Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

classicsoncall You know, I thought the 'Execucizer' was a pretty good idea, a stationary, all purpose exercise machine for the busy executive who can't get away from his desk to work out. The picture played it for laughs but I thought it was pretty imaginative in concept. You wouldn't even have to miss a board meeting to get fit, what could be better?Well I can take Woody Allen up to a certain point, but when he gets too introspective it can become draining. When the scandals of his later life were revealed it took away any respect I might have had for the guy as a comic and an actor. Actually, the film was quite prophetic back in 1971, or was Woody even back then trying to tell the world he was a pervert waiting to come out. He gives himself away at the magazine stand when he tried to explain away his girlie mag - he was doing a study on perversion and child molesting. Someone should have taken him seriously.The film itself has it's funny moments, the best was the café order to feed the rebels of San Marcos. Every scene with Louise Lasser took me back to her mid-Seventies quirky hit, "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman". That's another one I could only take so much of, but quite funny when it first started out.It's no secret that liberal film makers take their swipes at folks of religious conviction, that was on display here with the parallel parking crucifixion scene and Mellish (Allen) making the sign of the cross prior to dining with the rebel President of San Marcos. But he balanced things out a little when skewering New Age sensibilities with non-sensical talk to Nancy (Lasser) about her totality and 'other-ness'.Some cool cameos in the picture, using Howard Cosell to good effect as the play by play announcer for the San Marcos revolution and Roger Grimsby in a decidedly somber journalistic mode. You'll also catch Sly Stallone as an uncredited subway thug, a couple years before he joined up with The Lords of Flatbush.

moonspinner55 Woody Allen's second film as co-writer/director/star (not including "What's Up, Tiger Lily?") is a grab-bag of lunatic revue sketches, some of them hilarious. Spurned by his activist girlfriend, product-testing schnook in New York City quits his job and heads to a strife-ridden Latin American country to become a part of their revolution. Trenchant political satire must have looked outrageous in 1971, but time has made a few of these gags gruesomely topical and accurate (but no less funny). Targets include man-woman sexual matters (territory Allen was spot-on with right from the start), television commentary (sent up brilliantly), urban violence, Catholicism, psychiatry, assassinations, a Marx Brothers-styled courtroom, Miss America and...J. Edgar Hoover. The pacing seldom flags, but Allen's screenplay (penned with his "Take the Money and Run" partner, Mickey Rose) sags in the middle--perhaps he should have kept the action going in NYC a little longer. Terrific music score from Marvin Hamlisch, adept comedic work from the entire crazy cast (including deadpan Howard Cosell and Roger Grimsby as themselves). ** from ****

leonblackwood Review: This has to be Woody Allens worst film! The storyline is badly written and the jokes were terrible. As usual, Allen seems to get his leg over at some point, which wasn't surprising, but the whole political storyline was all over the place. Personally, I lost interest halfway through the film and I struggled to stay awake. And why  doesn't he comb his hair! Anyway, I usually prefer his earlier work to his films during the 90's, but I can't see why anyone would enjoy this film. Judging by the movies taking, it must have gone down well with audiences, which must be down to the period that the movie got released. Terrible!Round-Up: I don't know what Woody Allen was trying to attempt with this film. Most of his movies have a hidden message, but this film is completely bananas. The commentary from the news cast was also a bad attempt at humour along with the terrible training in the jungle. Basically I found this film a total waste of time and I can't find a good word to say about it.Budget: $2million Worldwide Gross: $12millionI recommend this movie to people who are into there Woody Allen movies about a product tester who gets kidnapped by rebels. 1/10

SmileysWorld I am not a big fan of Woody Allen.A lot of it has to do with his persistent slams against Christianity,which I don't find funny.This film does little to change my mind,but I will have to give him some credit here.At least he kept the religious slams to a minimum with this film.He took the basic elements of slapstick comedy that we had known throughout the years and incorporated it into a much racier period in film history quite successfully,but it's not enough to impress me personally.Slapstick is much more appealing to me without all the raunchiness.Give me the Marx Brothers or Laurel and Hardy any day of the week.