Amazon.com

The box office success of Disney's 1969 classic The Love Bug inspired a slew of Herbie sequels, and, ultimately, this 1997 remake. Though remakes occasionally best the original (consider Disney's The Parent Trap), this one does not. It is difficult to match the talents of the original cast--namely Dean Jones, Buddy Hackett, and David Tomlinson. At least the car hasn't diminished during its 30-year absence. Herbie is still the smart, quirky Volkswagen Beetle with the same affinity for fast driving and rescuing arrogant-but-charming, washed-up racecar drivers to give them a new life and a new love. In this case, Herbie's progeny is Hank Cooper (played by hunky Bruce Campbell of the Evil Dead trilogy), who acquires Herbie by lottery from the junkyard. Herbie comes to life and begins his usual shenanigans, from popping wheelies to slamming his trunk on the fingers of evildoers, primarily one Simon Moore III (John Hannah). This wealthy, wicked numbskull sold Herbie before realizing his powers and now seeks revenge by creating Herbie's evil twin--a menacing black Beetle. The rest of the story repeats history, yet does so with passionless drudgery. Thankfully, there are two notable highlights: one, a brief cameo appearance by Jones (Herbie's owner, Jim Douglas, from the original film) who lends his larger-than-life persona for an all-too-brief moment; the other, Kevin J. O'Connor, who plays Herbie's eccentric and faithful mechanic, and does so with earnest zeal. The film's slapstick humor and happy ending make for solid family entertainment, but the original reigns supreme. --Lynn Gibson ... Read more

Reviews (6)

Not one of Disney's better films.
A friend and I rented this movie to get up to speed on Bruce Campbell's work (of Evil Dead fame, among countless other movies and TV shows), and did all we could to keep from turning the thing off. It's an entertaining family film and it's simple storyline, humorous scenes and "gee whiz" happy ending will please the youngsters. But if you are looking for a good plot and solid acting, forget it. A highpoint of the film comes with the cameo appearance of Dean Jones, and it was interesting to see John Hannah and Kevin J. O'Connor before they were in The Mummy. As for Campbell, it was probably one of his worst lead performances I've ever seen. But in the end, it's Herbie...and everyone love Herbie.

Herbies Back in A Brand New Adventure!
I watched the original "The Love Bug" growing up and loved it! I was so thrilled when Disney made this new movie for T.V. In the begining of this movie, things are looking very bad for Herbie. After losing another race, he is sent to the scrap pile. Luckily, he is recued by Hank, a mechanic, who fixes him up. From there, Herbie is back up to his old tricks, including geting Hank and his ex-girlfriend Alex back together. But when an evil Love Bug, Harold, is created, Hank and Harold's owner must race for their cars. Can Herbie defeat this enemy? This price is wonderful and The video is in a clamshell case so you can preserve it for years to come!

Welcome back Herbie! I think you need a new agent.
First off, let me say I'm glad that this film exists, it being our first Herbie fix in fifteen years, the abortive 1982 television series being the last one. It's great to see good old Herb again, even if it's only a TV movie.

Having said that, let me continue by saying they screwed up pretty bad. There were many major mistakes in this film (which had a good idea and was set up to be a nice nostalgia fest) that really drug the whole thing down. Here's a list, in no particular order. WARNING: The following contains info that could be seen as spoilers.

1. Herbie. Call me a perfectionist, but Herbie just looks wrong here. He should have a gray interior and sunroof, not white. The racing stripes are supposed to be painted on the sunroof, too. The '53' is up way too high on the hood and it's the wrong font as well. They managed to get these things right all through four feature films and a TV series, why not here?

2. Kevin J. O'Connor. I know he's supposed to be an artist, but this guy is just waaaaay too creepy for my taste. It was a good thing in `The Mummy', but here it's out of place.

3. The origin story. I'm sorry, but this just does not jive with what we've been told before. The impression given in `Herbie Rides Again' was that some machines just develop personalities. And did Dr. Stumpfel also build the Lancia in `Herbie Goes To Monte Carlo'? Plus, I'd like to think my government is not THAT stupid. I found their portrayal of our military in here fairly insulting. Plus, in the eighteen years it took to build Herbie, you'd think they'd figure out it was just a translation error.

4. The final race. It was SLOW. In the other films you got a sense of speed. Here it seems like both cars are going thirty-five, a situation which one shot shown at high speed just doesn't fix. Plus, unlike the previous films there is absolutely no suspense about Herbie winning. The character of Simon Moore seems to almost go out of his way to make it easy for them. (Also, Chuck's car troubles were barely worth the first scene with them, we definitely didn't need to cut back to him two more times.)

