IN: Review: There are a few spoilers in this comment!!

Contrary to the comments I just read by nativetex4u and a few others, I really liked the movie and would love to see it as a weekly series.

I am a Judson Mills fan but also a huge Chuck Norris fan and while I'll admit that a few of the action scenes may have stretched the line a little, the storyline fit right in with other weekly series that are currently being aired.

The opening fifteen minutes with Deke running from the bad guys after blowing up their missiles was very action packed. I do fail to see how that many "professionals" weren't able to hit a moving target, but the action was definitely there and Deke, being the hero, had to survive.

As for the comment about needing to "get the movie in the can to fill the time slot after the playoffs." This movie was not originally scheduled by CBS for a January airing and filming was completed in May of 2001, a good 4 months before the terrorist attacks against the U.S.

If the writer of the comment had been paying attention to the movie instead of trying to avoid it, maybe they would have realized the plot of the story: Rashid, a Bin Laden like character, planned to set off a nuclear device in the United States. The President's Man was called in to locate and eliminate the problem.

Perhaps the writer should actually WATCH the movie before attempting to comment on it.

What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: At least with the teenage geek gets the girl films, the guy is usually unpopular with girls. In the 40 Year Old Virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. But then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did I miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years?

One of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. I find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent TV comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. They've done the gross out movies. They've done the let's act like all Americans have a mental age of 15. Where will they go next?

This film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: What a fascinating film. Even if it wasn't based on real life, Forbidden Lies was a fascinating portrait of a con artist in her element. And it is the kind of film psychology students could study to learn about compulsive liars.

The author of Forbidden Love, Norma, was revealed as a fraud in the media but this move really does give her ample opportunity to clear her name.

But the twists and turns she takes the documentary maker through are amazing. What a patient woman! I loved this movie. I have not read the book but simply heard good reviews and went to see it on boring rainy afternoon. The journey this film takes you on is clever, interesting and totally engrossing.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is an unusual Laurel & Hardy comedy with something of a split personality: at times it feels like two movies made in different styles spliced into a single short. Happily, each portion is funny in its own right, and the boys' seemingly effortless clowning carries the day and synthesizes the film's disparate elements into an entertaining whole. While I've never heard a fan cite DIRTY WORK as his or her favorite Laurel & Hardy comedy, it's nonetheless one that everybody seems to like.

Our story is set in the home of Professor Noodle, who represents one key element of the story-line: a wildly over-the-top parody of Mad Scientist scenarios. This marks a rare venture into sci-fi territory for L&H; Abbott & Costello and The Three Stooges tangled with mad doctors far more often than Stan & Ollie. In any event, the professor is obsessed with creating a rejuvenating serum that can make people younger, while his sarcastic butler, Jessup, expresses the viewer's skepticism with rolled eyes and the occasional dry quip. Meanwhile, Stan & Ollie are chimney sweeps who show up at the Professor's home the very day he perfects his solution. "Their" portion of the film consists of characteristic (but first-rate) slapstick involving the chimney, the roof, shovels, and a number of unfortunate mishaps. If you don't enjoy watching these guys screw up a task then you probably won't like DIRTY WORK, but for fans of the team this movie is a feast. The highlight comes when Ollie plummets through the chimney, lands in the fireplace, and is then pummeled with bricks that fall onto his head with maddening rhythmic precision, one by one. I also like the shot of Ollie tumbling off the roof into a greenhouse; the process work is so slapdash I suspect it was something of an inside joke, the way W.C. Fields' movies would feature the world's worst rear-projection screens.

The slapstick stuff is great fun, but it's the mad scientist motif that makes this film offbeat, and two supporting players deserve a tip of the bowler hat: prolific character actor Lucien Littlefield is terrific as the professor, delivering his overripe lines with relish and cackling with hammy glee, while Sam Adams is a stitch in the less showy role of Jessup the butler. As great as Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were in their prime, it's always worth noting that their supporting casts at the Hal Roach Studio gave their films an enormous boost. So too, usually, did the background music of Le Roy Shield, but DIRTY WORK marks a rare occasion from this period that a Roach comedy has no musical accompaniment at all after the opening credits. Mood music might have enhanced the proceedings, but no matter; this is a highly enjoyable comedy anyhow, and a prime example of what made Laurel & Hardy so popular in their day.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive