other supporting cast all did terrific with the little screen time most of them had. Kurt Russell makes a welcoming return as a character that I assume is Stuntman Mike from 'Death Proof' - either way still a welcoming presence. He’s also the narrator and I find it hilarious whenever he tries to pronounce Italian movie titles. Al Pacino was a blast to watch as the tight and yet colorful producer. Mike Moh portrayal of Bruce Lee may have sparked some controversy recently, but I thought he was entertaining regardless and I don’t really think it mocks his legacy at all. I mean, this is the same director who made a four hour movie honoring the legend. Margaret Qualley was crazy good as the hippie girl who’s brain washed into a cult family. It’s crazy to know that Damon Herriman has played Charles Manson twice in the same year and month for this movie and the TV show ‘Mindhunter’, which you should totally check out by the way.

Julia Butters, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphant, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, and Damian Lewis - a stellar cast that did a stellar job.

After letting the film sit for awhile, there’s so many memorable lines that I would often catch myself recreating just from memory after seeing it twice. There’s so many great moments as well. The lights of LA coming to life at the dust of dawn, or the suspenseful scenes that actually got me feeling tense watching it. Without spoiling anything, but the Spahn Ranch scene where the Manson family stares down a defenseless Cliff Booth as he tries to speak to an old friend was terrifying - reminds me of the opening scene of ‘Inglorious Bastards’, in terms of building up tension that you wait in anticipation to explode.

Still, I think this is the best representation of the Manson family I’ve seen in any movie...by portraying them as absolute buffoons.

And of course with it being a Tarantino movie, the music is lost treasure revived for a modern generation. Always fantastic and incredibly catchy. I can’t think of anything better than Cliff driving around LA with the song ‘Bring a Little Lovin’ playing in the background.

Overall rating: I’ve seen this movie twice already and I still have a desire to watch it again. This is slowly creeping up to being my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie, but time will tell I guess.
I found this to be an excellent movie despite (or partly because of) major variance from the historic events it is based on.

Up until watching this movie, I had just seen four Tarantino films, so I guess I am not on his bandwagon. But I really enjoyed two of them (Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction). I can now say I liked Once Upon a Time in Hollywood just as much as I did those two movies.

The dialogue is sharp and the main characters are sympathetic enough so I cared what happened to them. The film is loosely based on actual events, with fictional characters thrown in and at least one major plot change that I won't give away. I think some of the most negative feedback I have seen about this film were from purists who didn't like the major change in the story. But I appreciated the change. If I want total accuracy, I would watch a documentary, but I want to be entertained, not depressed, and I was.

And I plan to watch it again, not just for the sake of the story, but because maybe the second time through I will catch more of the movie references that are supposed to inhabit Tarantino's films.

Directed by : Michael Uslan, Benjamin Wallfisch, Dwayne Johnson, Maxime Alexandre, Toby Emmerich, Walter Hamada, Peter Safran, Christopher Godsick, Shane Vieau, Michael Ewing

Produced by : Michael Uslan, Benjamin Wallfisch, Dwayne Johnson, Maxime Alexandre, Toby Emmerich, Walter Hamada, Peter Safran, Christopher Godsick, Shane Vieau, Michael Ewing

Starring : Zachary Levi, Asher Angel, Mark Strong, Jack Dylan Grazer, Adam Brody, Faithe Herman, Meagan Good, Grace Fulton, Michelle Borth, Ian Chen

Company : DC Entertainment, DC Comics, New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, The Safran Company, Seven Bucks Productions, DC Films

Release date(s) : 2019-03-29

Running time :132 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $80,000,000

Storyline : Growing up I was a regular viewer of the Shazam and Isis “Super Power Hour” on television. Back before the days of mega-budgeted Super Hero movies; we had to content ourselves with cartoons and low budget television offerings which did their best to capture the look and action of comic characters within the budget and technology limits they had to deal with.
Warner Bros. has brought their latest DC hero to the big screen with “Shazam!” and it looks to launch a new franchise for the studio and build on the success of “Wonder Woman” and “Aquaman” following some earlier disappointments with their planned hero franchise films.
The film follows the story of young Billy Batson (Asher Angel), who has grown up in and fled several Foster Homes after being lost at a Carnival years earlier and unable to find his mother. Billy has never stopped trying to find her and even takes extreme measures to try to find her that has gotten him in trouble with the law.
While trying to stick up for a family member at his latest Foster Home; Billy is forced to flee from some local goons and finds himself facing an ancient Wizard (Djimon Honsou; who tells him he will now have superior powers when he speaks his name as he is now a guardian against the forces of evil.
Billy does not believe this but upon uttering the name; he transforms into a powerful hero in adult form. Zach Levi plays the title hero and soon finds himself eager to test his new powers and his Super Hero obsessed Foster Brother is more than happy to mentor him and make all sorts of viral videos of his efforts and training.
Their efforts soon draw the attention of an evil individual (Mark Strong), who covets the power Billy has for himself as along with the Seven Deadly Sins; he looks to become an unstoppable force for evil and sets out to destroy all that stands in his way.
The film is aimed more for a younger audience as much of the humor is squarely focused on Middle School level jokes. There are more than a few references to “Big” along the way which does sum up a good portion of the backstory as when he is in hero form; the young boy without a family is a popular and dynamic adult.
In many ways this was one of the more odd aspects of the film. Billy is a dour and untrusting individual most of the time; however when he is hero form he is a jovial and goofy individual who acts like a teenager. I could see an increase in confidence but it is odd considering that they are the same person.
Levi is very energetic in the part and goes all in and he does a great job of conveying a kid in a man’s body. The biggest issue with the film is that there is mostly a lot of humor aimed at a much younger audience and large gaps with minimal action which made sitting through numerous childish antics a bit tedious at times.
Despite this; the film was entertaining and one of the better adaptions of a comic. The door is wide open for future adventures and I look forward to seeing what they come up with next.
3.5 stars out of 5
If you enjoy reading my spoiler-free reviews, please follow my blog :)

First of all, I didn’t know anything about Shazam. What his powers were, what story did he have … Basically, I didn’t know who he was. This is what David F. Sandberg‘s movie does best: introduce the audience to a new DC superhero, by delivering an uncommonly well-structured comic-book screenplay, packed with laughter and entertaining action. Zachary Levi is undoubtedly the standout! Not only is he hilarious, but he perfectly captures the childlike personality that a kid-turned-adult would have. His expressions of absolute surprise and awe of his powers are extremely precious, and he effortlessly carries the more lighthearted tone on his shoulders.

Asher Angel is brilliant as Billy Batson. His character has a notably well-written and well-explored backstory, which eventually justifies the person he has become. It’s the most emotional and heartfelt subplot of the film (probably the only one, really), and Henry Gayden did a fantastic job writing its script. It doesn’t feel cliche or over-the-top, it actually feels grounded and quite realistic. Jack Dylan Grazer plays his best friend, Freddy Freeman, and he’s the primary source of self-aware comedy. He knows all the cliches regarding superheroes and supervillains, so his jokes constantly land and play seamlessly into the last act.

Usually, villains tend to be hollow characters with paper-thin motivations, but since a few years ago, this issue has gradually been corrected. The latest comic-book movies have incredibly well-developed villains, who carry a compelling backstory that entirely supports their beliefs, but not their actions. This type of villains work because not only the audience can understand where they come from, but in some cases, they can even connect with and care about them. Dr. Thaddeus Sivana is not exactly someone the audience ends up caring about, but his backstory is emotionally powerful enough for us to understand where his motivations originate from. Mark Strong delivers a menacing performance, and his costume/make-up looks pretty badass.

The first act is kind of a mixed bag. It starts in a very captivating way, and once you understand who’s the character at the center, it gets even better. However, the film’s tone takes long to establish itself, and the beginning of the movie struggles to find which jokes land and which don’t. The humor is on-point throughout the rest of the runtime, but those first few jokes not so much, which threw me off a little bit. The action sequences are amazing, and the sound design allows the audience to feel every punch, kick, a fall on the ground or a Superman-ish take-off. The fight sequences are seamlessly edited, and you know how much I love well-choreographed or well-edited action scenes.

Shazam‘s search for his powers provides the funniest and most entertaining moments of the film. Each test that he puts himself through is both hilarious and informative. This is another aspect of the screenplay I love so much: they had several ideas of how to approach this segment, and they nailed every single execution. From the pop-culture references to the hero-villain cliches, Sandberg did a terrific job exploring those concepts, and he executed them flawlessly. The best jokes are the ones that can be funny on different levels for different people. If people can laugh at a particular scene solely due to it, but other people can laugh even more because that moment means so much more to them, that’s when you know a joke is perfect. Shazam is not only funny for comic-book fans, everyone can leave the theater entertained and jolly.

It’s still a straightforward superhero movie. There’s still a villain to defeat, and the film goes through all of the cliches that it makes so much fun of. Everyone knows how it’s going to develop, plot point by plot point, a few minutes in. Not that I consider this a flaw, it’s just … It is what it is. The final battle drags too much, and it keeps ending and restarting every five minutes. It does have a pretty cool conclusion, but it takes a bit too long to get there. Also, and I know that this is one of those logical nitpicks that CinemaSins are known for digging, but the flashbacks and time-jumps could have received better treatment concerning the age of the characters. One thing is to think that the characters would look much older/younger than what they display on-screen, but when they make them look exactly the same in the span of 30/40 years … Not so acceptable.

All in all, Shazam is a blast! It’s the most entertaining movie I’ve seen so far this year, and it’s freaking hilarious. It continues the comic-book films trend to change how villains are written, by delivering a well-developed bad guy, menacingly portrayed by Mark Strong. Every member of the cast gives a strong performance, but Zachary Levi steals the show. His whimsical attitude, reckless personality, and rich facial expressions are guaranteed to entertain you for most of the runtime. Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer are outstanding as the young kids, and the former’s backstory carries emotional impact which passes on to the big guy he transforms himself into.