5. CGI effects. Back in the sixties and seventies, Disney, using only some creative editing and some mechanical know-how, made Herbie appear to do amazing things. It was cheap and you knew it was an effect, but the end result always seemed to look pretty good. Now it's the days of digital effects and we have a digital Herbie. It screams `FAKE!' Unlike the old effects, it's impossible to suspend your disbelief watching this thing. Come on Disney, you sometimes need a guy with a wrench, not a computer, to make things look good.

6. Title. Thanks to lack of creativity in thinking up a title, most people think this film's a remake. It's not. Although it shares a bit of story arc with the original, this is a new film.

7. Horace. The idea of an evil Herbie is seriously creepy, but the filmmakers didn't do much with it. Horace seems to be only a fraction of the menace he could have been.

8. Writing. The dialogue is terrible. It sometimes seems like they wrote the children's novelation first, then the script.

9. Bruce Campbell. Bruce, I really like you as an actor, but could at some point in this film, try acting a just a bit? Just a suggestion.

Well, having said what was wrong, I want to mention something they got very right. The scene where Jim Douglas gets behind the wheel of Herbie for first time in years is a great piece of acting. You can practically see the memories running through his head. It was so perfect, it bought a tear to my eye. Good work, Dean.

A few flaws, but a real treat!
Sometimes I think the professional reviewers don't even watch these movies before mouthing off about them! This IS NOT A REMAKE! IT is another sequel! Sure, the title is misleading, and probably should have been "Herbie Wins Again" or something, but that's what leads me to believe that the reviewer simply read the box. Anyway, as for the movie, from someone who has seen it...I rented this movie when it came out, and was thrilled to see not only a new Herbie movie, but one starring Ash himself, Bruce Campbell! It was obviously low budget, and the music always gives that away. That was probably the biggest flaw of this movie, they ditched the awesome old Herbie theme! I loved that and was really missing it. It was replaced with some totally inapropriate cowboy showdown music, that might have fit in one or two scenes tops. The plot and cast was great though, and the Dean Jones cameo was the icing on the cake. When the price comes down, I recommend getting a copy!

Great... yet not...
I LOVE the original! This one was sort of what you might call... a cheap remake or something. But the bad guy(John Hannah) was AWESOME! So was the fact that Dean Jones was in it again. I'd definitely wait until the price goes down, because no matter how much I love John Hannah's Scottish accent, I'm NOT paying over 100 dollars for it. The insight into Herbie's making was kinda neat too. I'd suggest seeing the movie, like on Disney or something, before making up your mind to buy it. However, if you want the good stuff, get the original ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Daddy Day Care: Daddy'll Fall Asleep
Daddy Day Care seems like the perfect kids comedy. Don't get me worng, it is. But the daddies might snooze off during it. When a father gets fired from his job, he starts a day care center for kids. Eddie Murphy doesn't look happy doing this little kiddy-joke comedy, but his acting is still grade-A. All the good jokes are given away on the commercial. The movie still ain't bad, for a kid flick. Each child in the movie you get to know better and better and every character as his/her own funny joke. The movie keeps kids awake, but age 20 and up might find it boring. Daddy Day Care is 90 minutes, just enough to cram all the jokes and punchlines into. The ending is happy, the characters are happy and the movie itself seems happy. Bottom Line: There's better movies out there, but if the latest box-office hit is sold out, Daddy Day Care is the way to go.

Fun for the whole family
We first went and saw Daddy Day Care at the theater and really enjoyed it. My mother in law bought it for our family for Christmas and we have watched it 3 times since, and I laugh more and more each time. Eddie Murphy is truly a genius. I enjoyed his hard core stand up comedy, his Beverly Hills Cop movies, Coming to America, etc. and now am enjoying watching him in family movies like the Dr. Dolittles and Daddy Day Care. It is good clean fun our family can enjoy together, and that is rare nowadays. The little boy who plays Murphy's son is absolutely precious, and the casting for everyone was perfect, from Murphy's wife to his day care business partners.

I have read reviews where people thought the movie was juvenile. Well, it is about children, so I don't know what the expectation was. Anyone who has spent time with little kids, or has kids of their own will definitely appreciate this hysterically funny film.

The special features are fun too. There are interviews with the kids, and the kids do some interviewing too. Great music also!

Great flick
What do you have when two cereal promotional guys are fired off from the only thing they know how to do and they bills are piling up, and they need a job badly? In the same time, you need to find a good day care center for the kids when both parental units are off to work and find work. The main problem is, it is hard to find any at least a daycare that is trustworthy to even leave your kids and not to worry at all if it is safe enough and cheap!

So back to question to unemployment. What do you do? Open an excellent daycare yourself! Open a business up! The only problem is you have a very strong and able competition, from an established day care which act like preschool. And the owner is very keen to keep every kid in her daycare not anybody else's.

Much to add, there is a short animated movie in this dvd set and you gotta watch it *grins* Early Bloomer is the cutest animation I have ever seen and I must admit of watching it repeatitively way too many times hehehe

Good for a Laugh
The movie isn't dealing with profound concepts and ideas, but it is a light hearted movie that provides many laughs. Very enjoyable.

a very cute kids movie
if you have a choice between this or the haunted mansion get this this movie is a very good kids movie that the whole family will enjoy. All of the characters are awesome ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Intermittently funny, but generally inane and faux chic
"Full Frontal" is built on a remarkably juvenile screenplay by performance artist Coleman Hough; it's pretty amazing director Steven Soderbergh saw anything in it. It's literate enough, but about all the neurotic, postmodern things we've grown to loathe: weird sexual fetishes, the debate of "reality" vs. "unreality", that two-degrees-of-separation-in-LA material, and, finally, unnervingly, Hollywood mechanics. We did not need another ludicrous, didactic structural analysis of Hollywood.

Boy do we get it. "Full Frontal" begins with an introduction of the characters through series of random, purposeless monologues drawn from different points in the film, then the opening scene of what looks like a big budget romance movie between an actor (Blair Underwood) and a journalist (Julia Roberts), just staged and false enough to let you know it's winking, before commencing with seemingly unrelated subplots that wink like an old creep with a pocket of butterscotch candies.

Another journalist (David Hyde Pierce) is clinging to his magazine job and his marriage to a human relations executive of some kind (Catherine Keener) who is quite clearly deranged or a descendant of the inquisition: She conducts interviews, all day it seems, by throwing a plastic blowup globe at her applicants and demanding the names of all the countries in Africa. This story is intercut with the opening of a second-rate stage comedy about Hitler, with a lead actor (Nicky Katt) channeling Cary Grant and quoting Peter Ustinov; and a massage therapist (Mary McCormack) who eventually crosses the paths of all the characters. David Duchovny appears in a cameo as a kinky movie producer that proves he's pretty hard up in life after "The X-Files."

Soderbergh is usually pretty savvy with a variety of film styles and camera lenses, but using cheap digital cameras mutes the small victories of comedy Hough's script does deliver. The hand-held jitter is agonizing as well. There's only so much of the follow-the-globe cam we can take.

Mostly, though, "Full Frontal" is a painful (and refreshing) reminder that not every chic, self-absorbed New Yorker like Hough can waltz into LA and force audiences to acknowledge her obvious highbrow wit and trendy verbal gymnastics by inserting bizarre non-sequitors like vampires, marijuana brownies and guys crawling along hotel floors. Keener especially rants and moans her way into the pantheon of grating personas. It could be said that Roberts acquits herself in a small role - Roberts seems to be doing a lot of that lately - while Pierce most closely approaches a performance of resonance.

Based on its less-is-nothing marketing campaign, Soderbergh and others basically knew "Full Frontal" was inside baseball, pertinent to the few, aimless for the rest. That knowledge doesn't excuse the film, particularly the ridiculous final scene that pulls back and back and back to reveal a couple of artists an hour past being "on it" and hip.

Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
There is a style, or class, or school of comedy characterized by something bad, or lame being repeated over and over until it becomes funny. There is something like this going on here with "Full Frontal". I saw this picture in a theater with six other people, and three of them walked out after twenty minutes. Too bad, really, since the chuckles only started to occur after the proceedings had worn you absolutely down, and twenty minutes into the picture you were only JUST starting to get exasperated. Could be that this film works better on the small screen, which I found to be the case with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", another excruciating experience. Warning! By no means see this movie with another recent Soderbergh picture "Solaris", or you may subsequently need therapy.

Experiment? Ensemble Drama? The Film Doesn't Know it.
Though "Full Frontal" boasts of its great casts including Julia Roberts, the film is rather an experimental indie film, mostly shot in 18 days with a digital camera (which cost only $ 4,600). That is not a problem if the film is interesting -- I mean, interesting characters, interesting techiniques, interesting stories, or anything. No such luck, sorry. Though some actors are giving their best efforts, the film looks more like a self-indulgent film-school student's work.

The film follows the events that happen to the characters (whose profiles are revealed in the introductory part). Journalist Julia Roberts is interviewing TV star Blair Underwood; Cathrine Keener is doing the most uncomfortable job of the human resorce office (that is, firing the employees); her sister Mary McCormack is talking about the guy she met on the net; David Hyde Pierce (who shows uncanny resemblance with director Soderbergh himself) is rehearsing the stage drama for the always quizzical Nikky Katt. When the day comes close to the end, these assorted people find themselves strangely entangled in the web of human relations, which is represented by the dinner party for "Gus," powerful Hollywood producer played by one star from "X-Files."

The film also includes 'film within film" device (and even "film within film within film" devide, too), which might confuse some of the viewers. Fortunately, the device is not overused, and soon you will understand what is doing on.

The trouble is, except for some moments including talented Keener, none of the characters can really grab your attention. They are facing the critical moments of life, the film implies, but strangely we do not care. And as the experimental film, "Full Frontal" is not as innovative as "Schizopolis" (in which Soderbergh himself starred).

Possibly, here is the reason for its half-baked result: first, incredible you might say, but Soderbergh's use of digital camera is so poor like someone's home movies. At one scene, you see Sandra Oh very briefly. Well, but I couldn't see whether it was her or not because of a blurred image (I knew her voice, and saw her name in the credits), and I was thinking -- what is the point of doing that? The poorly shot images just detract our attention to the characters which should not be sacrificed for the dirctor's unnecessary "experiments."

Some parts of the film might interest you (if you're a film buff). You see many cameos -- Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp, and David Fincher (as the perfectionist director who needs 49 takes for one breif shot). But they are not enough for us to keep being interesting in the story which should really count. The conculsion is this; you just cannot use this great cast just because you want to be experimantal. Life is too short to do that, especially with this cast.

Don't buy this DVD--don't even spend $3 to rent it
The only reason this movie gets one star is because there's not an option to choose zero. This is, unbelievably to me, given Mr. Soderbergh's other credits, one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. The "documentary" style filming is grainy and extremely distracting, and even more so because it's such an over-used technique. I'm an avid independent film viewer and like the unusual and the avant-garde, but this film is a poseur which fails in every way.

If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all.

I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.

Watching Paint Dry
This is quite a short film, around ninety minutes, long but it seems longer as it is extraordinarily tedious. It's a Hollywood movie about Hollywood and the movie business and I guess it's intended to have a certain ironic, satirical edge to it. But it's not much of an edge and what Soderbergh has made is a smug and tedious exercise in navel gazing. I think Soderbergh probably thinks he has made a wry black comedy but it's a very safe, pale shade of black and, though it sometimes tries hard, it is never remotely witty. It has a decidedly overwritten and theatrical feel to it like a rather pretentious and forgettable off-broadway play. There are six main characters, three of each sex, none of whom there is the remotest reason to care about in the slightest. The gimmicky postmodern film-within-a-film trick is getting pretty tired by now and, where this film is concerned, has little or no apparent point beyond courting a certain spurious arthouse credibility. One or two fairly decent performances, notably from Catherine Keener and Mary McCormack, constitute a slender redeeming feature. ... Read more

Reviews (35)

Intermittently funny, but generally inane and faux chic
"Full Frontal" is built on a remarkably juvenile screenplay by performance artist Coleman Hough; it's pretty amazing director Steven Soderbergh saw anything in it. It's literate enough, but about all the neurotic, postmodern things we've grown to loathe: weird sexual fetishes, the debate of "reality" vs. "unreality", that two-degrees-of-separation-in-LA material, and, finally, unnervingly, Hollywood mechanics. We did not need another ludicrous, didactic structural analysis of Hollywood.

Boy do we get it. "Full Frontal" begins with an introduction of the characters through series of random, purposeless monologues drawn from different points in the film, then the opening scene of what looks like a big budget romance movie between an actor (Blair Underwood) and a journalist (Julia Roberts), just staged and false enough to let you know it's winking, before commencing with seemingly unrelated subplots that wink like an old creep with a pocket of butterscotch candies.

