Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

JohnHowardReid I can well appreciate who so many people don't like this film. First time I saw it, the first episode made no sense at all to me as I didn't understand what was being parodied, although I must admit that any movie with Candy Clark will certainly get my vote. Up to that time, however, I'd never seen a personal growth film or advertisement. Now I really enjoy this segment. I've always loved the spoof of the Greek tycoon. In this one, however, it's the lovely Ann Dusenberry on whom the camera really shines. (I was surprised to discover that she has made so few movies to date, preferring TV by a very wide margin.) However, my favorite of the three episodes is most definitely the third. Going right against his usual trademark, Richard Widmark is absolutely priceless as the do-nothing cop.

Nick Robinson I wish there was a way to give a movie a negative number on the IMDb scale. This thing started bad and built to a crescendo of bad so immense Robby Benson has deservedly never been heard from again. I can't believe that NL would attach their name to this but after seeing some "Making of..." features about Animal House and Caddyshack I can only conclude that there were drugs involved. Lots and lots of drugs. Originally written with four parts, I can only imagine in my worst nightmares how bad the fourth part must have been to have wound up on the cutting room floor.It isn't just bad acting and writing, it is a symphony of really bad ideas, thrown into a blender of unfunny gags, double-entendre that didn't work, obscure humor that seems like a spoof of a spoof. Well, two negatives definitely don't make a positive other than, I am positive I would rather have my doctor use a rusty implement during my next colonoscomy than to have to sit through this again. Don't think of this as a review as much as a a dire warning of impending doom if you choose to watch this thing.

Scott_Mercer I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it!

world_of_weird National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.