Bondorf39

I am reminded of an old Disney TV special, in which Donald Duck tries to be a singer, a dancer, a juggler, lots of things he simply is not. Walt sticks him to some very sage advice: "Be yourself." I bring this up because this two word homily is but one of the thousands of lessons Dreamworks could learn from the House of Mouse.

"Shrek 2," the annoyingly popular sequel to the irritatingly successful "Shrek" is a prime example of the serious condition that plagues all Dreamworks Animated Films: DERIVATIVITIS!!! The story of S2 is quite good. No, really, it is. Shrek and Fiona are newlyweds, and when they visit the Princess's parents, they are, to put it lightly, shocked to discover their daughter is an ogre. Their taunts get under Shrek's skin and he starts to think maybe Fiona would be better off with a prince. So he, Donkey and a newcomer, Puss (in Boots!) travel the countryside to make what they assume to be Fiona's dream come true. In the end, of course, they learn the importance of being yourself and that love conquers all, two very useful lessons, I think you'll find.

And if that was what the movie was, it'd be great and I'd gladly show it to my hypothetical kids any day of the week. But the plot is incidental to the main reason they made this picture, which is to cram as many jokes, spoofs, takeoffs, lampoons, references and anti-Disney propaganda gags as they possibly can into 86 minutes of celluloid. And, frankly, it gets old!! Someone needs to tell these people that they don't need all this! They don't need "Little Mermaid" and "Aladdin" jokes. They don't need pop culture references. They don't need poorly cast celebrity voices. They don't need popular singles to sell the soundtrack album. They don't need to over-market their movies. Just make movies! Tell your story. The occasional homage to one of your predecessors is understandable in animated film, but don't make that the point of the movie.

Spielberg...Geffen...Katzenberg...just be yourselves! DONALD: "Be yourself"...think it'll work? WALT: It ALWAYS works, Donald.

I wish I didn't have to be this guy. I wish I could be nicer. I wish I could fall in line with the legions of fans who dig this movie's aimless plot, poorly developed characters, banal dialogue, gratuitous low humor and overall feeling of pretentiousness. I wish wish wish that this was the case. Unfortunately, I have a human brain and can tell the difference between dirty water and champagne. This is, unquestionably, a very bad movie.

It's a movie based on a novel about a writer who's writing about himself. Please. Think back to how many pseudo-independent, underdog, art-house, pretentious as all git out flicks you've seen about writers. It's self-indulgent, that's what it is. Someone needs to tell these writers who are writing these movies about writers that, to paraphrase Watterson, saying something isn't the same as being understood. You're just muttering to yourself. That's what this movie is. Probably the author needed to write it for his own reasons, but did the rest of us really have to hear this story? The plot goes nowhere. It's a formulaic repetition of self-destructive behavior. They're driving, they're drinking wine, they're talking to a girl, hey! Something weird just happened! Maybe now the movie will get interest--nope. Driving. Drinking. Talking. The characters are flat and unengaging. Giamati's Miles is a waste of this man's obvious talent and, for the love of all things wonderful in life, who the hell puts Thomas Hayden Church in a movie? Explain it to me someone! Besides the fact that his character makes absolutely no sense and has ZERO redeeming features, he plays it in the same slack-jawed monotone that served him well as Lowell on "Wings" and nothing else in his career.

If you're a self-absorbed, know-it-all, pretentious snob who thinks he's the smartest thing in the universe, by all means watch this film. If you're instead, you know, someone with taste who likes, what do you call em? GOOD movies, join the rest of us in trying to work out how this piece of garbage beat out "Eternal Sunshine," "Ray," "The Incredibles," and "Phantom of the Opera" for the best musical or comedy Golden Globe.

You know, cuz she's always saying "No Big," but this is...like...um...well, you get what I was going for.

Anyhoo, this is a great film. I was a little peeved at Disney Channel for constantly touting it as "their first animated TV movie," though (What's "A Stitch In Time," cinematic chopped liver?). Other than that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

The story was good, it was a clever plot, a few of the surprises caught me off guard (which, I guess, is what they're s'posed to do). But what I liked most about it (And this is where the spoilers are, so watch yourself...

Kim and Ron hook up! Boo Yah! I've been following this show for a long time, I was there for Josh Mankey, Brick Flagg, that girl at the movie theater, and all the time I knew in my heart that Kim and Ron should be together. Ron's never going to find another girl who gets him the way Kim does, and Kim will never find a guy she likes as much as Ron.

Maybe it's the hopeless romantic in me. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a little bit Ronesque myself and want to believe that someone as cool as Kim would actually go for me. Maybe it's just that I'm taking a cartoon WAY too seriously. But I've always thought that the best basis for romance is friendship.

Anyway, see the movie. It rocks in stereo!

This is a brilliant series that manages to hold onto the spirit of the Wodehouse stories without being dependent on them. Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry were born for these roles and there are none better suited for them. Perhaps the finest example of adaptation in the history of British film/TV.

I personally love Wodehouse's writing, and I have but one complaint: Americans. In the second series (season for us in the US) a few American characters appear and it is painful to hear them speak. For all his talent, Wodehouse could not write American dialogue to save his life.

Britain and America are, as someone once said, two countries celebrated by a common tongue. And our respective patterns of speech are in contrast. Therefore, certain words and phrases do not sound right with an American accent. Praise must go to the actress playing Miss Stoker in the Second Season. She tries so hard.

Other than that, I recommend this series (and the books, come to that) to anyone.

There are those who would have you believe that this is a bad movie because it deviates from the stage musical. In the play, for example, Sancho has a grating high-pitched voice whereas in the movie, his voice is warmer and stronger. Another example is the deletion of certain songs such as the completely unnecessary and boring "What Do You Want of Me?" and "To Each His Dulcinea." In addition, Cervantes is jailed on stage for foreclosing a church. In the movie, he is sent before the Inquisition on grounds of heresy. This makes the whole thing that much more significant and important. It also relates to a central theme in the movie, that Cervantes' and indeed Don Quixote's way of fighting back at the world is to imagine a new world. To dream, as it were, the impossible dream.

The stage version was one of the most substantially flawed in Broadway's history. Richard Kiley (the original stage actor) had a strong, powerful voice, that is true, but it didn't sound like Don Quixote. The man who dubs Peter O'Toole's voice in the movie, however, sounds not only like Peter O'Toole, but like Don Quixote.

Indeed, the only thing about the movie that is different from the play is that the actors in the movie are GOOD! And they don't just put on big, fake, funny voices in the traditional idiotic Broadway style. They portray their characters honestly and in keeping with the spirit of the story. And it is a story that everyone should hear. If you are like me, a lifelong chaser of impossible dreams, then the story of one man's quest to slay giants which are actually windmills cannot be ignored.

And don't be such a stuck-up tight ass about film adaptations. Of COURSE they're going to be different, that doesn't make them worse.

Despite the electricity of "The Odd Couple" the emotional force of "Lost in Yonkers" and the Depression-era angst of "Brighton Beach Memoirs," this remains the best movie made of a Neil Simon play.

Like "The Odd Couple" it owes most of its enduring success to the chemistry between Jane Fonda and Robert Redford (reprising his role in the Broadway show) as the hapless newlyweds trying desperately to make it work. This is the movie that is responsible for most of the "mismatched" romantic comedies we've ever seen, including "Along Came Polly" and TV's "Dharma and Greg." It proves that flowery romantic prose isn't what makes a great love story, bold heroes and damsels in distress don't make a good love story. No, what makes a good love story are two people who, from start to finish, makes the audience go "Oh, God in heaven, please let them work it out!"

The brilliant dialogue of Mr. Simon, the charm of Mr. Boyer and the majestic backdrop of New York City make this a must-see for anyone who loves 1, comedy, 2, love stories or 3, Robert Redford because after this, he never really made another movie that was at all comparable.

Oh, I just remembered "Laughter on the 23rd Floor." I guess it's a tie for best Neil Simon movie.

Let me tell you what sold me on this show: The title. "Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends" the TV listings said. Obviously, it was a show about a retirement-like home for imaginary friends who had, for some reason or another, worn out their usefulness. Then I turned it on and saw the pilot movie one afternoon. I thought it was the best new cartoon show I'd seen since "Invader ZIM" (although the shows are about as different as night and day).

Kids shows should look cute. That's just a rule. And this one brings fond memories of "Fairly Odd Parents" "Dexter's Laboratory" and other recent additions to the Hall of Cartoon Fame. The main character, Bloo, is just a blue blob, but he's a great character.

But the best part of the show is it's imagination. Obviously, a show about imaginary friends is going to have a lot to do with that, but I've always thought that a kids' show should be imaginative. And this show is very original.

Anyway, it's on Fridays at 7 on Cartoon Network. I hope you enjoy it. I think you will.

I don't care what anyone says: THE CONTEMPORARY Disney MOVIES ARE GOOD! It's very fashionable to say that all Disney movies after Walt's death have sucked and that the "Disney Renaissance" of the late-eighties/early-nineties resulted in but a few flukes. And the box office returns of some of these movies seem very supportive of that fact. But that's not the fault of the movies themselves: It's Eisner's fault! He's been trying to undermine the values and ideals of Disney since he got the job in 1984. As I write these words, he's working on a) eliminating all cell-animated movies, b) cutting back or shutting down altogether the live action film company and c) focusing on ABC TV and the theme parks. Why? Because they make more money.

The quality of these films is not declining. If anything, they're becoming more sophisticated and that marriage of traditional values in storytelling and contemporary comedy is working out much better.

As an example, I give you "Atlantis." Here is a very original story, which cleverly incorporates CG graphics into an otherwise entirely cell-animated movie and manages to portray dark aspects and big action just as expertly as comedy.

A stellar cast, led by Michael J. Fox, helps the movie character to seem more believable, and not just funny drawings. Wisely deciding that not every animated film has to be a musical, there are no annoyingly optimistic songs to ruin the mood.

This movie is noteworthy if for no other reason than Jim Varney gave what would be his last performance as the voice of Cookie, the...well, the cook.

This is, without question, the best situation comedy I have seen in a good many years. As a devout follower of the medium, an expert in its ways and a firm believer that it is NOT dead, but rather misunderstood, I can state unequivocally that "Coupling" is as good as it gets.

I will not belittle this show by comparing it (as everyone else seems so fond of doing) to "Friends" "Seinfeld" and "Sex and the City" three American comedy series to which it bears fleeting resemblances. There is nothing that p***es me off than taking an original and innovative show and trying to explain it by cramming together a handful of old shows. It is a show about single friends who discuss love, dating and sex but there the similarities end...

Except to "Friends" I guess, seeing as there are three girls and three boys...anyway...

The strength of the show comes from the same place that it does in all great shows, and that is in the characters. Compare "Star Trek" to the obviously superior "Next Generation." The difference? The former is concept-driven while the latter is character-driven. So "Coupling" may be a show about nothing, but unlike "Seinfeld" it is saved by seven wonderful characters.

Primarily "Coupling" is about Steve and Susan, who are quite clearly ideal for one another but keep splitting up because Steve is stupid and indecisive and Susan is strict and unrelenting. But they gravitate back together with alarming regularity. Joining these two are Patrick (Susan's Ex), a ridiculously well-endowed pursuer of S-E-X and little else, Jane (Steve's Ex), a self-obsessed, delusional, bisexual horror who, in her capacity as a traffic reporter, has caused several accidents, Jeff (Steve's best friend and a coworker of Susan's), who is like a twelve-year-old boy who just discovered sex and hasn't grown out of his obsession with boobies, and Sally (Susan's best friend) torn between her own obsessions, one with sleeping with Patrick and another with looking forever young. In the fourth series, a new character was introduced, a nervous, comic shop owner with what can only be described as "verbal diarrhea," Oliver is a charming addition to this group of confused singles.

Here's the number one reason why British shows are better than American shows: After the opening titles of "Coupling" after all six of the cast members' names have been listed the ONLY credit that we see (apart from the actors) is "By Steven Moffat." Writing is the first and most important ingredient to a good show. "Fawlty Towers," "Absolutely Fabulous," "The Office," "Blackadder," and "Father Ted" were not created by a staff under pressure from network execs. Each was the vision of but one writer.

Okay, I guess that's everything. And since I can't think of a clever ending I shall simply stop right here.

Barbra Streisand is talented, she absolutely is. Even straight men who hate her with every fiber of their being have no choice but to admit that the broad can sing and she ain't too bad in a movie either. And one need only see this film to see how good a director she is. This film is beautiful. Every frame is like a Renoir painting. The script is intriguing and original, the performances (especially Mandy Patinkin's) are great and overall it's a lovely film...

Which would've been about a hundred and ninety eight times better if BARBRA STREISAND HADN'T SUNG!! Don't get me wrong, as I intimated above, I love hearing Barbra sing, but this movie didn't need it. The songs (sung mostly by Streisand in the title role in the form of inner monologue [which is to say that they play in her head and her lips don't move] or out loud to an empty room or a reflection in a mirror, which gets old pretty quick) are superfluous. They do little to move the action or explain the characters, Yentl just sings what she feels at semi-regular intervals throughout the movie. I mean, they're pretty enough songs and keep in mind, this is coming from an openly straight musical theater lover who knows Broadway and Hollywood from "Oklahoma" to "The Producers."

Bottom line: Watch it as a beautifully shot movie about a girl trying to be more than society wants her to be. If you want a GOOD musical in which Streisand does at least ninety-five percent of the singing? Pick up "Funny Girl."

I am an avid fan of Graham Norton and saw his British talk shows on BBC America (thank God for BBC America) so when I found out he was doing an hour show in America I was ecstatic. This show is just the same as his overseas hits. Asking the audience devastating personal questions, sharing obscure and disturbing internet sites, displaying sexual toys and products for our consideration, creates bizarre game show-like competitions for the audience and chats with big stars like Jennifer Tilly, Paul Rudd, Alan Cumming, Marlon Wayans and Makuly Culkin.

Graham is the strength of this show. Eventually, American guests will understand that, shocking though this may be, IT'S NOT ABOUT THEM! The only reason Graham even has celebrity guests is to have a playmate to get freaked out reactions from. It's all about Graham, kiddies and he deserves it. He is a forty-one-year-old man with the energy and enthusiasm (and randiness) of a teenager. Old ladies love him.

So if you like depraved sexuality run rampant, watching respected actors and comedians go "Wuh??" or just like gay guys with funny shoes, tune into "The Graham Norton Effect."

And, for you homosexual Comedy Central viewers out there, this MORE than makes up for "Straight Plan for the Gay Man." I don't know WHAT they were thinking there.

No one ever says "hurrah" do they? You never see, "And Gene Shallit says, 'Hurrah!'" in a newspaper. Which is a shame, because it's so much fun to say. Go on try it. No one's looking. Okay, on three, ready? One...two...three. HURRAH! There, that wasn't bad, was it?

Anyway, onto the actual film, it's wonderful. The story concerns Robbie (voiced by Irish comedian extraordinare Ardal O'Hanlon), the son of another famous reindeer (whose name is never uttered) who wants to be on Santa's sleigh team. Trouble is, he's lazy. In the end he gets up off his butt, defeats the evil Blitzen ("Around the World in 80 Days" star Steve Coogan) and finds love. The writing, performances, animation and everything are superb. You will find yourself laughing out loud at these reindeer and the silly things they do. But make sure you see the UK edition, because on CBS here in the States they've rerecorded the dialogue with Ben Stiller, Britney Spears, Hugh Grant and Brad Garrett and removed charming Britishisms like, "You're chucked" rather than "I'm breaking up with you."

There is an important point here. Americans are obtuse about other cultures. We are so convinced that ours is the best nation out there despite never EVER having set foot off her shores. Anything foreign, we remake and redo and Americanize. This is the logic behind American versions of British comedies, Kevin Costner as Robin Hood and the decision that American primetime TV audiences wouldn't like an Irish reindeer so let's make him Derrick Zoolander instead.

See the British version, I beg you. And its sequel, "Legend of the Lost Tribe."

I have yet to see any evidence to indicate that Dreamworks makes animated films for any reason other than, "Nyah nyah, Walt Disney! I can do it too!" (This, incidentally, is the same reason Don Bluth made animated films, until he realized that children were scared by them) "Shrek," "Antz" and the upcoming "Shark Tale" in particular seem direct attacks on the Mouse.

But this movie is different. Inspired seemingly equally by "The Man Who Would Be King" and the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby "Road" pictures, "The Road to El Dorado" is a thoroughly enjoyable and original motion picture. Witty, gritty, pretty, and even adjectives that don't rhyme. Granted, the Elton John/Tim Rice songs are really, really, really, really, insert preferred number of reallys here BAD, and the love story between Rosie Perez and Kevin Kline is hardly believable, and Cortez sounds like a bad Orson Welles impression...but let's not quibble! Wanna hear about its strengths? Electric chemistry between the classically trained actors Brannagh and Kline (who, in an unusual turn for animation, recorded much of their dialogue together [see also "The Lion King" and "Monsters, Inc."]), the surprising historical accuracy in terms of the culture and look of the period, and the open-ended, optimistic ending.

Now, I for one still think that Disney consistently makes the best animated films you could ever hope to watch (I don't care what anyone says; I thought "Treasure Planet" and "Atlantis" were groovy) but if you insist on pursuing Dreamworks entertainment, this and "Chicken Run" are the only acceptable ones.

As a lifelong holder of minority opinions, much of my time is spent baffled in wonderment as to how a seemly intelligent person could've paid good money to go see "The English Patient" twice during its original run. Or says "Love Story" is the greatest romantic movie ever made. Or who prefers the original "Ocean's Eleven" to the remake. And one of the biggest thorns in my side about movies is this piece of garbage which trivializes the catastrophe that was the sinking of the Titanic by making it a turbulent backdrop for a badly-derived Romeo and Juliet ripoff. Pretty boy Pauper sees Rich kid Rosie (or whatever her name was) and goes, "Dude, I have GOT to tap dat!" With a little help from Kathy Bates, he convinces her to slum it with him in the steam room in perhaps the most gratuitous sex scene that made lonely women go "Ohhhh..." in years. Then the boat sinks. Several thousand people die, but the REAL victim (says Cameron) is the girl because she must live on with the memory of that blond piece of ass she shagged on the boat. I think what pisses me off most about this movie (besides the fact that if the girl had scooted over on that bit of wood a little bit, she could've shared it with the man she supposedly loved. Or they could've taken turns in the water, but God forbid she get her dress wet) is the fact that the story really had nothing to do with the boat. They could've made up a fictional boat crash and it not only would've been more appropriate, but it would've made more sense. And that Celine Dion song? Maybe the worst I've heard since Art Garfunkel's "Bright Eyes." If I was being forced to patronize a stuck up right chick when all I wanted was to get under her corset AND listen to that damn song all the time, I'd be happy when the boat sank.

Spoiler Alert!! Are you ready? Do you need another minute? Okay, I'll wait...

This movie sucks.

I see you weren't ready. Take your time, get back to me when you're okay...as I was saying this is a bad movie. How this film has been allowed to rise to a position of immortality in Hollywood alongside works like "Casablanca" and "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a mystery to my pundit-like understanding of movies and their audiences.

I saw this movie for the first time after it was named the number three film of all time (Is it 3? I think so) by the AFI. I had heard the hype and was expecting a grand love story with a Civil War backdrop. Instead I got an eighteen hour soap opera with bad acting, bad writing and characters I wouldn't lift a finger to save if they were being mugged right next to me.

Scarlett O'Hara is one of the most well-known figures in American films and if you told that to an English person, they would say that they understood why. She is stuck up, self-absorbed, arrogant, whiney, spoiled rotten, unfeeling, conniving...hell, she married a guy to spite Clark Gable and doesn't even care when he dies!! Her inconsiderate juggling of the feelings of others is disguised by the filmmakers as charming befuddlement and/or coming of age. She's a bad person and I'm p***ed that she doesn't die in the end.

But I can forgive her. I can forgive the character, I can forgive the racially insensitive characterizations, I can forgive the fact that the Civil War was way the hell more important than these two losers...Here's why I will always hate this movie. They had a brilliant endline in "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Imagine a movie that ends on that line. What a perfect ending! Put Scarlett in her place, a star like Gable could shine. And how do they end the movie? With Scarlett's responsibility-dodging catchphrase, "I'll think about it tomorrow." And the overly-sappy, doesn't-mean-anything-really "For tomorrow...is another day!"

WHERE'S GENERAL SHERMAN WHEN WE NEED HIM?!?!?

This is written in direct protest of a user comment on this site which called this remarkable series "drivel," "awful," and other things that made me think the jerk was accidentally watching "Law and Order."

This is one of the best shows on TV. I say that because it shares one common trait with every show I have ever loved: Heart. Behind the ominous tinge of death, the cynical barkings of Captain Stottlemeyer, the Barney Fife-esque antics of Randy Disher, the equal parts maternal nagging and New Jersey attitude of Charona Flemming and the fact that it's basically a show about poking fun at one guy's mental problems is love. We LOVE Adrien Monk. We join him in mourning his wife's death, and we live and die with each step he takes toward being reinstated.