Another journalist (David Hyde Pierce) is clinging to his magazine job and his marriage to a human relations executive of some kind (Catherine Keener) who is quite clearly deranged or a descendant of the inquisition: She conducts interviews, all day it seems, by throwing a plastic blowup globe at her applicants and demanding the names of all the countries in Africa. This story is intercut with the opening of a second-rate stage comedy about Hitler, with a lead actor (Nicky Katt) channeling Cary Grant and quoting Peter Ustinov; and a massage therapist (Mary McCormack) who eventually crosses the paths of all the characters. David Duchovny appears in a cameo as a kinky movie producer that proves he's pretty hard up in life after "The X-Files."

Soderbergh is usually pretty savvy with a variety of film styles and camera lenses, but using cheap digital cameras mutes the small victories of comedy Hough's script does deliver. The hand-held jitter is agonizing as well. There's only so much of the follow-the-globe cam we can take.

Mostly, though, "Full Frontal" is a painful (and refreshing) reminder that not every chic, self-absorbed New Yorker like Hough can waltz into LA and force audiences to acknowledge her obvious highbrow wit and trendy verbal gymnastics by inserting bizarre non-sequitors like vampires, marijuana brownies and guys crawling along hotel floors. Keener especially rants and moans her way into the pantheon of grating personas. It could be said that Roberts acquits herself in a small role - Roberts seems to be doing a lot of that lately - while Pierce most closely approaches a performance of resonance.

Based on its less-is-nothing marketing campaign, Soderbergh and others basically knew "Full Frontal" was inside baseball, pertinent to the few, aimless for the rest. That knowledge doesn't excuse the film, particularly the ridiculous final scene that pulls back and back and back to reveal a couple of artists an hour past being "on it" and hip.

Excruciating, but not absolutely worthless ;-)
There is a style, or class, or school of comedy characterized by something bad, or lame being repeated over and over until it becomes funny. There is something like this going on here with "Full Frontal". I saw this picture in a theater with six other people, and three of them walked out after twenty minutes. Too bad, really, since the chuckles only started to occur after the proceedings had worn you absolutely down, and twenty minutes into the picture you were only JUST starting to get exasperated. Could be that this film works better on the small screen, which I found to be the case with Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut", another excruciating experience. Warning! By no means see this movie with another recent Soderbergh picture "Solaris", or you may subsequently need therapy.

Experiment? Ensemble Drama? The Film Doesn't Know it.
Though "Full Frontal" boasts of its great casts including Julia Roberts, the film is rather an experimental indie film, mostly shot in 18 days with a digital camera (which cost only $ 4,600). That is not a problem if the film is interesting -- I mean, interesting characters, interesting techiniques, interesting stories, or anything. No such luck, sorry. Though some actors are giving their best efforts, the film looks more like a self-indulgent film-school student's work.

The film follows the events that happen to the characters (whose profiles are revealed in the introductory part). Journalist Julia Roberts is interviewing TV star Blair Underwood; Cathrine Keener is doing the most uncomfortable job of the human resorce office (that is, firing the employees); her sister Mary McCormack is talking about the guy she met on the net; David Hyde Pierce (who shows uncanny resemblance with director Soderbergh himself) is rehearsing the stage drama for the always quizzical Nikky Katt. When the day comes close to the end, these assorted people find themselves strangely entangled in the web of human relations, which is represented by the dinner party for "Gus," powerful Hollywood producer played by one star from "X-Files."

The film also includes 'film within film" device (and even "film within film within film" devide, too), which might confuse some of the viewers. Fortunately, the device is not overused, and soon you will understand what is doing on.

The trouble is, except for some moments including talented Keener, none of the characters can really grab your attention. They are facing the critical moments of life, the film implies, but strangely we do not care. And as the experimental film, "Full Frontal" is not as innovative as "Schizopolis" (in which Soderbergh himself starred).

Possibly, here is the reason for its half-baked result: first, incredible you might say, but Soderbergh's use of digital camera is so poor like someone's home movies. At one scene, you see Sandra Oh very briefly. Well, but I couldn't see whether it was her or not because of a blurred image (I knew her voice, and saw her name in the credits), and I was thinking -- what is the point of doing that? The poorly shot images just detract our attention to the characters which should not be sacrificed for the dirctor's unnecessary "experiments."

Some parts of the film might interest you (if you're a film buff). You see many cameos -- Brad Pitt, Terence Stamp, and David Fincher (as the perfectionist director who needs 49 takes for one breif shot). But they are not enough for us to keep being interesting in the story which should really count. The conculsion is this; you just cannot use this great cast just because you want to be experimantal. Life is too short to do that, especially with this cast.

Don't buy this DVD--don't even spend $3 to rent it
The only reason this movie gets one star is because there's not an option to choose zero. This is, unbelievably to me, given Mr. Soderbergh's other credits, one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. The "documentary" style filming is grainy and extremely distracting, and even more so because it's such an over-used technique. I'm an avid independent film viewer and like the unusual and the avant-garde, but this film is a poseur which fails in every way.

If you come to the story without knowing it's supposed to be imbued with skewering cleverness and satire, it's confusing, unengaging and boring, and, come to think of it, now that I know it's supposed to have those elements, it's STILL confusing, boring and unengaging. The character development is so poor that you don't care about anybody nor understand what's motivating them. David Hyde Pierce is a horrible choice for the main character--he has no depth or emotional range which, unfortunately, keeps us half wondering if Kelsey Grammer's going to come through the door at any minute. Catherine Keener has the kind of charisma that transcends shoddy screenwriting, but how her character behaves makes the least sense of all.

I think the only reason to rent this movie would be if you want to get a few second "full frontal" view of David Duchovny, albeit a grainy one shot from a distance so you really can't see anything, or if you're the VP of HR and you need to show your managers how NOT to conduct an HR interview.

Watching Paint Dry
This is quite a short film, around ninety minutes, long but it seems longer as it is extraordinarily tedious. It's a Hollywood movie about Hollywood and the movie business and I guess it's intended to have a certain ironic, satirical edge to it. But it's not much of an edge and what Soderbergh has made is a smug and tedious exercise in navel gazing. I think Soderbergh probably thinks he has made a wry black comedy but it's a very safe, pale shade of black and, though it sometimes tries hard, it is never remotely witty. It has a decidedly overwritten and theatrical feel to it like a rather pretentious and forgettable off-broadway play. There are six main characters, three of each sex, none of whom there is the remotest reason to care about in the slightest. The gimmicky postmodern film-within-a-film trick is getting pretty tired by now and, where this film is concerned, has little or no apparent point beyond courting a certain spurious arthouse credibility. One or two fairly decent performances, notably from Catherine Keener and Mary McCormack, constitute a slender redeeming feature. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

FUN!
I liked it because it's just about some best friends having fun playing a dare scavenger hunt. Plus there's a cute guy in it. I rated it a four because it's a little corny. sometimes you say "Oh that would never happen." but that makes it funny. Perfect to watch at SLEEPOVERS! dehr!

alrighttt.....
over all i dont really kno what happened considering i fell asleep during the movie..if any movie makes me fall asleep, its reall bad then.

ps-the nap was good though!

These teen pictures are really annoying
Well, this year there have already been several teen pictures made and they seem to get more annoying all the time. This one was the worst of all. Five teen girls all trying to get their hands on the one guy of their dreams, and we the audience regretfully have to watch this movie where there is not one likeable person in the bunch. They sound and act like shallow yuppies from a rejected episode of the Gilmore Girls. Kind of hard to have a movie when you have no sript, and this had no script.

#1!!!!
This movie is the #1 movie on my list!!!! I can't wait until its on DVD and Video!!!!!!!!!!!

What Mean Girls could have been.
Alexa Vega (Spy Kids 1-3) stars as Julie. She has a SLEEPOVER on the last night of junior high. A very strict mother has her cite all the rules...no boys, no leaving the house, etc. Then a group of "evil" girls challenge Julie and her group to a scavenger hunt. This means they have to break the rules. Rated PG: mild suggestive content. ... Read more

Reviews (21)

Straight nonsense!
Not Dolly's best and definitely not James Woods' best, who obviously needed some extra cash at the time. The pairing of Dolly and Woods makes no sense - it's hard enough to believe that they simultaneously act - but in the same movie? Also not to sound perverted but Dolly's characters are always the same - the cocky, wisecracking, yet down home and innocent cowgirl played out long ago. Straight Talk, unfortunately offers little laughs.

Excellent movie, but DRAB DVD package :(
If you've seen Straight Talk, you're no doubt a fan. This light-hearted movie is such a pick-me-up! I just love finding a movie I can watch several times and still laugh out loud!! I just love the scene where she loses her $20 bill on the bridge and James Woods comes to the "rescue"! The soundtrack is even good with songs written and performed by Dolly.

The DVD falls short though. No extras, no inner liner notes and it's ONLY available in full screen - YUCK!! Hollywood Pictures Home Entertainment should be ashamed of themselves for putting out such a poor product. Maybe this film wasn't a total blockbuster, but it sure deserved a better presentation than what it got.

Movie *****
DVD **
Overall ****

From the author of Tales of Ancient Xenar
I don't consider myself much of a movie watcher, so its rare for me to review a movie. But this film has earned a rare honor of having a review done by me. I have to say that hands-down this is one of Dolly Parton's best performances (better than 9 to 5 and far better than the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.) In the film, she gives Chicago radio listeners good old southern down-to-earth advice. I wish the city I live in has a radio columnist like her. But I'm sure a lot of you who have seen this film and enjoyed it agree with me. We all should have an advisor like Dr. Shirlee (oops, I mean Shirlee.)

Good.... But No Extras!
I loved this movie! Shirlee Kenyon was a down on her luck country girl, when a mistake turns her into a big time radio doctor. I thought that her boss was kind of an a hole... He goes by the impression that people who have been married 3 times are losers, or those that have something real to say, He would write them off as losers..

This film shows off Dolly's spicy side of things! She had quite a few one lines... "I am like a one legged man in a butt kickin' contest!' Plus you get to see an early appearance of Terri Hatcher! (Lois & Clark The New Adventures of Superman)

I would like to have seen the trailer. as well as the music videos and even a commentary would have been nice... Aside from that, I still love the film....

No OAR = No Sale...
A fun movie for sure; but where's the theatrical widescreen edition? Sorry, but I only purchase DVDs displaying the film's ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO. ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Daddy Day Care: Daddy'll Fall Asleep
Daddy Day Care seems like the perfect kids comedy. Don't get me worng, it is. But the daddies might snooze off during it. When a father gets fired from his job, he starts a day care center for kids. Eddie Murphy doesn't look happy doing this little kiddy-joke comedy, but his acting is still grade-A. All the good jokes are given away on the commercial. The movie still ain't bad, for a kid flick. Each child in the movie you get to know better and better and every character as his/her own funny joke. The movie keeps kids awake, but age 20 and up might find it boring. Daddy Day Care is 90 minutes, just enough to cram all the jokes and punchlines into. The ending is happy, the characters are happy and the movie itself seems happy. Bottom Line: There's better movies out there, but if the latest box-office hit is sold out, Daddy Day Care is the way to go.

Fun for the whole family
We first went and saw Daddy Day Care at the theater and really enjoyed it. My mother in law bought it for our family for Christmas and we have watched it 3 times since, and I laugh more and more each time. Eddie Murphy is truly a genius. I enjoyed his hard core stand up comedy, his Beverly Hills Cop movies, Coming to America, etc. and now am enjoying watching him in family movies like the Dr. Dolittles and Daddy Day Care. It is good clean fun our family can enjoy together, and that is rare nowadays. The little boy who plays Murphy's son is absolutely precious, and the casting for everyone was perfect, from Murphy's wife to his day care business partners.

I have read reviews where people thought the movie was juvenile. Well, it is about children, so I don't know what the expectation was. Anyone who has spent time with little kids, or has kids of their own will definitely appreciate this hysterically funny film.

The special features are fun too. There are interviews with the kids, and the kids do some interviewing too. Great music also!

Great flick
What do you have when two cereal promotional guys are fired off from the only thing they know how to do and they bills are piling up, and they need a job badly? In the same time, you need to find a good day care center for the kids when both parental units are off to work and find work. The main problem is, it is hard to find any at least a daycare that is trustworthy to even leave your kids and not to worry at all if it is safe enough and cheap!

So back to question to unemployment. What do you do? Open an excellent daycare yourself! Open a business up! The only problem is you have a very strong and able competition, from an established day care which act like preschool. And the owner is very keen to keep every kid in her daycare not anybody else's.

Much to add, there is a short animated movie in this dvd set and you gotta watch it *grins* Early Bloomer is the cutest animation I have ever seen and I must admit of watching it repeatitively way too many times hehehe

Good for a Laugh
The movie isn't dealing with profound concepts and ideas, but it is a light hearted movie that provides many laughs. Very enjoyable.

a very cute kids movie
if you have a choice between this or the haunted mansion get this this movie is a very good kids movie that the whole family will enjoy. All of the characters are awesome ... Read more

Amazon.com

There are some good laughs to be found in Daddy Day Care, especially if you're a preschooler with energy to burn. This romper-room comedy shamelessly exploits its high concept idea--dropping Eddie Murphy into a seething den of rugrats--but kids will have plenty of vicarious fun as Murphy and his fellow laid-off colleague (Jeff Garlin) battle unemployment by opening a day-care center in Eddie's home. In partial Witches mode, Anjelica Huston hams it up as a day-care competitor bent on closing Eddie down, while doofus extraordinaire Steve Zahn is recruited as a third partner in "Daddy Day Care," trying his best to entertain a pack of hyperactive kids who've stopped taking their Ritalin. Zahn makes a funny Star Trek fan (even when the script contains bogus Trekkie trivia), and Murphy deserves credit for giving his all in a comedy that mostly squanders his talent. Indeed, is Daddy Day Care a comedy or every parent's nightmare? Daring viewers can decide for themselves. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Better than expected
I rented this movie for my pre-teen stepdaughters and was kind of bummed that I was going to have to sit through the whole thing because I thought it looked stupid. I don't know about you, but I've gotten kind of sick of seeing Eddie Murphy playing the same character over and over again... But, I was pleasantly surprised when even a half hour into the movie, I was laughing and no longer dreading the rest. Eddie Murphy is funny and, although it is a regular old comedy, his acting has somehow improved. The boy that plays Murphy's son is hilarious! Some kind of comical-kid-genius. The story is about 2 guys who lose their jobs in advertising, and a friend, who start a day care out of their homes (well, actually just Eddie Murphy's home)

The kids will love the silliness and the jokes of the other kids, and the adults will like the heartwarming story about a father finally getting to know his son and the funny jokes. I recommend watching it with the whole family!

Surprisingly warm and funny
When I saw a trailer for a PG-rated Eddie Murphy movie, I didn't think I was going to like it. Let's face it: Murphy's comedies as of late have been hit-or-miss. But people actually recommended it to me, so I gave it a shot. Now I must admit that I enjoyed it very much.

Murphy plays an ad-exec named Charlie who loses his job after his account for "Veggie-O's" cereal fails. After weeks of an unsuccessful job search, he and pal Phil (played gregariously by Jeff Garlin) decide to start their own day care center out of Charlie's home. Not only must they deal with a group of hyperactive kids, each with their own personality quirks, but they also face competition from a very snobby private pre-school owner named Miss Harridan (Angelica Huston). Both Charlie and Phil soon find joy in parenting after their initial frustrations, thus reiterating an important theme of fathers as role models.

While many kids in film can be annoying, the tykes in this film are quite funny in an over-the-top way. Even funnier are the grown-ups' reactions to them. Observe the scene where Charlie is kicked by bratty Crispin. Or the infamous "bathroom scene." Both Murphy and Garlin's almost cartoon facial expressions are priceless.

It should also be noted that Angelica Huston makes a fantastic villain. Her character starts off relatively tame, but as she performs dastardly deeds to save her school, she becomes a wicked stepmother type with a voice to match.

Overall, this film is likable. It's not genius by any means, but it's a nice comedy you can watch without any deep thought. Plus, it's clean and entertaining enough to watch with your kids. And it's ALWAYS good to find something to keep them occupied.

Great flick
What do you have when two cereal promotional guys are fired off from the only thing they know how to do and they bills are piling up, and they need a job badly? In the same time, you need to find a good day care center for the kids when both parental units are off to work and find work. The main problem is, it is hard to find any at least a daycare that is trustworthy to even leave your kids and not to worry at all if it is safe enough and cheap!

So back to question to unemployment. What do you do? Open an excellent daycare yourself! Open a business up! The only problem is you have a very strong and able competition, from an established day care which act like preschool. And the owner is very keen to keep every kid in her daycare not anybody else's.

Much to add, there is a short animated movie in this dvd set and you gotta watch it *grins* Early Bloomer is the cutest animation I have ever seen and I must admit of watching it repeatitively way too many times hehehe

Good for a Laugh
The movie isn't dealing with profound concepts and ideas, but it is a light hearted movie that provides many laughs. Very enjoyable.

a very cute kids movie
if you have a choice between this or the haunted mansion get this this movie is a very good kids movie that the whole family will enjoy. All of the characters are awesome ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Dick and Jane!
This movieisnowindecember212005and notJune24 2005any more. ... Read more