The action is packed with beautifully-edited sequences, powerful sound design, and cool, unique moments, but the supposedly climactic final battle drags too much. The first act struggles to find its rhythm and its tone, but once it gets going, it’s an exceptional journey. The best praise I can give Sandberg‘s movie is that I didn’t know anything about Shazam before entering the theater, and now I can’t wait for its sequel. Well-directed, well-written and remarkably entertaining. What more can I ask? Go see it!

Rating: B+
It's entertaining, it has heart, and it's joyful. It has been proven time and time again that these things are what is required for a good Superhero film.
After the spiderman movies, this has to be the most annoying superhero movie I've seen to date. It took nearly an hour for the movie to actually get interesting and during that whole time one is treated to 2 super annoying teenagers.

Honestly, I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema for this otherwise I'd constantly be reaching for remote to press the fast forward button. About the only redeeming quality of this film was the picture and acceptable acting from everybody involved. Pity everything else was bad.

There's no way I'd willingy watch this again. No way.
Definitely has its moments, bit in total the movie feels inconsistent which kills most of the buzz. It switches from rather serious scenes where people actually get hurt to PG-6 compatible simple humor back and forth a few times.
With ever transformation the whole character changes, Shazam acting more like a 5 Year old than the 15 Year old Teenager he's supposed to be.
Freddy sometimes acts downright malicious, which is not a problem per se except that everyone else doesn't really seem to be bothered much by it.

Still not a bad take on the comic, but it feels inconsistent and left me wondering what age the target audience is supposed to be ...
The titular Shazam and has alter-ego Billy Batson feel like completely different characters. This is not unheard of for a superhero by any stretch, but when accompanied by a change of actor, it's a pretty jarring situation. I also have a hard time figuring out who the target demographic is with this thing. Seems all over the place.

But! at the end of the day, the most important question is "Did I enjoy _Shazam!_?" and to that the answer is still somehow yes. Probably the best that the DCIThoughSheWasWithUniverse has to offer (with the glaring exception of _Wonder Woman_).

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Zachary Levi is a hoot in this super-hero comedy reminiscent of the now classic Big with Tom Hanks. We get a solid first half, even two thirds, but why oh why do these movies almost always seem to revert to formula in the 3rd act? Been there, done that...
Second viewing and my feelings pretty much remain the same. Fun moments and Zachary Levi was very good in the leading role and although not terribly memorable, Mark Strong made for a fine villain, that said, some of the humor wasn't for me, although I did enjoy some of director David F. Sandberg's more horror-centric style shined through with the Seven Deadly Sins.

Directed by : Hal Gausman, Walt Disney, Robert O. Cook, Carroll Clark, Robert Stevenson, P.L. Travers, Bill Walsh, Bill Walsh, Don DaGradi, Richard M. Sherman

Produced by : Hal Gausman, Walt Disney, Robert O. Cook, Carroll Clark, Robert Stevenson, P.L. Travers, Bill Walsh, Bill Walsh, Don DaGradi, Richard M. Sherman

Starring : Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, David Tomlinson, Glynis Johns, Hermione Baddeley, Karen Dotrice, Matthew Garber, Elsa Lanchester, Arthur Treacher, Reginald Owen

Company : Walt Disney Productions

Release date(s) : 1964-08-27

Running time :139 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $6,000,000

Storyline : Set in Edwardian London, Jane and Michael Banks are two children in a middle class London suburb. Their parents are distant from the children and each nanny they employ leaves in exasperation after the chaos the children cause.

The children's father is a banker who is cold towards them and their mother is too busy with the suffragette movement.They want the perfect nanny and in a sudden gust of wind, Mary Poppins drops by. She possesses magical powers such as a bottomless handbag. Mary Poppins changes the life of the children and also meets up with her friend Bert, the one man band.

Mary Poppins combines live action with Disney animation as well as some memorable songs and in Dick Van Dyke an unforgettable cockney accent.

The movie is regarded as a Disney classic but I found the animation to be below average, the film overlong and not all that amusing.

Directed by : Zach Staenberg, Steve Shewchuk, Robert Brown, Hugh Wilson, Hugh Wilson, Trevor Williams, Paul Maslansky, Pat Proft, Pat Proft, Robert Folk

Produced by : Zach Staenberg, Steve Shewchuk, Robert Brown, Hugh Wilson, Hugh Wilson, Trevor Williams, Paul Maslansky, Pat Proft, Pat Proft, Robert Folk

Starring : Steve Guttenberg, Kim Cattrall, G. W. Bailey, Bubba Smith, Donovan Scott, George Gaynes, Andrew Rubin, David Graf, Leslie Easterbrook, Michael Winslow

Company : The Ladd Company, Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s) : 1984-03-22

Running time :97 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $4,500,000

Storyline :