This is more than a cop show. This is more than a detective show. This is more than a comedy. This is more than a drama. Given the slightest amount of cosmic justice, this show will go down in history alongside "Sports Night," "Freaks and Geeks," and "Star Trek: The Next Generation" (I apologize for nothing) as a show that did not give in to the horrors of professional television, but rose above them to produce pure art.

As for the last guy's comment that Monk should've been reinstated a long time ago...you want to give Adrien a gun and set him loose in your neighborhood? Fine by me, and sleep tight.

I mean, isn't it? Stressed out pseudo-insomniac loner creates alter ego (who manifests himself in the form of another actor) to do "dirty work" or otherwise fulfill the loner's fantasies and desires? The irony being not only that this is a film ABOUT plagiarism but that the screenwriter/director also wrote "Panic Room" which was directed by David Fincher who directed "Fight Club."

As for the actual review: It's not well structured, the suspenseful moments border on the comic, Johnny Depp is clearly burned out from filming "Pirates of the Caribbean" because of how similar in speech and mannerism this character is to Jack Sparrow, and that "perfect ending" of his? Sucks! Corn? "Her murder will be a mystery even to me?" That's awful! I should know, I'm a writer, I can tell a crap ending when I hear one.

In short, and despite a yeoman's effort from both Depp and the grossly-underrated John Turturro, get "Fight Club" instead. It's better.

Don't try to deny it, they do. The "Batman" movies were so dark, you couldn't see them, "X-Men" was overblown and confused, "Hulk" was a waste of CGI and the less said about the upcoming "Catwoman" the better (maybe it's wrong to condemn a movie I haven't seen just because it's an abomination of the comic book character, but I'm actually fine with that). The original "Superman" was good, though the subsequent sequels were a little upsetting.

Which brings us to the original "Spider-Man" which, we can all agree, was phenomenal. A perfect mix of flying action sequences and character introspection (a step so often ignored in movies, but so necessary for the appreciation of a character), topped off with great performances by Maguire, Franco and Defoe. (Yeah, I guess Kirsten Dunst was okay, not that Mary-Jane had much to do in Part One) Hard to top? Certainly. But Sam Raimi has done it again with this sequel that not only expands on, but surpasses the original.

I won't go into plot summary since most of you probably haven't seen it yet. I will simply rundown the highlights. James Franco proves he is every bit the actor as he struggles with his obsession with Spider-Man. Dunst proves that she can do more than kiss in the rain (without wearing a bra in the entire first movie, I couldn't help but notice) with her heart-wrenching decision about Peter. Tobey Maguire IS Peter Parker, I can think of no better way to say it. The special effects are not distracting from the plot, the "evil plot" is one of the most plausible in film history (check out the latest "Entertainment Weekly") and Stan Lee saves another person from falling debris.

Game ball goes to Alfred Molina for his touching and terrifying portrayal of Otto "Doc Ock" Octavius. Go see it as soon as possible. You won't be sorry, True Believer.

"Everyone Says I Love You" is a perfect musical for people who don't like musicals. Since the music is such a totally insignificant part of the overall story, it isn't as overwhelming as good ones like "The Music Man" and "Fiddler on the Roof." The only thing I can imagine is that Woody wrote it up as an ensemble comedy, in the vein of "Hannah and Her Sisters" (he loves actors and puts as many as possible in each movie) and then suddenly decided that he always wanted to make a musical so he reached into a hat and pulled out a bunch of songs that only bore fleeting resemblances to anything happening in the plot, which is needlessly complicated and overlapping. Skylar's (Drew Barrymore's) sister DJ tells the story in voicover of her mother (Goldie Hawn), stepfather (Alan Alda), half sisters, brother and her real father (Woody) and the woman he's fallen for (Julia Roberts). And let's not forget the recently-released sociopath (Tim Roth) and Skylar's geeky betrothed (Edward Norton). Yes the cast roster is impressive and most of them (Norton, Roth, Alda and Hawn particularly) do all right with the singing, but the production value, performance quality, even the quality of the songs used is so low that it totally overshadows Woody's gift of dialogue and character. If you like Woody's romantic comedies, by all means rent this movie, but fast forward past all the songs because (with the possible exception of "Hooray for Captain Spalding" in French) they are all bloody awful. The last line of the film is DJ saying that somebody ought to make it into a movie but that it would have to be a musical, or else no one would believe it. Guess again, DJ.

I will admit that when I first heard a Disney movie called "The Princess Diaries" was coming out, I thought it would be corny. But upon actually SEEING the film, I found (as is usually the case when stupid judgmental people make up their mind about films without watching them, I won't name names, you know who you are...Tom!) that it was in reality a charming, original, humorous and thoroughly entertaining family film.

The plot is fairy tale in nature: Mia is a social misfit with terrible hair and no self-confidence. Her only friends are eccentric activist Lilly and rock band headliner Michael (played by real-life rocket Robert Carmine of "Rooney") who has a little crush on her. Then, who of all people should turn up but Julie Andrews to tell Mia that her father (who she hasn't seen since she was tiny) was actually royalty and that she, Mia, was princess of a country no one's ever heard of. What it comes down to is this: She has until a big embassy ball to decide whether she wants to give up the crown (and basically open the country up to a hostile political takeover) or take her place as princess. After a makeover (at the hands of funnyman Larry Miller), some training and at least four horrendously traumatizing incidents, she decides...well, that would be giving it away, wouldn't it?

This is not a movie for little girls dressed in tutus who want to be princesses when they grow up. For the first time in the studio's tenure (I'd wager) this film depicts the responsibility of royalty. Mia tackles with the pressures of ruling a country. But for my money the best part of this movie is the love story. No, not Mia and the uniquely attractive rocker (although, that is great). A second, unscripted love story exists between Andrews and her chauffeur, Hector Elizondo. That's terrific.

It's about being yourself and bettering yourself. It's about knowing who your real friends are. It's about living up to your own expectations. It's about smushing an ice cream cone on the blouse of a bitchy cheerleader who deserves it. And maybe that sounds corny to all y'all (rustic expression) but I know a lot of adults who could use lessons like these.

I agree that the standards set by Walt and his animators are the only ones that matter when it comes to judging animated films, and I had trouble accepting this to, but there are OTHER ANIMATION COMPANIES!! No one would dare describe "Shrek" (which sucked) as a Disney movie, so let's leave Don Bluth alone, okay?

Having said that, this movie is absolutely wonderful. A heartwarming story, beautiful songs (including the now standard "Somewhere Out There") great performances and the animation is stellar. Much darker and grittier than any story Disney would even dream of making, it revolves around an immigrant mouse named Fievel, whose family comes to America to escape oppression ("In America," says Poppa, "There are no cats."). Fievel learns the hard way that America has its problems, too.

In my opinion, this movie is worth seeing solely for Dom DeLuise's characterization of the soft-hearted alley cat Tiger. All in all, this is probably the best Don Bluth has ever made.

Albert Brooks is one of the finest comic minds in Hollywood today and this is perhaps his best work (as a writer, I mean). He has chosen for his subject matter a story that most everyone can relate to, since most everyone has mother issues. In this case, his character has just gotten through his second divorce and, in order to figure out why, is moving back in with his mother to see where the trouble all started. See if you don't catch yourself thinking, "That's just like MY mother!" at least three times during the film. She can't work the machinery, she freezes her salads, she doesn't believe in brand names, she tells personal details to complete strangers, she can't drive, and, oh yeah, she secretly hates her son. The chemistry between aged film star Debbie Reynolds and Brooks is perfect, (not to say Freudian), the dialogue is brilliant and the characters are so real, they make you cringe.

In short, it's better than "The Muse."

Thank God for the Trio cable network! They air classic "Laugh-In" episodes weekday afternoons and that's how I first came upon this hilarious gem from the golden age of television.

Headed by longtime comedy partners Dan Rowan and Dick Martin, "Laugh-In" was an hour-long barage of madcap tomfoolery. Short sketches, one-shot gags, "Quickies," as they were called, and guest appearances by everyone from Sammy Davis, Jr., to Johnny Carson to soon-to-be President Richard M. Nixon. It was the springboard for the careers of such stars as Goldie Hawn, Lily Tomlin, Henry Gibson and Ruth Buzzi.

If you have a taste for the weird and the wacky, with an undertone of political commentary (the remarkable thing was how they always presented both sides of any issue they were mocking) or just want to see classics like "The Cocktail Party" or "The Joke Wall," do yourself a favor and check out "Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In" for hilariosin-entartaina-wonderfulations! (Boy! Look THAT up in your Funk and Wagnall's!)

I went to see this film on its opening weekend for three reasons. Firstly, I felt like seeing a movie that day. Secondly, I am a fan of the TV series "Teacher's Pet" which concerns the exploits of a dog named Spot who dresses up as a boy because he wants to go to school. And thirdly, I wanted to do my part to pad the opening weekend box office of a Disney traditional animation film.

This comes about a week after the news that the company was shutting down their Orlando animation department, where the bulk of traditional animation is done for Disney, because they wanted to focus on computer-animated films. It is worth noting that, without Pixar (whose contract with Disney expires after two more films) Disney has yet to make ONE CG movie.

But, this film is not only a hilarious and enchanting story to entertain children of all ages (19, since you asked), it is a love letter to the rich legacy of Disney animation. Full to bursting with affectionate jabs at such classics as "101 Dalmatians," "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," and "Pinocchio."

Indeed, the film opens with a parody of this last film, in which Spot finds himself wishing he could be a real boy, and the motif continues throughout. Simply pretending to be a boy isn't enough for him, he wants the real deal. He sees his chance with Ivan Krank (voiced over the top and beyond by `Frasier' star Kelsey Grammer) a `wacko' scientist who claims he can turn animals into humans. Spot travels to Florida and undergoes the procedure, only to become a full-grown MAN, not a boy! This is a momentous day for Spot (or `Scott' as he disconcertingly calls himself when he's in human garb) but not so for his nine-year-old master, Leonard Helperman, who just wants a dog to play with.

Needless to say, but I will anyway, Leonard and Spot become a boy and his dog again and everyone gets what they deserve, all the ingredients for a happy ending. And indeed you would have to look far and wide for a family film more bright and joyful. The songs are beautifully written with clever lyrics and, again in the Disney tradition, exist to move the story along, as it should be for all musical comedies.

I would, however, use discretion in taking my family to this film. Though it's PG rated and definitely suitable for children, those with weaker constitutions (or more protective parents.I won't name names, you know who you are) might not be ready to see the results of Spot's transformation. It gets a little dark by the third act, but certainly no darker than any other animated film of late. And, ideally, there would be more in Act One to help those unfamiliar with the dynamic of the TV series, though you'll definitely enjoy it anyway.

The real strength of this film is in the voice cast, including series regulars Nathan Lane (as the super-intelligent dog himself), Jerry Stiller (as the bird), David Ogden Stiers (as the cat) and Shaun Fleming and Debra Jo Rup (as Leonard and his mother, who also happens to be his teacher. Unfortunate, no?) and new comedic talents such as Paul Ruebens, Megan Mullay and `Seinfeld's' Estelle Harris.

In conclusion, though it's nowhere near as good as the best of Disney, it's still better than anything Dreamworks has ever done.except maybe for `Chicken Run,' but come on! That's stiff competition that is.

I am a die-hard fan of Neil Simon. I've read/seen all of his plays (I think) and know his style and rhythms the way a drummer might know "Ina-Gadda-Da-Vida" (there's no way in hell I spelled that right, but after all, I'm a writer not a drummer). I have recently been severely disappointed by Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in "The Out-Of-Towners" and didn't exactly have what you might call "high hopes" for the made-for-cable version of one of Neil's most touching screenplays. But, turning it on one Saturday evening, I was met with a pleasant surprise.

The script is largely unchanged (save for one or two "modernizations") from the original version and, though this dates it just a little, it retains its charm in this way. Jeff Daniels and Patricia Heaton (who, when I heard they were cast in this thing, I went "Wunhh?") are charming and their chemistry is, let's say, surprising. The strength is really Heaton, and at times Daniels seems a little out of his element, but both handle the Neil Simon patter admirably. And, I gotta say, he deserves praise for his performance in "Richard III." Not a lot of actors would've done that.

Okay, complaints: Halley "The Pepsi girl" Eisenberg as the daughter is thoroughly and amazingly mediocre when compared to the original actress (I know I'm getting these names wrong, but you're ON the IMDB, look it up yourself!) and Alan Cumming, one of the funniest people out there right now, is underused as the unconventional director of "Richard."

But, overall, it's worth a watch. If you have three hours to spare (that's about how long it plays with commercials) catch it on a rerun. Good though it is, for the true Simon-philes, like myself, stick to Dick Dreyfus.

And, for the short attention spans out there: 7 out of 10.