input: The magnetism radiated from Elvira, drawing her legions of devoted admirers, has a primordial quality. With her lengthy, well-toned figure, large-bust, innocuously mischievous attitude and grab-bag lexicon of me-generation valley slang, the character of Elvira has a universal and timeless appeal. As an aspiring folklorist and an individual deeply interested in the structure of storytelling, it is evident that the Elvira persona has certain archetypal elements that help to make the character more than the sum of her corny one-liners and large chest. As initiated from the manner in which the children of the town react to her, she represents the deep adolescent fantasy for an experienced woman whom can connect to them of their level: a strange mixture of one-dimensional romantic yearning, boyish sexual craving and the desire for non-threateningly lighthearted fun. She symbolizes an undeveloped ideal of womanhood perfected for the boys and a source of strength for the girls of the town. The other adults have trouble with her for the same reasons. In the end, however, her film cannot move pass its more campy ingredients. The end result is that while Elvira is infinitely interesting, her film is limited by how weak a showcase it is for her talents. Nearly everything is tailored to an adolescent mindset and although it is a straightforward comedy, only those who can still process information with the mind of a young person will be able to enjoy the nonsense. Fortunately, I have such ability and found the film to be a delightful charmer.

Best Quote: Bob Redding: How's your head? Elvira: I haven't had any complaints.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.

If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.

Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliche montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.

It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).

From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).

To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.

It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.

I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Someone mentioned editing. This is edited badly and what started out as somewhat intriguing became an incomprehensible mess. For starters, let us know what it is you are trying to do with these experiments. Why are these people the best choices for the type of experimenting they are involved in? And, what exactly are they testing? Apparently there is some grand plan that some agency is going to exploit. The acting is pretty bad. Everyone is emoting. Everyone is keeping secrets. They frequently mention that if it weren't for the money, they'd hang it up. There's a deranged minister who spouts scripture. On and on. But, again, the biggest hang up is the lack of laying out a playing field for the actors. There are some really cheesy elements. Those little rooms and those chaise lounges. The awful wallpaper (was it wallpaper?). It was interesting, but didn't seem to go anywhere.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative